World Sociopolitical Studies

Following the independence of 1947, India adhered to a mixed model of nationalist and socialist policies in the early years, with protectionism and closed-borders attitude dominating its approach to foreign relations and global economy. In the aftermath of the economically precarious circumstances during the 1980s, and the subsequent economic crisis in the early 1990s, paradigmatic reforms, widely known as liberalization, were officially announced. However, considering Indian liberalization as a gradually evolving process, rather than a one-off project, this paper intends to take a political economy approach and employ historical analysis in order to scrutinize the pre-1991 contextual trajectory through which India underwent liberalizing its economy. The paper explicates the implemented economic approaches by studying the key primary sources, the Five-Year Plans in particular, and the relevant secondary sources. The authors propound the notion that India, since its independence till the early 1990s, appears caught in a cycle of oscillations between protective measures on one hand and attempts to move towards a liberalized economy on the other. The statist model of development that overwhelmingly disfavored interaction with the global economy at the outset was gradually replaced by a decentralized model that sought to open up the Indian economy to the world.

The anti-American inclination of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s foreign policy-making is well established, and the bitter aspects of the two nation’s history well known. However, to assert a simple causal relationship between history and foreign-policy structure portrays the Islamic Republic’s anti-Americanism as inevitable, eternal and unrelated to actors’ agency. This article disputes this simple structural understanding by drawing on Greener’s method of applying path-dependency theory to political science. We first identify the ideas and structure of revolutionary Iran, benefiting in particular from the complementary insights of postcolonial theory. Following, we examine US policy choices in the Islamic Republic’s formative period of 1978–79—specifically those related to human rights, the shah and direct US intervention—and how these were perceived and acted upon in Tehran. Our findings indicate that American actions and Iranian decisions both influenced the establishment of a path-dependent process of perception and perpetration that continues until today. Successive Iranian governments have asserted that America ignores Iranian’s human rights, supports their enemies, and pursues direct intervention, while successive US government actions, motivated by Iranian counter-actions, have generated ample evidence to validate such claims. This can explain how a spiral of distrust emerged between the two nations.

American Dream is a national ethos of the United States, which was first coined by James Truslow Adams in the 20 th century, meaning everyone should have the opportunity to reach what s/he desires according to his/her abilities and attempts. Although the concept of American Dream existed from the beginning days of the establishment of the United States, it has undergone significant changes throughout the country’s history. This study investigates the effect of the financialization of the economy (the increase of the importance and the size of the financial sector relative to the entire economy) in the 21 st century on the three key elements of the American Dream—homeownership, employment, and income—from George Bush’s presidency in 2001 to the end of Barack Obama's presidency in 2016. The theoretical framework of the study is the American Dream Theory and the financialization of capitalization, and its methodology consists of a qualitative historical analysis. The result of the study indicate that financialization of the economy in the 21 st century caused the American Dream to become more financialized: while presidents Bush and Obama promised to realize American Dream for all Americans, in practice, their administration policies were more in the interest of financial institutions and the rich, rather than low and middle-class Americans.

This research seeks to answer the question “what factors affect Iranian people’s adaptation to the changes in their social welfare under the imposed sanctions?” To this end, a survey methodology based on two theories of Sanctions Acceptance Model (SAM) and Ulrich Beck’s theory of risk society is employed to analyze the opinions of 135 respondents who are experts in the fields of economic sciences, economic resistance, economic development, and sociology of development. The results reveal that government organizations and institutions play a major role in assisting people in their adaptation to the conditions resultant from the sanctions. In the next step, the context of the sanctions was addressed in relation to the characteristics of the imposed sanctions. These characteristics, namely the target of the sanctions, the duration of the sanctions, the depth of the impact of the sanctions, threat or imposition of sanctions, and the unilateral or multilateral nature of sanctions play a major role in Iranian people’s level of acceptance regarding the changes in their social welfare. Individuals are another important group whose mentalities and perceptions are affected by the imposed sanctions.

As a theoretical treatise, the present article brings to light the applicability of constructivism to the study of think tanks as ideational agents actively participating in the construction of ideational structures that constitute American identity, interests, and policies. It is argued that when discussing think tanks’ production of expertise and policy advice on U.S. relations with the Muslim world, American exceptionalism and Orientalism operate as two interconnected ideational structures influencing the process. Based on a constructivist framework, an investigation into the role of think tanks in U.S. foreign policy should not begin at the final stage of policy formation; rather, it is necessary to look into how think tanks influence the process of policy making at the ideational level. As such, the characteristics of U.S. foreign policy toward the Muslim world will remain unchanged as long as there is an ideational commitment to the creed of American exceptionalism; that is to say, as long as American exceptionalism constitutes American identity, American interest, and thus American foreign policy behavior toward the Muslim world. Think tanks, as the special focal points at the intersection of the political realm, the academia, and the media, serve as the hubs of American exceptionalism and Orientalism. As long as this dual creed is continually reproduced in the think tank world, it is logical to conclude that no change is in sight with regard to U.S. foreign policy and American unilateral interventionism in the Muslim world. A break with American exceptionalism and Orientalism in the think tank world, in turn, would signal the beginning of a new era in the operation of American foreign policy.

This article aims at examining Russia's relations with the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) and Moscow's motives and goals for the establishment and enhancement of those ties. We explore Russia's worldview to position the Middle East and Hamas in a pre-established frame, subsequently examining the reasons behind the development of these relationships. This article sets out to answer a two-fold question: What has been Russia's aim of receiving Hamas leaders and establishing high-level relations with this movement since 2006, and what components have influenced these interactions at international and regional levels? The paper argues that Russia considers its relations with Muslim nations and movements not only a foreign policy principle but also a domestic issue. Hence, it seeks to take advantage of the U.S. retrenchment from the region to expand its influence, play a mediatory role in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and elevate its reputation among Muslims inside and outside the country. Recognizing Hamas' position, Russia resolved to develop its ties with Hamas' leaders, started negotiating with all the parties in the Palestinian national reconciliation process, and provided political, economic, cultural, financial, and security support to eventually affect Hamas' stance vis-à-vis Israel.