![]() ![]() This analysis will shed light on the main characteristics of the Obama administration’s response to the economic crisis. To understand the inadequacies of the US social protection system, it is necessary to study the structure of public assistance programmes, as well as labour market trends and the impact of the recession on low-income households. The Great Recession has laid bare the gaps of the safety net: a growing proportion of families must choose between paying for food or rent. However, the Obama administration faces the challenge of rising social inequality and poverty, in an extremely difficult economic context. President Obama has been elected on the promise that he will restore the American dream, whereby individual work is rewarded by upward social mobility. However, to have a job is no longer sufficient in protecting individuals against main social risks. ![]() The social contract is based on the idea that individuals of working age individuals should support themselves and their dependants thanks to their earned income. The social policy of the US welfare state is based on a liberal model of social protection. They reinforce preexisting beliefs, create focal points, and operate as blinders when, inevitably, the future breaks away from its linear path. Claims about the future have a strong tunneling effect. Third, it underlines a paradox: scenarios and predictions create surprises. Second, the paper shows that think tanks are also "victims of groupthink", especially when they make claims about the future. This future also contributes to the continuity of political decisions. First, it shows that, for epistemic but also for political reasons, the future imagined in think tanks is relatively stable and linear. The paper highlights three main features of the relation between those who make claims about the future of security and those to whom these claims are addressed (mainly policymakers). ![]() Moreover, the range of issues they focus on is also relatively narrow. The paradigms analysts use when they study international politics are very similar. The DC's marketplace of the future lacks diversity. It underlines the characteristics of this epistemic community that influence the way its analysts make claims about the future for security. What kind of future worlds do experts of international security envision? This paper studies the role of experts in DC's think tanks, a relatively small world socially and culturally highly homogeneous. These conflicting interest, however, do not necessary means the end of the relationship. ![]() Finally, Obama violated Pakistani sovereignty (the Drone strikes in the tribal belt and the Ben Laden raid). Then Islamabad protected the Taliban in its fight with NATO. To begin with, the strengthening of US-India relations angered Pakistan. But not even in the area of security have the two nations been able truly to collaborate. However, Obama rain into resistance from the Pakistani army and from the national security establishment in Washington- as can be seen from the security-oriented distribution of US aid. The US tried to renew this relationship after 9/11, although when Obama replaced GW Bush he stated his intention to move US-Pakistani relations off the security agenda which the Pentagone and the Pakistani army considered a priority. The high point in this relationship was during the Soviet-Afghan war. During the Cold War the US-Pakistan relationship was one in which the US considered Pakistan as a necessary part of its effort to contain communism in Asia while Pakistan considered its relationship with the US as strengthening its position vis a vis India. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |