2007

2006–2007 LBJ Journal of Public Affairs Editorial Board

The military is undeniably the most popular institution in Turkey. Seen as the protectors of Atatürk’s legacy and famously non-corrupt, the Turkish military challenges the belief that people enjoy less democratic freedoms in countries where militaries are strong. Decades of harsh military dictatorships in countries such as Chile, Paraguay, and Argentina have given politically involved militaries worldwide a well-deserved negative image. The Turkish military is a rare exception to this norm. For over 80 years, it has established a reputation as the protector of secularism and an advocate for democracy. It has never wished to govern the country, but rather to “guide Turkey on a steady course toward social progress and the embrace of universal ideals.”¹ Ironically, this goal requires that it play an intricate role in Turkish public life, in effect meaning that Turkey is not yet a true democracy.

The question over who or what governs the Internet is a hotly debated topic in the U.S. and internationally. Many are under the impression that the Internet is not governed or regulated. This is not the case, though, since organization and administration is necessary to ensure smooth functioning of the Internet.¹ This includes oversight of domain names, root servers, and the accompanying name registration services, among other important maintenance functions. For most people, these functions seem technical and non-political—mere formalities in a system that allows for universal participation in global financial markets, online educational tools, increased communication, and many other helpful and empowering functions. However, since the United States’ decision in 1998 to incorporate Internet governance into the responsibilities of the Department of Commerce,² many people have questioned the legitimacy, accountability, and transparency of such an entity with direct control over a global information and communications network. Critics argue that technical decisions are indeed political and embedded in U.S. politics and history.

On September 29, 2006, the 109th United States Congress approved building a fence along a major section of the U.S.-Mexico border. The price tag of the fence is up for debate—estimates range from the $1.2 billion approved by Congress to over $7 billion in materials to erect the structure. Yet there are also inherent costs and benefits to this immigration policy that go beyond the price of materials. This article examines the costs and benefits of three major types of immigration reform initiatives—enforcement, legalization, and guestworker programs— from a market failure perspective.

Developed countries have experienced widening yet uneven wage differentials in the globalization era since the 1980s. What explains these varying degrees of wage inequality in those countries? By employing time-series cross-section analyses of 12 OECD countries from 1970 to 1992, I found that leftist partisanship and dense labor organization tend to reduce the wage inequality, even when controlling for other relevant variables such as inflation, unemployment, GDP per capita, trade, and capital liberalization.

The study of the relationship between migration and development has found a new audience in the last decade. Much of the interest on this topic stems from a rapid growth in economic remittance flows, which have caught the attention of political, multilateral, and academic actors. An Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) report estimated that the Latin American region received $20 billion in remittances in the year 2000 alone.¹ While the IDB and other development institutions explore ways to effectively manage these financial flows, academic scholars of migration are increasingly focused on understanding the real impact of such remittances on development. An equally important dimension of these discussions is the social and cultural implication of remittances.² Often overlooked by financial institutions, the ideas, practices, identities, and social capital that migrants remit home also contribute to the intricate relationship between migrants and their home communities.³

A nationwide movement has been taking shape in the last decade to re-emphasize passenger rail as a transportation mode. A key to this movement is the concept of transit-oriented development (TOD), the idea that the land near a transit stop should be developed in a dense, mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly, transit-supportive manner. Planning TODs to increase ridership, succeed economically and “create good places” is vital to the success and expansion of current and future passenger rail systems. A proven way to achieve these goals is to provide the proper mix and location of land uses and levels of density for each specific TOD. What are the factors affecting land use composition and development intensity? That is the topic of this discussion.

The remarkable growth of India’s economy would seem to offer Japanese companies the opportunity to move into a new market and take advantage of India’s skilled labor force. This relationship, when measured in terms of the total volume of trade between the two countries, however, appears to be relatively insignificant. In the 1990s, Japanese trade with India did not significantly increase and levels of investment in India remained much lower than investment in China and other countries in Asia. Japanese political leaders, sensing that Japan and India are failing to capitalize on a potentially mutually beneficial relationship, have lamented the weak economic ties between the two countries. “The trade and investment level of Japan-India economic relations is far too small considering the presence of the nations in Asia,” Japanese Trade Minister Toshihiro Nikai stated in July 2006.¹

Microfinance has proven to be an effective tool in promoting sustainable economic development in the poverty-stricken Third World. Recently, it has also shown itself to be a viably profitable enterprise. Large commercial banks have begun to enter the microfinance sector by “downscaling” their services such as lending and savings accounts to low-income clients.

Most people would say this is the age of globalization. I prefer “interdependence,” because “globalization” has largely an economic connotation. Interdependence goes beyond economics to culture, communications, travel, immigration, politics, war, peace, and it can be positive or negative or both. It simply means we can’t escape each other.