THE MONOPOLY OF VIOLENCE: EVIDENCE FROM COLOMBIA

Many states in Latin America, Africa, and Asia lack the monopoly of violence, even though this was identified by Max Weber as the foundation of the state, and thus the capacity to govern effectively. In this paper we develop a new perspective on the establishment of the monopoly of violence. We build a model to explain the incentive of central states to eliminate nonstate armed actors (paramilitaries) in a democracy. The model is premised on the idea that paramilitaries may choose to and can influence elections. Since paramilitaries have preferences over policies, this reduces the incentives of the politicians they favor to eliminate them. We then investigate these ideas using data from Colombia between 1991 and 2006. We first present regression and case study evidence supporting our postulate that paramilitary groups can have significant effects on elections for the legislature and the executive. Next, we show that the evidence is also broadly consistent with the implication of the model that paramilitaries tend to persist to the extent that they deliver votes to candidates for the executive whose preferences are close to theirs and that this effect is larger in areas where the presidential candidate would have otherwise not done as well. Finally, we use roll‐call votes to illustrate a possible “quid pro quo” between the executive and paramilitaries in Colombia.     

Known Mean,Unknown Maxima? Testing the Maximum Knowing Only the Mean

In the quantitative group testing problem, the use of the group mean to identify if the group maximum is greater than a prefixed threshold (infected group) is analyzed, using n independent and identically distributed individuals. Under these conditions, it is shown that the information of the mean is sufficient to classify each group as infected or healthy with low probability of misclassification when the underline distribution is a unilateral heavy-tailed distribution.     

Assessing ‘empowerment’ as social development: goal and process

ABSTRACT

Empowerment is a concept widely used in several policy documents and is presented, in social work and social care professional universes, as an operative process to reduce vulnerability and to increase the power, or capabilities, of individuals and groups to make choices and to transform these into actions and results. However, to move beyond rhetoric and paternalistic practices, we need to understand what empowerment really means and implies in different contexts, and especially, how to evaluate what has changed (outcomes) or is changing (processes), both on an individual and a collective level.