Institutes
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (62)
- Book (28)
- Doctoral Thesis (27)
- Master's Thesis (8)
- Working Paper (7)
- Contribution to a Periodical (6)
- Preprint (5)
- Review (5)
- Bachelor Thesis (2)
- Part of Periodical (2)
Language
- English (77)
- German (75)
- Portuguese (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (153)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (153)
Keywords
- Globalisierung (5)
- Globalization (4)
- Pierre Bourdieu (4)
- climate change (4)
- gender (4)
- China (3)
- Finance (3)
- Global Financial Class (3)
- Globale Finanzklasse (3)
- Transnational Capitalist Class (3)
Institute
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (153)
- Präsidium (29)
- Exzellenzcluster Die Herausbildung normativer Ordnungen (5)
- Rechtswissenschaft (3)
- Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaften (2)
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (2)
- Biochemie, Chemie und Pharmazie (1)
- Biowissenschaften (1)
- Center for Financial Studies (CFS) (1)
- Foundation of Law and Finance (1)
The Muskoka Initiative – or the Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (MNCH) Initiative has been a flagship foreign policy strategy of the Harper Conservatives since it was introduced in 2010. However, the maternal health initiative has been met with a number of key criticisms in relation to its failure to address the sexual and reproductive health needs of women in the Global South2. In this article, I examine these criticisms and expose the prevalent and problematic discourse employed in Canadian policy papers and official government speeches pertaining to the MNCH Initiative. I examine the embodiment of the MNCH and how these references to women’s bodies as “walking wombs” facilitate: the objectification and ‘othering’ of women as mothers and childbearers; a discourse of ‘saving mothers’ in a paternalistic and essentialist language; and the purposeful omission of gender equality. Feminist International Relations (IR) and post-colonial literature, as well as critical/feminist Canadian foreign policy scholarship are employed in this paper to frame these critiques.
Based on an original dataset of 100 important pieces of legislation passed during the three presidencies of William J. Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack H. Obama (1992-2013), this study explores two sets of questions:
(1) How do presidents influence legislators in Congress in the legislative arena, and what factors have an effect on the legislative strategies presidents choose?
(2) How successful are presidents in getting their policy positions enacted into law, and what configurations of institutional and actor-centered conditions determine presidential legislative success?
The analyses show that in an hyper-polarized environment, presidents usually have to fight an uphill-battle in the legislative arena, getting more involved if they face less favorable contexts and the odds are against them.
Moreover, the analyses suggest that there is no silver-bullet approach for presidents' legislative success. Instead, multiple patterns of success exist as presidents - depending on the institutional and public environment - can resort to different combinations of actions in order to see their preferred policy outcomes enacted.