Abstract
This article contends that the complex administrative mechanics prescribed in the Dayton Accords presented opportunities for nationalist leaders to abuse public office. At the same time, economic reforms and a high degree of decentralization gave elites and local communities the facility to resist externally induced structural adjustment. The economic paradigm introduced for transition limited any attempt to establish a social contract between individual and the state. Consequently, a degree of social cohesion remains through adherence to local, clientelistic loyalties and informal economic activity. This provides the cultural and structural economic context in which the abuse of public office flourishes.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
