The relationship between central and local governments is a universally complex issue of paramount importance within the framework of national governance systems. It encompasses multiple dimensions, including political stability, economic development, and social harmony. Amidst the dual trends of globalization and localization, the balancing of power between central and local authorities has emerged as a key concern for both governmental bodies and academic scholars. This is particularly salient in Latin America, where, despite the predominance of federal systems, local governments often find their powers eroded by central authorities, leading to a discrepancy between normative expectations and empirical realities. Since the early 1980s, Mexico has undergone five distinct phases of central-local relations, ranging from centralization to initial devolution, followed by power equilibrium, competition, and a new complexity of power dynamics. These shifts reflect the specific political, economic, and social contexts that have shaped central and local power relations.
Decentralization has become a significant governance model in the Global South, yet its implementation continues to face widespread challenges of ineffectiveness. This paper is divided into two main parts. The first part briefly introduces the concept of decentralization and its promotion in African regions, followed by an overview of the historical implementation of decentralization policies in Madagascar and the characteristics of decentralization at various stages. It is evident that the current decentralization in Madagascar has not achieved the intended institutional outcomes. The second part provides a progressive analysis of the failures in Madagascar’s decentralization, arguing that beyond the explanations of weak state capacity and political system flaws, understanding these failures requires recognizing the gap between decentralization as an institutional design and its practical implementation. Moreover, the attempt to balance democracy, freedom, and efficiency within decentralization has led to deep-seated internal contradictions among the three dimensions of decentralization.
In the mid-19th century, British expansion on the Indian subcontinent reached its zenith, culminating in the collapse of the Sikh Empire following two Anglo-Sikh Wars in 1849. Under colonial suppression and the influence of other religions, traditional Sikh society underwent significant disintegration, leading to the erosion of Sikh faith and an identity crisis for the Sikh community regarding the survival of their national identity. To reconstruct their identity, the Sikh community adopted a dual strategy of resistance and transformation. On one hand, they resisted colonial rule through military struggles and self-organized efforts, asserting their independent identity and reinforcing religious cohesion through the Singh Sabha Movement. On the other hand, they implemented reforms in education, economic practices, and religious culture within Sikh society, integrating elements of modernization and fostering national solidarity. This dual strategy effectively addressed the identity crisis and redefined Sikh national identity, although it could not alter the colonial disruption of Sikh aspirations for independence. Analyzing the dual strategy of anti-colonial resistance and reform within the Sikh community sheds light on the trajectory of the Sikh independence movement and provides valuable insights into the cultural and historical dynamics of the Indian subcontinent.
In recent years, the interplay of unprecedented global shifts and the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly reshaped the global landscape and regional dynamics. Governance in the Eurasian region has witnessed notable transformations, including the proliferation of actors, sectoral differentiation, subregional fragmentation, institutional layering, and frequent crises. These developments signify new trends in the evolution of regional governance. The transformation of Eurasian governance is influenced by the broader shifts in global governance and shaped by the region’s unique geographical characteristics and developmental context. Amidst intensifying great power competition, rapid technological advancements, the emergence of global challenges, and increasing regional complexities, governance in Eurasia faces multifaceted challenges. From a comparative regional perspective, Eurasian governance exhibits the dual characteristics of simultaneous governance construction and transformation. Its prospects are closely tied to great power coordination and the enhancement of regional cooperation.
The specific and compact geographical space of the “Asian Sea” provides us with a new field for regional country studies. Since ancient times, the Asian Sea has not only been a complete geographical space, but also a continuous and dynamic economic, social, and cultural region, with extremely high value for regional country studies. The RCEP, which took effect in 2022, has further promoted the process of regionalization in the Asian Sea area. As the dominant country in the Asian Sea region, China should actively play a role as a political, economic, and cultural link in the Asian Sea region, and promptly establish awareness of regionalization in the Asian Sea, study the international maritime law system and enhance maritime governance, and establish an overall strategic view to resolve conflicts within the region.
This article argues that the field of Public Administration would benefit from greater engagement with and incorporation of an Area Studies sensibility. It begins with a recognition that the main stream of Public Administration remains stubbornly Western-centric, both in the selection of cases and in the theoretical approaches taken to study non- Western bureaucracies. However, the rise of new developmentalism as a guiding logic for state transformation in the Global South is creating new activist - and in some states, politicised - public sector agencies, which seek to transform production and raise living standards, directly intervening in the lives of citizens. Yet the frameworks of mainstream Public Administration have not adequately captured this trend. I argue that in order to build empirically grounded theories of public administration, we need to combine a street-level bureaucracy framework with an Area Studies perspective. Such an approach will allow us to better understand how local official articulate policies to citizens, how power is reproduced and negotiated and, ultimately, how developmental objectives are realised or compromised. The paper ends with an example of how an Area Studies perspective on developmental bureaucracies can be deployed in practice.
This paper is a review of Mostafa Minawi’s Losing Istanbul: Arab-Ottoman Imperialists and the End of Empire. By focusing on the lives and careers of two Syrian elites in Istanbul, Sadik and Shafik, Minawi’s book illustrates the rise and fall of an Arabic-speaking community in late Ottoman Istanbul. In doing so, it highlights the diversity and inclusiveness of the late Ottoman Empire—an aspect often overlooked in previous scholarship. This review argues that the book makes significant contributions in two areas. First, it offers an innovative approach to writing biography. Second, it establishes the Arab elite community of the late Ottoman period as an independent subject of study. Beyond academia, the book serves as a window for readers to explore the emergence of a “neo-Ottomanist” perspective in the study of late Ottoman history. It also prompts readers to reflect on potential connections between this academic trend and the “neo-Ottomanist” policies in contemporary Türkiye. One limitation of the book, however, is its lack of discussion regarding the representativeness of the two central figures it examines. Nevertheless, Losing Istanbul is a remarkable historical monograph that is well worth reading.
Host: Institute for International and Area Studies Address: Room 902, Building C, Tsinghua Science and Technology Park, Haidian District, Beijing Postcode: 100084 Tel: (010) 62780635 Email: areastudies@tsinghua.edu.cn