Name: Fatima Abubakar
Section: Political Theory
Professional Email: abtima85@gmail.com
Professional Status: Administrator
Institution: Federal University Lokoja
Scheduling Preference: No Preference
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info: OKOH, Bartholomew, University of Abuja , barthy01@yahoo.co.uk
Co-presenter info: OKOH, Bartholomew, University of Abuja , barthy01@yahoo.co.uk
Paper Title:  Tackling Poverty In Africa through Good Governance: Nigeria in Perspectives.
Abstract:
The objective of this study is to examine how poverty in Africa can be tackled through good governance. Governance is conceptualized as the system of values, policies and institutions by which a society organize collective decision-making and action related to political, economic, socio-cultural and environmental affairs through the interaction of the state , civil society and the private sector. Nigeria being the most populous Black Country with tremendous natural and human resources yet suffers chronic poverty presents an important case scenario in poverty discourse in Africa. Findings revealed that social injustice, inequality, poor policy implementation, weak institutions and corruption are the root causes of poverty in Nigeria. This ugly state of affair has produced many indices of poverty such as low per capita income, low life expectancy, high infant mortality, dilapidated infrastructures etc. The past government efforts at tackling poverty has largely failed due to absence of transparency and accountability in public offices. The paper strongly recommends the need for institutional framework that will respond to the needs and aspirations of the people, coupled with massive investment in physical and social infrastructures across the states in Nigeria. Keywords: Poverty, Governance, Good Governance, Institution, Nigeria.

Name: Ugur Altundal
Section: Political Theory
Professional Email: ualtunda@syr.edu
Professional Status: Graduate Student
Institution: Syracuse University
Scheduling Preference: Saturday Afternoon
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title: Immigration and  Open Borders
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title:  Open Borders, Sovereignty, and Travelers
Abstract:
The philosophical debate on open borders focuses exclusively on migration. The normative justifications defending border controls assume that the movement of people across political borders, independent of its purpose and the length of stay, refers to migration. “Movement internationally,” “global mobility,” and “migration” are often used interchangeably. However, global mobility also refers to movements of people across international borders for short length of time: traveling. Sojourn, religious pilgrimage, medical tourism -including abortion travel-, education, international political advocacy, family visits -including weddings and funerals-, civil marriage and divorce, and many other significant interests motivate and force people to travel across political borders. In this paper, I defend the right to travel both as an intrinsic and instrumental right, and open borders for travelers as an essential value of liberal democracies and a component of global equality of opportunity. The existing literature on open borders offers moral arguments for or against migration. However, the moral case for the right to international travel has mostly been neglected. The arguments opposing migration -which concern about brain drain, welfare state, duty to compatriots, political membership, freedom of disassociation, and so forth- do not apply to travel; hence, they do not provide any justification against open borders in the context of travel. Rather than a right to migrate, this paper questions whether the right to travel can be overridden by similar arguments. I have two distinct arguments for the right to travel: (1) Movements that impose negative duties on liberal democratic states should be allowed as long as there is no other justification overriding it and (2) Territorial rights of states are limited, and do not justify exclusion of travelers. I examine the right to self-determination, right to freedom of (dis)association, and sovereignty as counter arguments. I also discuss justifiable restrictions of travel under certain circumstances such as global equality, infrastructure feasibility, security, overstay, and environmental and animal welfare concerns. I demonstrate, however, that those border restrictions for travelers should be based on principled reasons and should not discriminate on gender, race, disability, religion, economic status, and nationality.

Name: Maxwell Burkey
Section: American Politics
Professional Email: MBurkey@gradcenter.cuny.edu
Professional Status: Graduate Student
Institution: CUNY Graduate Center
Scheduling Preference: Saturday Afternoon
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title: Civic Religion and Social Movements in American Politics
Abstract:
This paper looks at how radical movements in American politics have confronted and challenged the norms of civic religion that inform American patriotism. It argues that, although America does have a coherent civic religion that imposes certain restraints on resistance, movements have sought to subvert the religious underpinnings of American democracy. In the process, resistance movement participants have been branded apostates, defectors from the core of American nationhood. Therefore, these movements present a fruitful avenue for thinking about citizenship and activism in ways that scrutinize and call into question the democratic value of American patriotism, which has traditionally been inextricably intertwined with the core features of American civic religion: for example, the notion, stemming from the Puritans, that America has a unique and providential mission among the nations of the earth, as well as the more secularized versions of that trope which make up the claims of contemporary American exceptionalism. The movements considered in this paper all had to come up against the historically prevailing version of that perennial claim of American exceptionalism, and, in so doing, they offer apostasy—or unbelief—as a democratic ethic in the place of patriotism. Thus, the paper qualifies the work of notable scholars on American civic religion, especially Sacvan Bercovitch and Robert Bellah who, in different ways, do much to document the existence of a specifically American religious disposition in civic life, but who tended to claim that civic religion is all-encompassing—so pervasive that even resistance movements adopt and perpetuate its key assumptions and rhetorical terms. By contrast, this paper attempts to carve out and suggest the existence of an alternative tradition of resistance, one that is compelled by the very nature of their radical political projects to dissent from the core of civic religion. These “apostates” form a key part of a broader tradition of protest politics that has cast patriotism in a critical light throughout American history. The paper concerns itself primarily with key 19th and early 20th century movements: the abolitionist movement, the Women’s Rights movement, the Freethought movement, and the Wobbly and socialist movements, as well as key figures such as William Lloyd Garrison, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Emma Goldman, and Eugene Debs. However, methodologically speaking, the paper is not primarily concerned with the strategy or tactics of the movements discussed, as is much of the political science and sociological literature on protest movements, but rather with the kind of counter-patriotic politics that movements express and the political thought that emanates from resistance. In this sense, the paper treats the movements from a humanist lens, as texts themselves, rich with political meaning, deserving the same interpretive care that other kinds texts receive in the fields of political theory and American political thought. Therefore, the paper most aligns with American political thought, but could be included with political theory or American political development.

Name: Marco Castillo
Section: Public Policy & Public Administration
Professional Email: MCastillo@citytech.cuny.edu
Professional Status: Associate Professor
Institution: New York City College of Technology - CUNY
Scheduling Preference: Friday Afternoon
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title: A Technological Curiosity or a Reflection of Dissent? The Implications of the Rise of Bitcoin for Governments and Governance
Abstract:
In 2009, a digital medium of economic exchange known as "Bitcoin" arose, introducing Americans, and indeed people across the globe, to the formerly fringe and obscure topic of cryptocurrencies. Since this time period, bitcoin, cryptocurrencies, and the underlying blockchain technology has entered the mainstream of American and global financial discussion, now being seen as a legitimate part of the global financial landscape. While the brunt of public discourse regarding cryptocurrencies have occurred within financial circles, I argue that the emergence of this technology has important implications for the realm of public affairs, reflecting changing beliefs regarding the stability of governments, the changing global order, and a growing concern about the coercive power of government in our lives.

Name: Reham ElMorally
Section: Political Theory
Professional Email: r.elmorally@pgr.reading.ac.uk
Professional Status: Graduate Student
Institution: University of Reading
Scheduling Preference: Friday Morning
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title:  Gendering the Arab Spring: A Comparative Analysis of Institutions in Egypt and Tunisia
Abstract:
“A wise woman wishes to be no one’s enemy, a wise woman refuses to be anyone’s victim” ~ Maya Angelou The Arab Spring (2011) was characterized by uprisings in various Arab countries that attempted to oust their respective regimes. The revolutions diffused from the movement in Tunisia to the rest of the Arab countries. The Arab Spring was followed by what is now commonly known as the Arab Winter, i.e. the resurgence of the authoritarian and oppressive regimes and array of radicalization. This research attempts to compare and contrast the uprisings in Egypt, which is considered a failed story, and Tunisia, which is considered a success story. The underlying question is: what are the institutional and social structures that exist in the respective countries that have amounted to their success/failure? The hypothesis is that Tunisia’s social and institutional configurations are more gender conscious than Egypt’s, leading to a stronger and more resilient superstructure that encapsulated the aggregate of the population instead of lobbying for the interests of the social hegemonic blocs. In other words, Tunisia’s society might be more aware of the bargaining power the historically marginalized women have in ousting the regime, as opposed to the Egyptian population. This awareness is reflected in the structure of political institutions, the power dynamics within those institutions, and affect the selection and orientation of decision-makers. This research is divided into three major parts. The first part will review existing literature regarding the benefits and possible drawbacks of gender-conscious institutions and the extent to which they reflect socio-political realities. The second part will investigate the three branches of government (judiciary, legislative, and executive) and reflexively analyze the effect of descriptive and substantive representation within them influenced the aftermath of the uprisings. The third and last part of this research will investigate the Human Development Report (2018), specifically the statistical data on gender, education, and socio-economic sustainability, as the variables believed to most influence institutional formations. This research hopes to shed light on why the Arab Spring may have succeeded in some nations and failed in others. The objective is to illuminate and inform of the significance of a gender equality and equity for social and political sustainability, change, and efficacy. The importance of feminist movements is still underrated in political struggles as they are believed to be different. I intend to emphasize that the feminist struggle is inseparable from the revolutionary ambitions, as half of the population cannot affect change, but maybe if all members of a society solidify their objectives a true revolution will take place.

Name: Onursal Erol
Section: Political Theory
Professional Email: onursal@uchicago.edu
Professional Status: Graduate Student
Institution: The University of Chicago
Scheduling Preference: No Preference
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title:  Transitionality versus Transformation: Gezi as a Continuous Space of Publicity
Abstract:
This paper problematizes the narrative of episodic urban transformation in Istanbul, common among its various ideological representations in the context of the ongoing Gezi debate in Turkey. Five years after Istanbul's mass Gezi Park Protests, the park continues to be the landscape of contention that features the most ostensibly clashing political stakes in the country. The ideological narratives that inhabit the contemporary Gezi debate, antagonistic as they may be, are based on shared assumptions of transformation of urban space, understanding it as a succession between discrete episodes that are laid out clearly: Gezi Park was built in place of an Ottoman Artillery Barracks, which was built in place of an Armenian cemetery. The actors who situate the spatio-political authenticity of this patch of urban space in these episodes protect a certain kind of political memory, thereby providing convenient options for political membership in Turkey today: Gezi is secular and modern, or neo-conservative and pious, or democratic and repentant, but not all or none of those things at the same time. Relying on the cumulative conversation by prominent theorists of space - predominantly, in my thinking, Foucault, Lefebvre, and Soja - I ask "How could such dramatic transformations in a continuously lived and traumatized urban space like Istanbul exist in such a tidy linearity as claimed by the distinct political narratives that inhabit it?" I marshal archival findings that include long 19th century maps, travelogues, memoirs, private/professional photography albums, and Ottoman journals that refute all of the aforementioned episodic readings of Gezi. In their place, I establish a novel historic narrative, one that discovers Gezi as a space of appearance in the Arendtian sense in its continuous publicity.

Name: Hisseine Faradj
Section: Political Theory
Professional Email: hisseine.faradj@bcc.cuny.edu
Professional Status: Assistant Professor
Institution: Bronx Community College City University of New Yorn
Scheduling Preference: Saturday Afternoon
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title:  Sayyid Qutb and the Schmittian Political
Abstract:
The political theory of Sayyid Qutb hinges on two binary concepts. The first is hakimiyyah (Allah’s rule) and the second is jahiliyyah (The condition of any place or society where Allah is not held to be the sovereign being or His law is the sole authority in human life and society). He emphasizes the enmity between hakimiyyah and jahiliyyah as two irreconcilable modes of governance differentiating the abode of Islam from abode of unbelievers. Similar to Carl Schmitt's political, the enmity between hakimiyyah and jahiliyyah demarcates the friend/enemy distinction and the target of jihad. Yet, Carl Schmitt’s political is premised on skeptic standpoint as a result of nominal sovereign God (later secularized) that denies foundational truth claims, while Qutb’s project is premised on Sharia as the “divine truth.” To the contrary, this paper argues that Qutb’s project is premised on a nominal sovereign God that unveils his skeptic standpoint rendering the distinction between hakimiyyah/jahiliyyah a tool to manage human enmity rather than a utopic project that realizes God’s rule on earth.

Name: Michael Gamkrelidze
Section: Political Theory
Professional Email: gam1938@gmail.com
Professional Status:
Institution: Independent researcher
Scheduling Preference:
Proposal Type:
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title: Democracy as State of Social Boundaries: An Attempt of the Systemic Approach  
Abstract:
ABSTRACT: In social sciences democracy is usually considered as political method founded on universal adult suffrage with confidential voting and majority’s right to elect government. In this essay, in contrast, democracy is regarded and analyzed as a certain state of the human society – an open steady state system of the “third order”. Since the various states of society are not limited in number, an attempt has been made to distinguish among them a few basic categories – capitalism, socialism and democracy, to find their intrinsic features and express them in terms of highest abstraction, thus making them comparable and quantifiable, what in perspective сould make possible to handle social sciences as rigorously, as natural sciences. The core notion of this approach, based on Schopenhauer’s philosophy and L. Bertalanffy’s systems theory, is that of social boundary. Social change is considered as changes of the state of social boundaries and so are analyzed the historical facts and events. Key words are: discrete and continuous states of social system, social boundary.

Name: John McDonald
Section: Political Theory
Professional Email: jtmcdonald@uh.edu
Professional Status: Graduate Student
Institution: University of Houston
Scheduling Preference: No Preference
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title: Rebirth of the "Theologico-Political Problem" in the Thought of Isaiah Berlin and Alasdair MacIntyre 
Abstract:
This paper examines the perspectives on relativism taken by Alasdair MacIntyre and Isaiah Berlin. With scholars across an array of disciplines addressing relativism in some form or fashion, why should we look at MacIntyre and Berlin specifically? Not only do their ethical theories confront relativism directly, but because each belong to rival philosophical traditions- Liberal and Communitarian- their views on relativism can be taken to be indicative of this membership more broadly. After introducing their ethical theories, it is found that both MacIntyre and Berlin fail to adequately distance themselves from relativism. First, MacIntyre’s core assumption that moral virtues always belong to a particular Weltanschauung leaves it ambiguous as to whether virtues can ever have objective validity, or whether they derive their meaning solely from the culture in which they are practiced. Secondly, MacIntyre’s concept of a “third language” that can solve the “problematics” of rival moral cultures is flawed because the new language itself may fall victim to its own problematic, or it may be opposed by a new rival moral scheme, necessitating yet another moral language to solve the dispute. While the pluralism advocated for by Isaiah Berlin does better than MacIntyre’s tradition-centric theory, it is also prone to charges of relativism. Pluralism holds that moral values exist objectively and that the justification for this claim is that human beings can imagine and understand the moral values of another culture, even if they disagree with how that culture rank-orders its values. However, if the mere fact that the values of another culture can be understood places them into the category of “legitimate” moral values, it is fair to ask if pluralism is too inclusive, to the extent where every human value, no matter how deplorable, is considered genuine and is not able to be ranked against other values. Moreover, pluralism is unclear as to how individuals are to decide between competing moral values without taking a “decisionist” approach that is radically subjective, and hence, relative. After the discussion concerning MacIntyre and Berlin, this paper concludes that their ethical theories are actually representative of an earlier conflict articulated by the scholar Leo Strauss. The conflict between reason and revelation, what Strauss referred to as “The Theologico-Political Problem”, plays out again in the thought of MacIntyre and Berlin, with the former justifying conceptions of the good through conventional belief, and the latter justifying conceptions of the good through rational thought.

Name: Jeff Miller
Section: Political Theory
Professional Email: millerj@newpaltz.edu
Professional Status: Associate Professor
Institution: State University of New York at New Paltz
Scheduling Preference: No Preference
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title:  Democratic Theory in Ancient Greece
Abstract:
Slightly more than fifty years ago, A. H. M. Jones noted the absence of philosophical support for the democracy at Athens. Major intellectual voices of the fifth and fourth centuries were uniformly (if to different degrees) critical of democracy. The past half-century, however, has seen a remarkable effort to reconstruct the voices of democratic partisans. Driven partly by pathbreaking work on Athenian oratory by ancient historians like Josiah Ober, ancient political theorists have focused their attention on the crucial role of speech in Athenian democracy. Some - like Sara Monoson and Arlene Saxonhouse - bring traditional philosophical figures into conversation with the democracy and reveal philosophy’s indebtedness to and entanglement in it. Still others - like John Zumbrunnen and Peter Nichols - have turned to theater and other sources of popular culture to fill out the intellectual portrait of Athenian democracy. The work of the past few decades makes possible a new and more robust picture of Athenian democratic thinking. This paper will trace some of these changes and argue that the emergent conception of Athenian democracy shows a consistent and coherent underlying conception of democratic theory, which was also aware of its limits and responsive to its critics.

Name: Shafakat Mirza
Section: Political Theory
Professional Email: shafakathassan@yahoo.co.in
Professional Status:
Institution: Kashmir University
Scheduling Preference:
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title: Power-Knowledge-Morality triangle.
Abstract:
'Power is to politics what money is to economics' is a valid statement. When we are discussing politics we are basically talking about the relations of power. If we broaden politics to include all the things that Aristotle included in his definition or we narrow it to the colloquial use of the term, in both the cases politics is the process of deciphering power. In this paper, I wish to do the same but in a theoretical sense. What my paper and theory proposes is a way of looking at systems and relations of power from a prism which I term as Power – Knowledge – Morality Triangle, which basically demonstrates how the institutions of power from family right up to the superpowers use the systems of knowledge to create the sense of right and wrong, which we term as morality. This morality then works like a feedback mechanism strengthening the power structure, henceforth creating a vicious circle. In the process what is developed inside the triangle is what I call as the gravitational pull of the power system which makes it very difficult for people and societies to escape. The methodology that I have used is an extensive reading of literature from various fields of knowledge. I have substantiated my theory (besides other evidence) from the study of Anarchism and Feminism. I have analyzed the family structure as well as the schooling system. This will give the readers a deep insight into the theory. The conclusions that I draw are pretty evident from the theory itself – how structures of power use systems of knowledge to construct morality in order to strengthen the existing power structures. Besides, as a solution which comes out of this and not only gives us a comprehensive moral theory but also political solutions to innumerable issues is how we can change the prism by shifting the triangle as Knowledge-Morality-Power triangle which implies that instead of allowing the structures of power to use knowledge as a tool in shaping morality for their ends we start with rational knowledge itself as the guiding principle to shape morality which at times can justify a power structure to enforce it. Hence morality will not be constructed by power structures rather morality inspired by knowledge will give birth to the structures of power.

Name: Krishnan Raman
Section: Political Theory
Professional Email: ramank0@yahoo.com
Professional Status: Practitioner
Institution: NONE -- I am retired
Scheduling Preference: Saturday Morning
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title:  The Role of Beliefs, Values, Attitudes and Events in Political Decision Formation
Abstract:
Political Decision Formation is governed by many factors, endogenous and exogenous. The endogenous ones, which are at both the individual and social level, include many Psychological and Sociological factors. The exogenous ones are controlled by events, often beyond the control of the people affected. The psycho-sociological entities of interest include Beliefs, Attitudes, Values / Norms, and processes such as Motivation, Communication and Persuasion. This paper will summarize an analytical framework for representing and modeling such entities and processes in political decision formation. We shall outline and discuss this for selected examples, as time permits. There is a large number of entities that influence political decisions at different levels. We examine the interconnections between a selected number of such entities, and the feedback effects among them; these interconnections and feedbacks can be the deciding factors We first represent in schematic diagrams the factors affecting the formation of beliefs and changes in beliefs. We next discuss Attitudes, which play a central role in sociopolitical processes. A key question is the mechanisms for Attitude Change, and the contributing factors The main example we discuss will be Election Decision making by Voters. The paper will outline a model for the formation and evolution of political attitudes relevant to this process . An Attitude will be conceptualized as a multidimensional entity, and an example of constructing it will be outlined.. The relevant variables governing the process of political attitude change will be pointed out and discussed. The possible effects of events, both local and international, on attitudes and outcomes, will be discussed. We examine the effects of factors such as group affiliation, persuasion mechanisms such as campaign advertising, and public opinion. The effects of Technology, especially Mass media and the Internet, will be discussed, We point out the importance of parameters such as message timing, message credibility, and the possible effects of polarization and alienation. The framework we discuss enables us to conduct experiments in which we can vary parameters, and obtain at least qualitative estimates of their effects. New variables and factors can be added and their effects evaluated. Of special interest is the ability in a model to identify control points or influence points for a political process. In summary, this framework enables one to represent and model psycho-socio-political systems, and formulate questions, and design experiments in which we can conveniently examine the dependence on various relevant parameters. And incorporate new factors as they come up, and examine their effects.

Name: Adam Renner
Section: Political Theory
Professional Email: arenner2@binghamton.edu
Professional Status: Graduate Student
Institution: SUNY Binghamton
Scheduling Preference: No Preference
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title:  Democratic Pluralism and When to be Intolerant of Harm
Abstract:
Liberal democratic societies committed to moral pluralism support both the intrinsic value of toleration and its instrumental effects, despite the issue with delineating boundaries for what harms and which comprehensive doctrines (CDs) are tolerated in the society. While a liberal democratic society tolerates a wide range of CDs outside of use for the political process, some of these views should nevertheless be rejected completely. This paper seeks to address the boundary issues in the scope of toleration and investigate what recourse both citizens and states have to address intolerant positions within their particular social structure. I argue that liberalism is an inherently perfectionist account of political organization, whether it wants to be or not is beside the question. The espousal of toleration and liberal pluralism is a value-laden concept that shapes the structures of those in society. I argue that within a liberal democratic society, Mill's Harm Principle should be adapted in a wide version and not a narrow version; the wide version of the Harm Principle that can include rhetoric in discerning what an act of harm in a society is. The liberal project, if it wishes to embrace a tolerant society, requires a more robust version of the Harm Principle as a foundation to deal with CDs that are intolerant and intolerable. Some structural harms are caused by prevailing communally held CDs, including issues of some religious communities, sexism, and racism. Here I defend the conclusion that, based on an expansion of Mill’s Harm Principle, the state and its citizens have legitimate authority within the tolerant society to actively reject CDs and coerce those that hold them. A weak and strong version of this thesis will be defended based on the work of Mill, Rawls, Raz, and others. Mill’s colloquial use of “harm” leaves much room for interpretation and application of the principle. By expanding on his version to include rhetoric into the harm category, and by considering the reduction of autonomous choices one can experience as harm, I arrive at the conclusion that the tolerant society does not have to tolerate everything. Rawls notes that it is not possible for all conceptions of the good to exist in a society: inevitably, some people and their underlying CDs will be coerced. Tolerant liberal democracies do not have a compelling answer towards addressing the intolerant CDs someone holds, as all are theoretically supposed to be allowed in the “value-neutral” and “pluralist” society. The expansion of the principle in this work shows that there is a possible answer for the tolerant liberals to reject other views that constitute harms towards others, and gives the grounds of legitimation for the state and citizens to do so. A nod towards possible policy considerations and a brief consideration of arguments against the Harm Principle as a means of coercion are also discussed.

Name: Veena Soni
Section: Political Theory
Professional Email: veenasony8@gmail.com
Professional Status: Assistant Professor
Institution: JAI NARAYAN VYAS UNIVERSITY JODHPUR (RAJ)
Scheduling Preference: No Preference
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info: INDIVIDUAL PAPER
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title:  The Political Economy of Capitalism
Abstract:
Capitalism is often defined as an economic system where private actors are allowed to own and control the use of property in accord with their own interests, and where the invisible hand of the pricing mechanism coordinates supply and demand in markets in a way that is automatically in the best interests of society. Government, in this perspective, is often described as responsible for peace, justice, and tolerable taxes. This paper defines capitalism as a system of indirect governance for economic relationships, where all markets exist within institutional frameworks that are provided by political authorities, i.e. governments. In this second perspective capitalism is a three level system much like any organized sports. Markets occupy the first level, where the competition takes place; the institutional foundations that underpin those markets are the second; and the political authority that administers the system is the third. While markets do indeed coordinate supply and demand with the help of the invisible hand in a short term, quasi-static perspective, government coordinates the modernization of market frameworks in accord with changing circumstances, including changing perceptions of societal costs and benefits. In this broader perspective government has two distinct roles, one to administer the existing institutional frameworks, including the provision of infrastructure and the administration of laws and regulations, and the second to mobilize political power to bring about modernization of those frameworks as circumstances and/or societal priorities change. Thus, for a capitalist system to evolve in an effective developmental sense through time, it must have two hands and not one: an invisible hand that is implicit in the pricing mechanism and a visible hand that is explicitly managed by government through a legislature and a bureaucracy. Inevitably the visible hand has a strategy, no matter how implicit, short sighted or incoherent that strategy may be.

Name: Catherine Spangenberg
Section: Comparative Politics
Professional Email: crs618@nyu.edu
Professional Status: Graduate Student
Institution: New York University
Scheduling Preference: Saturday Afternoon
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title: Economic Voting in Western Europe and South Asia
Panel Description: Economic voting behavior discussed using several cases including Germany, Austria, India and Pakistan. Chair/Discussant: Tony Spanakos
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info: Deepika Padmanabhan dp2662@nyu.edu (New York University, Graduate Student) Shanze Fatima Rauf sfr275@nyu.edu (New York University, Graduate Student)
Paper Title:  Vulnerability of Mainstream Right-Wing Parties to Populist Opposition in Eastern Europe
Abstract:
Effectiveness of European right-wing populism is examined in this paper through explanations of populist strategies, the pervasiveness of their ideologies, and the economic and social impacts that radical right-wing populists can have on the individual and aggregate levels of an electorate. It explores how populists may encourage or persuade other parties to move along the left-right spectrum. A quantitative analysis of populist support is conducted in this study which relies on data from the European Manifesto Project. Eleven East European countries’ populist parties that won more than one or more seats in state parliament since 1990, up till 2014 are included where regressions comparing the vote share, the strength of populist ideology, preference for international cooperation, and level of democratic rights as measured at the time of each country’s election, are tested to determine whether these variables may indicate that populist support encourages rightward shifts in mainstream conservative parties. High vote share, thorough populist ideology, and availability of democracy, are expected to have a positive impact in favor of populism whereas membership in international organizations and cooperation may have a negative impact and deter populism. If this hypothesis is correct, this study may provide evidence that social preferences eclipse concerns of economic ones and that populism may have impacts beyond direct representation in correlation with their vote share. Keywords: right-wing populism, opposition, vote share, political ideology

Name: Marie Staniforth
Section: Political Theory
Professional Email: mpaxton4@jccc.edu
Professional Status: Adjunct Professor
Institution: Johnson County Community College
Scheduling Preference: Friday Morning
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title: Exploring Deliberative Institutions Through an Agonistic Lens 
Abstract:
Situated within political theory, and more specifically democratic theory, this paper explores practical innovations in the field of deliberative democracy through the lens of agonistic democracy. In so doing, it demonstrates how contemporary agonistic democrats (William Connolly, James Tully, Chantal Mouffe and David Owen) draw influence from thinkers such as Michel Foucault, Friedrich Nietzsche, Hannah Arendt and Carl Schmitt to promote political contestation; necessary interdependency; and contingency in democratic politics. Contextualised by recent events such as the pipe bombings and the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, the paper argues that these three goods of agonistic democracy offer us a more productive way to engage with conflicting others. Rather than aiming to confine conflict to the private sphere (as Rawls’ overlapping consensus would have us do) or limit political discussion to the rational and reasonable (as deliberative democrats like Dryzek and Fishkin would have us do), agonistic democrats aim to mediate conflict and use it to render politics more inclusive; more engaging; and more virtuous. In a context of declining civility; widespread disaffection towards ‘establishment’ politics; and charges of ‘fake news,’ the paper argues that agonistic goods are needed now more than ever. The paper discusses the lack of institutions within the agonistic field and looks to the sister field of deliberative democracy for inspiration. The paper then analyses these innovations through an agonistic lens, proposing various ways to ‘agonise’ extant innovations in the field of deliberative democracy, such as participatory budgeting and citizens’ assemblies. Finally, the paper supplements such proposals with suggestions for both new agonistic institutions and more traditional institutions, which could complement and supplement these designs. In so doing, the paper seeks to bridge the gap between theory and practice in order to reconsider how our institutions can transform conflict from a destructive and divisive force into a productive and cohesive one.

Name: Addye Susnick
Section: Political Theory
Professional Email: addye.susnick@werepair.org
Professional Status: Graduate Student
Institution: University of Chicago
Scheduling Preference: Saturday Morning
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description: (I am not applying with a panel, but would be happy to be a part of one.)
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title: Livestock, People, and the Planet: Responsibility for Structural Environmental Injustice
Abstract:
The increasingly dire effects of climate change have brought greater scholarly and public attention to environmental concerns in recent decades. A common call to action among these movements is the reminder that we all share one planet and will all face the consequences of climate change. This is true, but environmental problems are neither new nor experienced equally. Pollution and climatic effects associated with the livestock industry exemplify this reality; for over a century, vulnerable populations have disproportionately faced the negative environmental and resulting public health impacts of meat and dairy production. Yet, these same populations are also involved in the perpetuation of the livestock industry. This raises important questions for environmental political theorists. First, how should environmental injustices related to the livestock industry be conceptualized? Second, who is responsible for these environmental injustices and in what sense? This paper begins to answers these questions by applying Iris Marion Young’s ideas of structural injustice and political responsibility to livestock-related environmental injustices. Particular case studies are considered, including the ongoing environmental racism linked to Chicago’s Union Stock Yards meatpacking district—on which Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle is based—and a Somali refugee working in the livestock industry in Kansas. These cases are viewed alongside general trends to explore the historical and ongoing structural processes perpetuating environmental injustice. With these processes in mind, the paper turns to consider who is responsible for these injustices and in what sense. It argues that all those involved in the processes perpetuating livestock-related environmental injustice bear a political responsibility to do what they can to reform those processes, with political responsibility here being defined largely based on Young’s framework (i.e. non-isolating, confronting the status-quo, non-blameworthy, primarily forward-looking, and shared). A moral responsibility can compound this political responsibility not to perpetuate harm and injustice knowingly and willingly. The normative and, to a lesser extent, practical advantages of models of structural injustice and political responsibility are considered. These include avoiding unfairly blaming those whose causal involvement in the livestock industry is constrained by factors beyond their control, unmasking naturalized ideas that perpetuate the livestock industry and related injustices, exposing the long-standing connection between environmental injustice and other injustices, and revealing barriers to change and potential entry-points for action. The final section briefly turns to what carrying out political responsibility for environmental injustice entails. It argues that this responsibility should focus on enabling the inclusion of those most impacted by livestock-related environmental problems in decision-making processes related to the industry, as well as on challenging norms surrounding meat and dairy consumption, improving access to healthy, affordable, and culturally appropriate non-meat alternatives, and creating opportunities for employment outside of the livestock industry.

Name: Kumar Thangavelsamy
Section: Political Theory
Professional Email: tkumar@xsrm.edu.in
Professional Status: Assistant Professor
Institution: Xavier University, Bhubaneswar, India
Scheduling Preference: No Preference
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title: Capital Vs. Digital Labour in the Information Age - A Marxist Analysis
Abstract:
In the third millennium AD, humanity has reached the phase of the Post-Industrial Information age. This age is characterized by the ubiquitous usage of ICTs (Information and Communication Technologies) in all aspects of social reality. ICTs are not just a tool for automation of social production but are qualitatively different from other preceding technologies. It can be understood that ICTs are situated at the cutting edge of current global Capitalism. There is a danger that ICTs are enhancing capitalist consumerism by converting the 'Complete human being' into the 'Complete consumer'. In this information age, a paradoxical social reality characterized by Geography without distance, History without time, Value without weight and Transactions without cash seems to be unfolding. The current “Post-Fordist” mode of production is qualitatively different from the earlier Fordist mode of production. In this historical context it becomes imperative to understand the dialectical relation between capital and labour. Rather than the “factory” being the locus of struggle between capital and labour, since service sector and white-collar work have become important, the locus of struggle between capital and labour has in some sense shifted to the “office”. ICT based workers can currently be considered as a “Class-in-itself”, rather than a “Class-for-itself”. A large proportion of the global workforce are increasingly working for the same transnational corporations. So, it is possible to some extent to unify the global proletariat under the soul stirring Marxist slogan “Workers of the world unite”. ICT enabled ‘Telework’ changes the ‘Political economy of the home’, so that more surplus value can be extracted. ICTs have influenced the contestation of time between capital and labour that has been happening all through the history of capitalism. ‘Telework’ and flexible production have influenced workers powers of collective bargaining. There are new challenges in organizing workers in the gig economy. When the ontological roots of ICTs are situated within the neo-Marxist Habermasian framework of critical theory, its potential for human emancipation is understood. But on the contrary, there is also a danger that ICTs may end up as a tool to consolidate and strengthen the existing powers of the bourgeoisie. The Gramscian notion of hegemony and Althusser’s concept of ISA (Ideological State Apparatus) may be getting reinforced by ICTs for social reproduction of the capitalist relations of production. After engaging with such issues, this paper surmises that the nature of the relation between capital and labour in the post-industrial information age is qualitatively different from the earlier industrial age. But nevertheless, it concludes that the possibilities of labour getting into a more just relation with capital and in the process bring about a more equitable global social order still exists.

Name: Timothy Waligore
Section: Political Theory
Professional Email: twaligore@pace.edu
Professional Status: Assistant Professor
Institution: Pace University
Scheduling Preference: Saturday Afternoon
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title: Structural Injustice and Backward-Looking Historical Responsibilities
Abstract:
While prospective distributive justice approaches like Ronald Dworkin’s are forward-looking, and historical entitlement approaches like Robert Nozick’s are backward-looking, Iris Marion Young seems to steer a third path, looking at structural disadvantage that persists over time. I critically examine the work of Young, and those inspired by her work, such as Catherine Lu and Lea Ypi, asking what are the implications for her approach for redressing past injustice, specifically claims by indigenous peoples. For Young, what is ultimately important is forward-looking responsibility for political reform of unjust structures. Young accords responsibility to participants in unjust structures without particular reference to the parties who caused or who have benefited from the historical injustice per se. History matters in the sense that structural processes are historical, but the thrust of the approach seems largely to say that once structural disadvantage is ended, the claim that special remedies based on historical injustice are owed will also end. Given this seemingly forward-looking approach, are land claims or other claims for dispossessed indigenous peoples valid; and if so, might they be valid only in order to alleviate structural injustice? I first review three important approaches to historical injustice: forward looking approaches based on distributive justice; backward looking approaches based on historical entitlements and unjust interaction; and approaches based on structural injustice that has endured through time up to the present (and are likely to persist if nothing is done). I argue that, in the wake of past injustice, the first approach can justify what looks like a turn to the second approach. Can it also be said that similarly, the third approach can, in the wake of past injustice, justify what looks like a turn to the second approach? Can the structural injustice approach justify historical entitlement claims or other claims based on a backward looking perspective? I will ultimately argue that yes, a history of structural injustice can justify more and/or different backward looking duties than would otherwise occur absent past unjust history. To get a grasp on Young’s theory, I then explain in more detail Young’s idea of structure and structural disadvantage and her idea of responsibility. I then discuss Ronald Dworkin’s idea of “expensive tastes” and how this will shape the debate on land claims. Claims to large amounts of land based on particular ways of life and attachment to those lands cannot be justified under Dworkin’s theory of equality of resources; claims for the return of land then seem to be a problem for some theories in the first approach. I also examine corresponding ideas that provide limitations to claims based on attachment and ways of life in the second and third approach. I then go into detail regarding Lea Ypi’s argument that claims to particular things or particular ways of life is best based not on the fact of particular attachment itself, but on structural disadvantage. She argues that structural disadvantage may lead to remedial duties, which might take the form of recognizing claims that involve particular attachments to land. Other remedial duties might involve claims to self-government. I will examine and take issue with parts of Ypi’s arguments. I will suggest that we have duties beyond simply remedial duties to alleviate structural disadvantage. Alternatively, how we measure and conceive of structural disadvantage amounts to, and how we ought to remedy it, is affected by historical injustice.

Name: Coleen Watson
Section: Political Theory
Professional Email: cwatson4@binghamton.edu
Professional Status: Graduate Student
Institution: Binghamton University
Scheduling Preference: Friday Afternoon
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title:  The Normative Grounds of State Sovereignty and Epistemic Authority
Abstract:
Philosophical and legal principles of sovereignty are largely grounded by normative claims to nonintervention, self-determination, and legitimacy of governance. While many thinkers take a strong stand on upholding rights to state sovereignty, exceptions are often made when a government shows imminent danger of massacring or enslaving its own citizens. This paper will explore how research in mass atrocity prevention, and social epistemology ought to influence principles of state sovereignty in order to account for the dangers epistemic authorities can pose to local populations, and officially recognized states. Many populations are often very vulnerable to being manipulated into engaging in, or being the victims of, mass atrocity events, not simply because a leader whips up their emotions but because they rely on a relationship of epistemic dependence with local authorities. In focusing so heavily on nonintervention, much theorizing on principles of sovereignty have failed to account for the tight sway epistemic authorities can have in manipulating citizens and potential victims of tragedy. At least one case where this approach may apply, are where weak states have created regional instability leading to territorial take over by, often violent, non-state actors that ignore official state governance, and gain legitimizing support from local populations. These groups frequently claim that it is their sovereignty, rather than the failed governance of the official state that should count. Especially when such groups are more effective at allocating resources to locals and creating needed infrastructure than recognized governments are. In these cases, the leaders of these groups pose particular dangers in that they gain trust of locals by controlling and allocating needed resources, while also intensely disseminating dangerous ideologies and narratives, thus placing them in a position of epistemic authority. These concerns are posed by both dictatorial leadership of recognized governments, and by non-state actor groups. Conventional rights based principles of sovereignty need not be completely thrown out in favor of more utilitarian interventionist principles, rather, by accounting for the dramatic influence epistemic authorities can have over those people caught in their sphere, these principles may gain nuance in understanding why rights to non-interference are so delicate for the international community to uphold. Some of the empirical and philosophical work drawn from will be from Jonathan Leader Maynard, Michael Walzer, and Larry May.

Name: Robert Whelan
Section: Political Theory
Professional Email: rwhelan1@binghamton.edu
Professional Status: Graduate Student
Institution: SUNY Binghamton
Scheduling Preference: Friday Afternoon
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title: The Costs and Benefits of Prosecution: An Attempt to Justify the Costs of Amnesty to Human Security
Abstract:
Typically, given considerations of state security, a ‘principle of limited prosecutorial selection’ is adopted after large-scale conflicts have occurred. According to this principle prosecutions for violations of International Criminal Law should be limited to those in command positions while lower-level perpetrators are typically granted amnesty and incorporated into Disarmament Demobilization and Reintegration practices. Though a legal measure, amnesties are granted to secure the political end of security by incentivising beneficiaries to cease hostilities. Justifying the forgoing of prosecutions to secure such political ends typically relies on an appeal to aggregation; overall the expected benefit of social stability to be achieved through the disarmament of perpetrators is understood to outweigh the expected costs. Beginning from the assumption that there are strong moral reasons to adopt a ‘human security’ focus in the design of post-conflict peacebuilding strategies, I will argue that the moral justification for adopting a ‘principle of limited selection’ fails when it relies upon an appeal to aggregation. Part of the concern is that the costs associated with the adoption of such principles will be unevenly distributed. Such costs range from the threats to individual security entailed by the risks of recidivism to the normative costs incurred when the state fails to uphold its obligations to address instances of injustice against its citizens. As these costs will be unequally shared, certain citizens can expect to individually bear costs that are greater than the gains any other citizen can individually expect to receive. Those who expect to be placed at a net-disadvantage can object that adopting a principle of limited prosecutorial selection morally wrongs them as it imposes unreasonable burdens on them in order to secure aggregate benefits. However, the attempt to increase prosecutions would generate excessive material and strategic costs, such as motivating belligerents to return to hostilities, that a fragile state will be ill-equipped to manage. From the state’s perspective such a strategy would only destabilize the society, forgoing the political benefits to be gained from reduced prosecutions. Therefore, there are clear tensions between the state’s interest in maintaining security and the normative and legal arguments of international actors, who claim that state sovereignty is predicated on the responsibility to protect individual citizens. As increased prosecutions are not viable it is necessary to provide a justification for why the principle of limited selection does not morally wrong those affected. To advance this argument I will draw on Thomas Scanlon’s contractualist moral theory, developed in What We Owe to Each Other (1998). On Scanlon’s account justifying a principle requires the associated costs to be justified to each individual that is expected to bear them and not simply to the aggregate of citizens. A principle can be considered justified when each person affected has no reasonable objection strong enough to favour an alternative principle. By adopting the contractualist account it is possible to ensure that peacebuilding strategies can be used to achieve political goals in a way that is consistent with the normative constraints entailed by a ‘human security’ focus.