Think Tanks and Non-Traditional Security

Zimmerman, Erin

doi:10.1057/9781137488251_3

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Discursive spaces provide a forum for different actors involved in the subject of inquiry to have their voices heard (Hardy and Maguire 2010). They might be open to all relevant actors, for example, online communities in the blogosphere (Chittenden 2010), or more tightly bounded groups of heterogeneous actors, for example, think tanks (Zimmerman 2016) or instrument constituencies. Instrument constituencies such as the SITF, can thus function (initially) as a forum for different views to be debated, and for relevant policy instruments to be developed (Simons and Voss 2018).…”

Section: Methodological Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic persistence in UK policy making: the evolution of social investment ideas and policy instruments

Teasdale

2019

Public Management Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Proponents of policy instruments often have to justify them to shifting political masters. This article explores the evolution of social investment, both as a policy solution and a set of policy instruments, during a period characterized by political turbulence. Discourse analysis of texts produced by an instrument constituency shows how a constant set of policy instruments are framed as a changing solution to different political problems. This helps us develop the concept of dynamic persistence, which elaborates how the instrument constituency was able to maintain support for their policy instruments by realigning them to different ideological principles.

show abstract

Section: Methodological Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic persistence in UK policy making: the evolution of social investment ideas and policy instruments

Teasdale

2019

Public Management Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, prior to institutionalisation the think tank will be engaged in networking, problem framing, agenda setting and creating discursive space to ensure political momentum before they begin the process (Zimmerman, 2016). Selznick (1957) argues that the degree of institutionalisation is dependent upon the flexibility there is for personal and group participation among social actors.…”

Section: Theoretical Framework: Institutional Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

The origins of policy ideas: The importance of think tanks in the enterprise policy process in the UK

Arshed

2017

Journal of Business Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The division into traditional and non-traditional threats echoes the realist take on security, focusing on how tangible security threats are: Traditional threats endanger the state in a conventional, somewhat military capacity (Jones & Hameiri, 2021;Swanström, 2010). When traditional security is discussed, it implies that the state is under a threat that can be processed within existing state security frameworks (Zimmerman, 2016). Therefore, the state would manage the danger because it holds the mandate for state security.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Terrorism can be (and often is) contemplated as a non-traditional threat because of its transnational nature and the involvement of non-state actors (Zimmerman, 2016). However, terrorism-related violence, economic and political disarray, and casualties that terrorism brings can be comparable to war in its devastating consequences.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining Terrorism: how Ambiguous Definitions and Vague Classifications Open Doors for Power Acquisition

Mahon

2022

JGSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, I want to reflect on the difficulty of categorising the threat of terrorism within existing security frameworks and our theorising of threat assessment. As more types of terrorism get academic and political attention, various state and non-state actors use terrorist tactics or borrow some elements of terrorism to achieve their agenda. This article discusses the difficulties surrounding terrorist threat classification and how it perplexes our understanding of terrorism and counterterrorism. What have we learned over more than twenty years of researching terrorism? Terrorism is often conceptualised as both a traditional and non-traditional threat, complicating the execution of counterterrorism strategies. This ambiguity creates the need for a "special treatment" of the terrorist threat in politics proportionate to its importance, and it bears the danger of fostering opportunities for power abuse. This article reflects on different ways of categorising the threat of terrorism, showing that terrorism is multifaced, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach to defining and fighting terrorism. However, I also argue that there is a danger of assigning terrorism an extralegal status and exclusive priority, resulting in power abuse and restrictions of people's rights and freedoms.

show abstract

Think Tanks and Non-Traditional Security

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Dynamic persistence in UK policy making: the evolution of social investment ideas and policy instruments

Dynamic persistence in UK policy making: the evolution of social investment ideas and policy instruments

The origins of policy ideas: The importance of think tanks in the enterprise policy process in the UK

Defining Terrorism: how Ambiguous Definitions and Vague Classifications Open Doors for Power Acquisition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About