Formation Of Political Communities Research Articles

Mega-urban Regions and World City Formation: Globalisation, the Economic Crisis and Urban Policy Issues in Pacific Asia

In Pacific Asia, the globalisation of trade, production and finance underlies an accelerated urban transition focusing on a limited number of mega-urban regions. Intercity competition for world city status among these regions has intensified following the 1997 economic crisis. With governments compelled to devote greater amounts of public resources to creating a built environment to host global investment, a number of key policy issues are emerging. These include demands for inclusive governance and more livable cities; the appearance of new forms of urban poverty; low economic resilience in the face of growing global economic turbulence and the spatial unevenness of global economic growth. With the rise of civil society as a political force, addressing these issues calls for a sharper focus on cities not simply as economic agglomerations or collectivities of consumers in the world market, but also as arenas for the formation of political communities.

NGOs ‐ New Communications Technologies and Concepts of Political Community

This article argues that the use of information and communications technologies (ICTs) by some large international NGOs provides an infrastructure for the formation of political communities. These communities, although diffuse and ephemeral, have tangible political effects. This is significant to IR in two respects. Firstly, it is necessary for scholars of international affairs to assess the impact of ICTs now, rather than to engage in speculative interpretations; mechanisms for such analysis must be developed. Secondly, the concept of community in IR, always a rather vague notion, must be re‐examined and extended to include a broader range of actors.

The Political Power of Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals

In the United States, as in most of the world, lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals are outnumbered and despised. Unlike most other potentially political groups, gay people are further disempowered by virtue of being born as if into a diaspora—probably randomly distributed about the population at birth. Their quest for political power is disadvantaged by barriers to the formation of political community as well as by lack of access to significant power resources. The relative political powerlessness of gay people stands in a contradistinction to their depiction by advocates of “traditional values” as a powerful movement advancing a “gay agenda” in American politics.Similarly, the attention paid to the occasional electoral victories of openly lesbian and gay candidates distorts the reality that fewer than one tenth of 1% of all elected officials in the United States are openly lesbian, gay, or bisexual. With only two exceptions—Wisconsin and Minnesota—every state that has passed legislation banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is either on the Atlantic Coast or on the Pacific Coast (including Hawaii). Political scientists long have understood that rare local victories—whether they be the enactment of nondiscrimination legislation or the election to office of a member of a group—do not translate into national political power for the group.In the pages that follow, I will attempt to measure the access gay people have to meaningful political resources and to discuss how differential access to these resources disadvantages gay people in the political process.

The Political Power of Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals

In the United States, as in most of the world, lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals are outnumbered and despised. Unlike most other potentially political groups, gay people are further disempowered by virtue of being born as if into a diaspora—probably randomly distributed about the population at birth. Their quest for political power is disadvantaged by barriers to the formation of political community as well as by lack of access to significant power resources. The relative political powerlessness of gay people stands in a contradistinction to their depiction by advocates of “traditional values” as a powerful movement advancing a “gay agenda” in American politics.Similarly, the attention paid to the occasional electoral victories of openly lesbian and gay candidates distorts the reality that fewer than one tenth of 1% of all elected officials in the United States are openly lesbian, gay, or bisexual. With only two exceptions—Wisconsin and Minnesota—every state that has passed legislation banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is either on the Atlantic Coast or on the Pacific Coast (including Hawaii). Political scientists long have understood that rare local victories—whether they be the enactment of nondiscrimination legislation or the election to office of a member of a group—do not translate into national political power for the group.In the pages that follow, I will attempt to measure the access gay people have to meaningful political resources and to discuss how differential access to these resources disadvantages gay people in the political process.