This paper examines the consociational approach to the study of deeply divided societies and notes its weaknesses. It argues that the absence of a well-developed alternative “control” approach to the explanation of stability in deeply divided societies has resulted in the empirical overextension of consociational models. Control models, focusing on how superordinate groups manipulate subordinate groups rather than on the emergence and functioning of elite cartels, need to be developed—not only for the study of stable, deeply divided societies in which consociational models are inappropriate, but also as a means of eliminating certain theoretical problems that have been raised as criticisms of consociationalism. The paper includes a critical review of the literature that is available to guide study of control in deeply divided societies, and concludes with recommendations for the shape of an analytical framework within systematic comparison.

The decision to use and develop a low-status language in translations and creative works is often based on a desire to provide symbols that will assist the efforts of political leaders to challenge existing national and ethnic frontiers and to create new groups loyal to different institutions. New frontiers alter the relationships between peoples and also affect patterns of access to power and wealth within a group. Writers, translators, dictionary makers, and other literary figures who innovate for this reason should be called “language strategists.” Although primarily moved by a creative and artistic spirit, these persons are often intimately associated with national and ethnic movements because they share the interests of the political elites who lead them. This conscious or unconscious alliance is essential in the creation of ethnic and national identities.

Most concepts of ethnicity are unsuitable for political analysis because they ignore either subjective or objective aspects, and because they ignore the fluid and situational nature of ethnicity. The approach flowing from the concept proposed here permits the observer to examine empirical variations that tend to be treated as rigid assumptions by modernization analysts on the one hand and class analysts on the other. The concept is applied to a study of the Nubians of Uganda because of the intermixture of class and ethnic features involved in their fall from status at the beginning of the colonial period and their subsequent sudden rise following the 1071 coup d'état of Idi Amin. The fairly recent creation of the Nubians as an ethnic category and the relative ease with which others can become members illustrate other features of the proposed concept of ethnicity. Finally, this concept is used to examine and criticize overly restrictive notions of ethnicity found in theories based upon both cultural pluralism and consociationalism.

Integrated rural development has become the focus of growth with equity policies in developing countries. Evaluations of development programs and plans over the past two decades indicate that little change can be achieved in developing societies through single purpose policy interventions and that diversified and integrated programs aimed at increasing agricultural productivity and dispersing directly productive and social overhead investments in rural regions are essential for socially equitable economic growth. Because of their importance to emerging development strategies, this paper identifies and analyzes the political and administrative problems of planning and implementing integrated rural development programs. It reflects a sympathetic but skeptical view of the prospects for achieving rural development without fundamental political and administrative reforms. It suggests that unless governments in developing countries and international assistance agencies can resolve three crucial problems—those of mobilizing political commitment, restructuring administrative arrangements, and delivering basic services to the rural poor—integrated rural development may go the way of all previous development fads, and have little impact on intended beneficiaries.

American strategic theorists used to urge that the United States adopt a Clausewitzian point of view on international conflict, that we treat war as something undertaken to serve the larger aims of policy, with the conduct of war subordinated to the larger considerations of policy. Under contemporary conditions, however, this notion of warfare is not appropriate. The experience of warfare since the time of Clausewitz shows that his distinction between war in the abstract and war in the concrete is not any kind of dialectical unity; rather, political war and total war (the concrete manifestation of Clausewitz's war in the abstract) are two distinct phenomena, and our technological and ideological positions discourage political war. War is no longer an instrument of state policy, a means whereby those who rule the state attain their values; instead, it is increasingly the fact or possibility of war which determines the values of the state.

Five texts on mathematical modeling in the social sciences which have appeared within the last five years are described and evaluated. The analysis of the texts proceeds by considering such issues as the mathematical background required, general readability, ability of the text to train the reader to develop his own models, consideration of important philosophical issues inherent in modeling, and the types—substantive and mathematical—of models covered. The goal of the review is to pinpoint those texts, or parts of texts, that are most useful to the researcher in international relations.

This review article presents three case studies of the U.S. strategic weapons acquisition process: the Atlas intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the Polaris fleet ballistic missile (FBM), and the multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle (MIRV). By considering programs that stretch from the 1950s to the 1970s, the essay provides a record of the changing environment of American weapons choices over the past 25 years. After a description of research methods and major arguments, each study is assessed in terms of bureaucratic politics and of its relevance to contemporary policy. Conclusions are drawn about the most fruitful approach to the study of weapons acquisition, about the lessons of these cases for the development of weapons in an age of arms control, and about the challenges of future studies.