Journal of Human Security

Abstract: Dear Reader, “Are we nuts?“ asked recently one of my favourite bloggers. She was referring to human behaviour that contravened the actor’s own explicit interests, as routinely reported in a cross-section of the average daily news. Her deceivingly simple question can be interpreted at the individual level (e.g. junk food) and the collective levels (e.g. gun use), applied to the short or longer term, to human nature as it manifested historically or to human behaviour at the present time. Her question could also have been directed at events not usually covered by the mainstream media, such as ecology and population issues, or the fact that the world’s most powerful country is now governed by a kakistocracy [1,2]. But even without singling out its worst offenders, collective policies around the world show a deplorable lack of scientific reason[3].

Abstract: Amongst Global South nations grappling with the problems of both food security and poverty relief, two of the largest are Brazil and India. Though the nations of course differ in a host of socioeconomic, cultural and geopolitical respects, they do face similar problems of sharp income inequality, displacement of rural populations into cities and increasing battles over land and agricultural ownership. At the same time, both countries have had, until recently, a long period of sustained economic growth, as well as centre-left governments (the Workers’ Party in the case of Brazil, the Indian National Congress in the case of India), attempting to spread the benefits of that growth to a wider social strata. The differential approaches that the social security systems in each nation took in attempting to address the problem of food security are, therefore, instructive in understanding how these questions should be approached on a policy level. Though of course constrained in each case by differing economic and political contexts, as well as path dependencies within each country’s existing social protection regime, there are lessons in their successes and failures. Moreover, an approach which would recognize the best aspects of each policy program could be instrumental in designing a food security policy which reconciles institutional and individual problem levels. This paper will examine the political logics which informed both approaches, with an eye to seeing how these were played out in their concrete effects as implemented.

Abstract: Debates on human insecurities are crucial in a changing world that witnesses high social inequality, degradation of environment, social tensions and a growing violation of human rights. Unfortunately, all these issues permeate the social structures of Southeast Asian countries in different ways. In that region civil society faces problems that are diverse, as seen in the political tensions in Thailand, the deterritorialization of indigenous peoples in Philippines and Malaysia, human rights violations in Myanmar, and numerous other challenges. Such setting demands different approaches from institutions and communities to overcome pending risks threatening their populations.

Abstract:

Do refugee inflows have an effect on state fragility? In this article I examine whether refugee inflows, commonly associated in the literature with economic and cultural pressures, result in a more fragile state by means of increased violent group grievance. Violent group grievance captures a distinct form of intrastate violence, specifically small-scale hate crimes and ethnic group clashes associated with powerlessness and discrimination. The main hypothesis in this paper is that refugee inflows may increase violent group grievance.

I examine the effect of refugee inflows on the level of domestic violent group grievance using quantitative analyses based on original large-N datasets and cross-sectional longitudinal models to fill gaps in the literature on state fragility. This study controls for alternative explanations and covers the time period between 2006 and 2014. The analysis results confirm the main hypothesis of this paper.

Abstract: Seldom have I come across a book that incited in me conflicting reactions of such intensity. They stem from Murray’s reporting of facts—necessarily selective but shockingly effective; his conceptual analysis—eye-opening where it works but shallow and incomplete in other places; his conclusions—shattering mainstream platitudes and mis- conceptions but at times suffering from a narrowness of worldview and a dearth of historical perspective, not to mention a problematic interpretation of human security.