Latest Articles

This study builds on the assumption that any change in the structure of the international system in the foreseeable future cannot be immediately ascribed to the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. However, even if the pandemic is purely incidental and unable to change the existing distribution of power, this does not mean it has not introduced a dialogue within International Relations on the impact of epidemics on the structure of the international system, and their ability to intensify some essential - economic, social, and political - factors that contribute to international system change. International power balances before the outbreak of the pandemic indicate the beginning of change of the international system, as if it has been moving towards multipolarity, particularly with many rising powers, such as China, Russia and the European Union, whose international interests challenge those of the US, especially as the latter persistently impedes any rise of rival powers in the foreseeable future.

The potential impact of the Covid- 19 pandemic on populist governments has been the subject of a heated debate among specialists. There are scholars for who the pandemic will negatively impact populist governments. Here, populist governments are perceived as ill-equipped to respond to the multifaced challenges risen by the complexity of the pandemic. Conversely, many scholars that argue that the pandemic will strengthen populist governments because populism flourishes during crises. This article contests these two narratives. It asserts that any evaluation of the impact of the pandemic on populist governments should distinguish between their actions and their discourse. Thus, the study undertakes an analysis of US president Trump’s discourse, demonstrating that during the first year of the pandemic, it is twofold. First appears a “disconnected discourse” that continuously questions the reality of the pandemic, despite the important proactive actions taken by his government to mitigate the pandemic's economic, social, and sanitary impacts. Second, a “demonstrative discourse” arises, in which the pandemic was instrumentalized to enhance the legitimacy of one of the most important and controversial elements of the populist discourse: the idea of external threat.

This study examines how international economic and political matters are interrelated within the context of the Covid- 19 pandemic's outbreak as well as its serious effects on global economy. It argues that the International Political Economy (IPE) may provide answers to how the pandemic shapes (or fails to shape) international economic relations. The paper explores how, as a transdisciplinary field, IPE helps to understand patterns of change and continuity in global economics and politics in the wake of the pandemic, and IPE's contribution to global health research as well. The study defends the hypothesis that the state has been and is still present at the heart of neoliberal capitalism, and that it has preserved its foundations within a heterodoxy neoliberal trend heading towards more authoritarian neoliberalism, and steadily moves from market to state neoliberalism. The study also advocates positioning the Political Economy of Health at the center of health research; as long as health is considered a transnational issue. It goes on to discuss the failure of international institutions to enable international cooperation to confront the pandemic, a failure forged by the rise of nationalist populism.

عنوان الكتاب: فيروس كورونا والنظام العالمي: مستقبل الصراع والتنافس والتعاون عنوان الكتاب بلغته الأصلية: Covid-19 and World Order: The Future of Conflict, Competition, and Cooperation. المحرران: هال براندز وفرانسيس غافين .Hal Brands & Francis J. Gavin (eds.) الناشر: مطبعة جامعة جونز هوبكينز .Johns Hopkins University Press مكان النشر: بالتيمور/ مريلاند .Baltimore, Maryland سنة النشر: 2020. عدد الصفحات: 472 صفحة.

This study builds on the assumption that any change in the structure of the international system in the foreseeable future cannot be immediately ascribed to the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. However, even if the pandemic is purely incidental and unable to change the existing distribution of power, this does not mean it has not introduced a dialogue within International Relations on the impact of epidemics on the structure of the international system, and their ability to intensify some essential - economic, social, and political - factors that contribute to international system change. International power balances before the outbreak of the pandemic indicate the beginning of change of the international system, as if it has been moving towards multipolarity, particularly with many rising powers, such as China, Russia and the European Union, whose international interests challenge those of the US, especially as the latter persistently impedes any rise of rival powers in the foreseeable future.

A considerable amount of literature dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic has been published fromA considerable amount of literature dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic has been published from very different perspectives, from politics and policies, economy and trade, family and society, travel and transportation, environment and urbanization, work and education, and so forth. In such a context, this special issue of Siyasat Arabiya claims that pandemic is a political issue at its core, and that state and interstate/international relations lie at the heart of almost everything related to it. This special issue includes four articles; these look at the relationship of the pandemic to theories of International Relations, the international system, the Political Economy and Populism respectively; in addition to a theoretical article on public and global health translated into Arabic, and a critical review of an edited book on the future of conflict, competition and international cooperation after the pandemic. very different perspectives, from politics and policies, economy and trade, family and society, travel and transportation, environment and urbanization, work and education, and so forth

​This review discusses the main findings of the report issued by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral entitled The Global State of Democracy 2021: Building Resilience in a Pandemic Era.

This study traces the evolution and divergence of state–society relations in the Middle East and North Africa through the lens of social pacts and welfare regimes. It asks how governments across the region have responded to popular mobilization during and after the Arab uprisings, and what these responses reveal about the nature of the Arab state – or, more accurately, Arab states – in the region. By situating post-uprising developments within longer post-independence trajectories, the study traces sharply divergent paths since 2010. These varied responses underscore the absence of a single "Arab state" model. Instead, welfare regimes and social pacts across different types of political economies in the region reflect at least three distinct models of Arab statehood. In the oil-rich Gulf monarchies, fiscal surpluses sustain generous welfare systems and ambitious development strategies, while rulers cautiously promote expanded roles for the private sector under tight control. In middle-income states, initial post-uprising concessions, such as expanded social spending and employment, quickly gave way to austerity, debt crises, targeted assistance, and rising repression, resulting in declining welfare provision and shrinking opportunities for the middle class. In low-income and conflict-affected countries, protracted wars and state fragmentation have devastated welfare infrastructures, leaving humanitarian actors to fill governance vacuums.

The relationship between economies and polities is one of vital importance to the outcome of the contemporary intensifying struggle between authoritarians and democrats. Investigating this relationship in Egypt is therefore of relevance for the world as a whole, increasingly divided as it is between countries with political economies informed by authoritarian or democratic models. This study will explore manifestations of that vital relationship in Egypt. It will commence by outlining the global and national contexts within which the economy operates, and both shape it and present challenges that must be met to achieve more rapid growth. How economic factors have contributed to the rise of Sisi's new authoritarianism will then be investigated. This will be followed by reversing that relationship, analyzing the economic consequences of the Sisi regime. Whether those consequences will better enable Egypt to compete economically, or will undermine its capacities to do so, is addressed in the fourth section. That is followed by an effort to answer the related question of what the key building blocks of a more successful economic strategy might be. In the conclusion scenarios of alternative futures of Egypt's political economy are considered.

In this paper we develop a relational understanding of populism informed by urban political ecology. We argue that an urban political ecology of populism is necessary for a popular- democratic denunciation of the environmental claims of the far right. This article thereby aims to further develop a critique of liberal environmentalism and right-wing populism. We do so by first staging a dialogue between literatures in urban political ecology and Gramscian inflected readings of populism. Both have sought to interpret how spatial – and ecological – claim making becomes central to struggles over hegemony. The second half of the paper analyses these tensions in the Dutch farmers movement, which has become one of the most important political forces in the Netherlands since 2019. Abstracting "the local", "the rural" or "the farm" out of the broader processes of urbanisation is central to struggles over the representation of farmers. Right-wing movements thus seek to further a broader disillusionment with formal politics, while effectively deploying spatial and ecological abstractions that pit the "rural" against the "urban". We conclude by instead emphasising the crucial connections between populism and ecology, and call for a popular-democratic political ecology.