Who does what?: Collective action and the changing nature of authority
With a little translation into the appropriate theoretical terms, the debate over the form of the emergent world order boils down to disagreements over which collectivities will provide which collective goods to whom. Huntington’s (1996) clash-of-civilisations thesis contends that civilisations, rat...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2000
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/2350 https://search.library.smu.edu.sg/permalink/65SMU_INST/tr4a87/alma99241791602601 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | With a little translation into the appropriate theoretical terms, the debate over the form of the emergent world order boils down to disagreements over which collectivities will provide which collective goods to whom. Huntington’s (1996) clash-of-civilisations thesis contends that civilisations, rather than states, will provide such collective goods as defence (from other civilisations) and cultural belonging. Kaplan’s (1996) prediction of The Coming Anarchy asserts that many collective goods will not be provided at all because poverty and environmental degradation will overwhelm the capacity of states to undertake collective action. Mathews’ (1997) Power Shift analysis argues that the information revolution has rendered a whole host of non-state actors increasingly capable of undertaking collective action and is thus undermining the power of the state. |
|---|