Explore the vast range of titles available.

This volume brings together prominent international scholars involved in both Western and indigenous social work across the globe - including James Midgley, Linda Briskman, Alean Al-Krenawi and John R. Graham - to discuss some of the most significant global trends and issues relating to indigenous and cross-cultural social work.

The relationship between established powers and emerging powers is one of the most important topics in world politics. Nevertheless, few studies have investigated how the leading state in the international system responds to rising powers in peripheral regions-actors that are not yet and might never become great powers but that are still increasing their strength, extending their influence, and trying to reorder their corner of the world.In the Hegemon's Shadowfills this gap. Evan Braden Montgomery draws on different strands of realist theory to develop a novel framework that explains why leading states have accommodated some rising regional powers but opposed others. Montgomery examines the interaction between two factors: the type of local order that a leading state prefers and the type of local power shift that appears to be taking place. The first captures a leading state's main interest in a peripheral region and serves as the baseline for its evaluation of any changes in the status quo. Would the leading state like to see a balance of power rather than a preponderance of power, does it favor primacy over parity instead, or is it impartial between these alternatives? The second indicates how a local power shift is likely to unfold. In particular, which regional order is an emerging power trying to create and does a leading state expect it to succeed? Montgomery tests his arguments by analyzing Great Britain's efforts to manage the rise of Egypt, the Confederacy, and Japan during the nineteenth century and the United States' efforts to manage the emergence of India and Iraq during the twentieth century.

In the article, we focus on young LGBTIQ+ individuals’ experiences with violence in education. Research show that LGBTIQ+ youth are targeted with various forms of violence within education; while most research focuses on peer-to-peer violence, the violence perpetrated by school workers, and their inactivity when it comes to addressing violence on the basis of gender and sexual identity, is often neglected. In the article, data gathered in the research Everyday life of young LGBTIQ+ individuals, as implemented by Pride Association in 2017, is presented. A total of 751 young LGBTIQ+ individuals aged between 16-30 participated in this research. In this article we focus on a specific aspect regarding their experiences with violence in education, namely, their experiences with violence perpetrated by schoolmates and school workers, including teachers and counsel workers, as well as on their feelings of safety in the school hallways and classrooms. Such violence is often addressed by ‘bullying discourse’, which rarely takes into account hetero- and cisnormative social structures and their manifestations in education, and it predominantly addresses bullying as a form of individual pathology and not as practices of violence that derive their disciplinary power in terms of enforcing normative enactments of gender and sexuality. In this regard, violence against young LGBTIQ+ individuals in education should be addressed within a broader framework that takes into account social power relations.

For the first time in sub-Saharan Africa’s postcolonial history, large numbers of citizens of a European former colonial power are migrating to an ex-colony. Portuguese migrants are attracted by Angola’s strong economic growth and are seeking to escape crisis in Portugal. This article focuses on everyday workplace relations between Angolans and Portuguese. In particular, it analyses how colonial power relations still resonate with both groups and whether their mutual imaginaries are moving beyond the colonial past. The article concludes that dependence on access to the labour market and the goodwill of Angola’s political and administrative class has undercut the ex-colonisers’ dominance. Yet colonial imaginaries are still in play, particularly among the Portuguese. Consequently, postcolonial power relations among Angolans and Portuguese are contested and unstable.

During the regime of Manuel Odría (1948-56), state officials in the northern Peruvian Andes came to believe that their efforts to govern were being systematically thwarted by APRA, an outlawed political party forced underground by government repression. Officials concluded that the party had elaborated a subterranean political apparatus of remarkable scope and power, one that was largely invisible to the naked eye. I draw on officials' fears of a dark and dangerous counterstate to cross-examine the literature on state formation.State theory has been predicated on the inevitability of state power, which makes it difficult to account for state crisis and also to grasp the highly contingent nature of successful efforts to rule. Much can be learned about state formation by examining moments in which political rule falters or fails, for it is then that the lineaments of power and control that otherwise remain masked become visible.

Fuelwood scarcity in sub-Saharan African countries is a pressing challenge to rural households. However, what is not appreciated is that the scarcity is conceived by the power dynamics constraints, which impede fuelwood access. That being so, the growing body of work on fuelwood does not as yet pay adequate attention to the relationship between power asymmetries and fuelwood access, hence there is a gap in fuelwood policy. In the face of this wider problem, the case of Buhera District demonstrates power dynamics of fuelwood access in Zimbabwe. Based on extensive qualitative fieldwork, the article illuminates the relations between state actors and the local people in accessing fuelwood. This is important because access is determined by the policing action taken by the powerful state actors. The questions at the centre of this article are how rural people’s access to fuelwood is influenced by power dynamics and how these dynamics contribute to fuelwood scarcity in their villages. From the study it emerged that there are various techniques of power, which are used by state actors in controlling and regulating fuelwood access, leading me to draw two major conclusions. First, there is no one fuelwood scarcity (shortage in a specific location), but rather even where fuelwood is available, power relations play a role in determining accessibility. Second, hidden power is used to present fuelwood scarcity as apolitical, leading to flawed solutions which intensify rural people’s plight. Accordingly, by showing the workings of power relations, I endeavour to provide the foundation for well-informed fuelwood policy.

[Poder presidencial, vetos y política pública: Un estudio comparativo de Brasil y Estados Unidos]ABSTRACTMuch of the literature on Presidentialism focuses on the argument that bipartisan presidential systems are better able to avoid a conflictive Executive-Legislative relationship by facilitating the formation of coalitions in Congress and partisan ideological identification. From a comparative perspective, this study aims to identify and discuss the ability of the presidents of the United States and Brazil to promote public policy, and to examine the degree of conflict in the drafting of these policies by studying legislative vetoes. In addition, it analyzes the success rate of welfare bills voted in the lower chamber of the two countries and supported by their respective presidents. The period studied here covers 16 years (from 1995 to 2010 in Brazil and in the United States from 1993 to 2008), consisting of eight years of more liberal administrations and eight years of more conservative ones in each country. The presented hypothesis is that there is no significant difference between two-party or multi-party systems in terms of conflict, public policy drafting and presidential success rate. The data are analyzed using multivariate regressions and undergo qualitative treatment for a deeper understanding.RESUMENGran parte de la literatura sobre el presidencialismo se centra en el argumento de que los sistemas presidenciales bipartidistas son más capaces de evitar una relación conflictiva entre ejecutivo y legislativo al facilitar la formación de coaliciones en el Congreso y la identificación ideológica partidista. Desde una perspectiva comparativa, este estudio tiene como objetivo identificar y discutir los poderes de los presidentes de los Estados Unidos y Brasil para promover políticas públicas y verificar el grado de conflicto en la producción de dichas políticas mediante el control de los vetos legislativos. Analiza también la tasa de éxito de los proyectos de leyes de políticas de bienestar votadas en la cámara baja de los dos países y respaldados por sus respectivos presidentes. Abarca un período de 16 años (de 1995 a 2010 en Brasil y en los Estados Unidos de 1993 a 2008), con ocho años de administraciones más liberales y ocho años de gobiernos más conservadores en cada país. La hipótesis es que no hay una diferencia significativa con respecto al conflicto y la producción de políticas públicas en sistemas bipartidistas o multipartidistas y que las tasas de éxito son similares. Los datos se analizan mediante regresiones multivariables y se someten a un tratamiento cualitativo para una comprensión más profunda.

In this book, Nye returns to the business of critically appraising America's role in the present and future. While many contemporary 'realist' scholars view China as America's most likely competitor, or envisage a Russia-China-India coalition, Nye feels that the real challenges to America's power come in the form of the very things that have made the last ten years so prosperous: the information revolution and globalization. In Nye's view, while these phenomena at first helped to increase America's 'soft power' (its ability to influence the world through cultural, political, and other non-military means), they will soon threaten to dilute it. As technology spreads the Internet will become less US-centric, transnational corporations and non-governmental actors will gain power, and 'multiple modernities' will mean that 'being number 1 ain't gonna be what it used to be'. Nye includes chapters on American power, the information revolution, globalization, American culture and politics, and 'defining the national interest', along the way considering what the lessons of history have to tell us about what we should do with out unprecedented power - while we still have it. This book will include a sharp analysis of the terrorist attacks on the US in 2000, and will argue that the US cannot fight terrorism by itself.

Why do great powers accommodate the rise of some challengers but contain and confront others, even at the risk of war? When Right Makes Might proposes that the ways in which a rising power legitimizes its expansionist aims significantly shapes great power responses. Stacie E. Goddard theorizes that when faced with a new challenger, great powers will attempt to divine the challenger's intentions: does it pose a revolutionary threat to the system or can it be incorporated into the existing international order? Goddard departs from conventional theories of international relations by arguing that great powers come to understand a contender's intentions not only through objective capabilities or costly signals but by observing how a rising power justifies its behavior to its audience. To understand the dynamics of rising powers, then, we must take seriously the role of legitimacy in international relations. A rising power's ability to expand depends as much on its claims to right as it does on its growing might. As a result, When Right Makes Might poses significant questions for academics and policymakers alike. Underpinning her argument on the oft-ignored significance of public self-presentation, Goddard suggests that academics (and others) should recognize talk's critical role in the formation of grand strategy. Unlike rationalist and realist theories that suggest rhetoric is mere window-dressing for power, When Right Makes Might argues that rhetoric fundamentally shapes the contours of grand strategy. Legitimacy is not marginal to international relations; it is essential to the practice of power politics, and rhetoric is central to that practice.