The United States resisted restrictionist immigration legislation in the late twentieth century, providing an anomaly for those who would expect restrictionism in times of economic recession. According to some expectations, labor unions would be part of a coalition that in such times would restrict migration to reduce job competition. This reasoning draws on a state-centric approach and assumes that effective barriers to entrance exist. If one alternatively assumes that states cannot fully regulate the socioeconomic forces driving migration flows, then one may expect labor unions to abandon their supposed preference for restrictionism and instead organize immigrant workers. In that case, unions would prefer migration law that accommodates the transnational migrants' interests. The data provide some support for this argument. The perspective of complex interdependence, which emphasizes transnational relations and the blurring of foreign and domestic politics, can enhance understanding of immigration policymaking.
The international political economy literature on regimes has focused on relations among the industrialized Western countries. Despite the increasing participation of East European countries in international economic organizations, the literature has neglected the subject of East–West economic relations. To redress this void in the literature, this article assesses the extent to which and the conditions under which realism, mercantilism, and regime theory help explain the Western positions toward negotiations between East European countries and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). It argues that a thorough explanation requires drawing on insights from all three modes of analysis: realism provides a useful starting point and sets the context, while mercantilism and regime theory enrich the explanation in circumstances in which political issues concerning security subside and trade policy issues surface.
One might expect governments to react to deepening European integration since the mid-1980s by updating national school curricula in social science subjects such as history and geography so as to reflect the new realities. France has done so, whereas England has not. This study asks how one explains this variation in outcome. Established explanations for why Britain has been a more reluctant European than France on other issues provide a useful starting point. However, a more thorough explanation for the outcome on this issue is gained by instead looking at the role of historical legacies in education (“laissez-faire” and decentralization in England and “faire” and centralization in France) that date back to the beginnings of the spread of mass education in the 19th century. These unique national legacies served as a prism through which Europeanization was filtered, and this contributes to an understanding for the variation in contemporary curricula content.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.