investment often benefit from tight networks between the local/nationalstate,
development agencies and labour market institutional actors (Hudson, 2003).
In such cases, regime competition and insecurity of future investment may lead
to greater, rather than lesser, degrees of associational/network ‘embeddedness’
with these non-firm actors, at the same time as co-opting local institutions to the
vagaries of international competition.
These processes of ongoing competition for productive investment have been
extensively researched by a literature on global production
party political positions at the national level.7
The nature of the German party system, together with the penetration
by the parties of much of the bureaucracy and public institutions and
enterprises, explains in part the close relationship between the national
and state parties. But constitutional provisions calling for the creation of
uniform or equivalent living conditions; close interrelationships between
the national, state, and local office holders and civil servants in the German federal system, often referred to as Politikverflechtung; the relatively
the substitute of the unrepresentable totality’ (p. 58). Thus ‘space’
is now effectively a word denoting the transcendental totality itself, both
a phenomenal and a noumenal entity, and so becomes logically both
subject and object of modernism. And the totality is imperialism, ‘which
stretches out the roads to infinity, beyond the bounds and orders of the
nationalstate’ (p. 57). Jameson’s final observation, though, resists dialectical closure:
if ‘infinity’ (and ‘imperialism’) are bad or negative in Forster
One of the errors which is often made in studying the institutions of the
European Union is to attempt a comparison with national political systems.
This carries a number of difficulties. The EU is not like a nationalstate (though
it may be ever closer to becoming one). There are crucial distinctions which
must be borne in mind. These include the following.
The EU remains an organisation of nations rather than a full-scale supranational body. The members are not yet prepared to abandon national interests
completely. Instead, they have shown a willingness
Democratisation, nationalism and security in former Yugoslavia
Paul Latawski and Martin A. Smith
ethnic nationalisms. For civic nationalisms often
demand, as the price for receiving citizenship and its benefits, the
surrender of ethnic community and individuality, the privatization
of ethnic religion and the marginalization of the ethnic culture and
heritage of minorities within the borders of the nationalstate. 47
The ‘price for
situation has now changed. The new NATO has appeared as the flag bearer,
restricting violence and defining order in the world. This new order is
post-national, and must be understood as such. In opposition stands the
old nationalstate order, Milosevic and the old order proponents. One
can perhaps even talk about this in a social context, Yugoslavia
standing for the old order and NATO and the West for the new. All over
Most states are in fact
multi-national. The United Kingdom, for example, is a multi-nationalstate,
consisting of four or five identifiable nations. Attempts to create a
‘British’ nation and national identity since, say, the union of
the English and Scottish crowns in 1603, the union of Scottish and English
parliaments in 1707, or the union with Ireland in 1801, have at best been
forces of disintegration and
re-creation can be seen in nations such as Canada and Britain, countries far
more stable and well established than the communist regimes of Eastern
Europe and the USSR. Canada’s future is questionable because of the
continuing conflicts between its English and French-speaking peoples. The
UK, even, may disintegrate as a consequence of the various nationalisms
within its multi-nationalstate
Public presence, discourse, and migrants as threat
Migration and Law 11(2): 159–77.
Van Zoonen, L., 1991.
‘Feminist Perspectives on the Media’, in J. Curran and M.
Gurevitch, eds, Mass Media and Society , London and New York:
Arnold, pp. 31–52.
Vogli, E., 2007. 'Hellenes by
Descent': Citizenship and Identity in the NationalState of Greeks
(1821–1844), Heraklion: Crete Universtity Press (in Greek).
declares that all subjects are equal, in fact there are three
distinct classifications of ‘federal subject’ in the document. First, the
twenty-one ethnically based republics which are classified as national–
state formations. Second, krai and oblasts, which are classified as
Federalism and constitutional asymmetry
administrative–territorial formations; and third, autonomous oblasts and
autonomous okrugs defined as national-territorial formations.21 Only the
republics are defined as ‘states’ with the right to their own