Joseph Harris
Boston University, Sociology, Department Member
To what extent is the normative commitment of STS to the democratization of science a product of the democratic contexts where it is most often produced? STS scholars have historically offered a powerful critical lens through which to... more
To what extent is the normative commitment of STS to the democratization of science a product of the democratic contexts where it is most often produced? STS scholars have historically offered a powerful critical lens through which to understand the social construction of science, and seminal contributions in this area have outlined ways in which citizens have improved both the conduct of science and its outcomes. Yet, with few exceptions, it remains that most STS scholarship has eschewed study of more problematic cases of public engagement of science in rich, supposedly mature Western democracies, as well as examination of science-making in poorer, sometimes non-democratic contexts. How might research on problematic cases and dissimilar political contexts traditionally neglected by STS scholars push the field forward in new ways? This paper responds to themes that came out of papers from two Eastern Sociological Society Presidential Panels on Science and Technology Studies in an Er...
Recent scholarship examining political contestation in Thailand has emphasised concepts such as “network monarchy,” while pointing to the populism and enduring political influence of Thaksin Shinawatra. While this descriptive work has... more
Recent scholarship examining political contestation in Thailand has emphasised concepts such as “network monarchy,” while pointing to the populism and enduring political influence
of Thaksin Shinawatra. While this descriptive work has helped shed light on the architecture of governance in Thailand, it has not been embedded in a broader theoretical approach that might help to train our attention on other powerful actors that play important roles in shaping Thailand’s political and institutional landscape. In this article, I outline one such approach and advance the term “autonomous political networks,” to refer to collections of people who share strong value commitments and political goals and who operate in the space between the country’s dominant political institutions – often straddling positions in the state and civil society simultaneously. This theoretical discussion is grounded empirically in a description of one such network whose power is
derived from sources other than electoral legitimacy or long-standing historical tradition. The article discusses the enormous influence this network has exercised in reshaping Thailand’s political order, all while remaining largely invisible to the public eye. It suggests the need to use this approach to elaborate other hidden political networks that play important roles in governance in Thailand and beyond.
of Thaksin Shinawatra. While this descriptive work has helped shed light on the architecture of governance in Thailand, it has not been embedded in a broader theoretical approach that might help to train our attention on other powerful actors that play important roles in shaping Thailand’s political and institutional landscape. In this article, I outline one such approach and advance the term “autonomous political networks,” to refer to collections of people who share strong value commitments and political goals and who operate in the space between the country’s dominant political institutions – often straddling positions in the state and civil society simultaneously. This theoretical discussion is grounded empirically in a description of one such network whose power is
derived from sources other than electoral legitimacy or long-standing historical tradition. The article discusses the enormous influence this network has exercised in reshaping Thailand’s political order, all while remaining largely invisible to the public eye. It suggests the need to use this approach to elaborate other hidden political networks that play important roles in governance in Thailand and beyond.
Research Interests: Sociology, Political Sociology, Social Movements, Southeast Asian Studies, Social Networks, and 15 moreThai Studies, Political Science, Governance, Southeast Asia, Thailand, State Theory, Health Policy, Governance and Civil Society, Monarchy, Civil Society, Politics in Thailand, Epistemic communities, Thaksin Shinawatra, Sociology of the State, and Health Social Movements
‘Post-national’ scholars have taken the extension of social rights to migrants that are normally accorded to citizens as evidence of the growing importance of norms of ‘universal personhood’ and the declining importance of the... more
‘Post-national’ scholars have taken the extension of social rights to migrants that are normally accorded to citizens as evidence of the growing importance of norms of ‘universal personhood’ and the declining importance of the nation-state. However, the
distinct approach taken by the state toward another understudied category of noncitizen – stateless people – complicates these theories by demonstrating that the state
makes decisions about groups on different bases than theory would suggest. These findings suggest the need to pay more attention to how the state treats other categories of ‘semi-citizens’. This article examines the differential effects of universal healthcare reforms in Thailand on citizens, migrants, and stateless people and explores their ramifications on theories of citizenship and social rights. While the state has expanded its healthcare obligations toward people living within its borders, it has taken a variegated approach toward different groups. Citizens have been extended ‘differentiated but unambiguous rights’. Migrants have been granted ‘conditional
rights’ to healthcare coverage, dependent on their status as registered workers who pay mandatory contributions. Large numbers of stateless people, however, saw their right to state welfare programs disenfranchised following passage of the new universal healthcare law before later being granted ‘contingent rights’ through a new program.
distinct approach taken by the state toward another understudied category of noncitizen – stateless people – complicates these theories by demonstrating that the state
makes decisions about groups on different bases than theory would suggest. These findings suggest the need to pay more attention to how the state treats other categories of ‘semi-citizens’. This article examines the differential effects of universal healthcare reforms in Thailand on citizens, migrants, and stateless people and explores their ramifications on theories of citizenship and social rights. While the state has expanded its healthcare obligations toward people living within its borders, it has taken a variegated approach toward different groups. Citizens have been extended ‘differentiated but unambiguous rights’. Migrants have been granted ‘conditional
rights’ to healthcare coverage, dependent on their status as registered workers who pay mandatory contributions. Large numbers of stateless people, however, saw their right to state welfare programs disenfranchised following passage of the new universal healthcare law before later being granted ‘contingent rights’ through a new program.
Research Interests: Sociology, Political Sociology, Globalization, Political Science, Global Citizenship, and 27 moreThailand, State Theory, Undocumented Immigration, Migrant Health, Citizenship Theory, Public Health, Citizenship And Governance, Access to health services, Burma Studies, Stateless Peoples, Burma, Citizenship, Postnationalism, Statelessness, Migrant workers, Burma Myanmar, Universal Health Care, Universal Coverage, Globalization and Citizenship, Sociology of the State, Human Rights and Social Justice, Universal Health Coverage, Universal Healthcare, Access to Healthcare, statelessness, EU law, Citizenship Law and Stateless Children, and Public Policy
The notion of ‘‘regulatory capture’’ is typically used to describe the takeover of state agencies by outside interest groups that seek to weaken regulation and advance the agendas of interest groups through control over state policy... more
The notion of ‘‘regulatory capture’’ is typically used to describe the takeover
of state agencies by outside interest groups that seek to weaken regulation and
advance the agendas of interest groups through control over state policy levers. This
concept can be contrasted with that of ‘‘developmental capture’’ of state agencies by
networks of reformist bureaucrats within the state who seek to promote inclusive state
social and developmental policies of benefit to the broader populace. Building on work
that has pointed to instances in which state bureaucrats act autonomously from societal
and political pressures, this article argues that existing explanations are insufficient for
explaining Thailand’s universal health care policy. It points to the critical role played by
a network of bureaucrats within the state who strategically mobilized resources in the
bureaucracy, political parties, civil society, and international organizations to institutionalize
universal health care in the face of broader professional dissent, political
uncertainty, and international pressure.
of state agencies by outside interest groups that seek to weaken regulation and
advance the agendas of interest groups through control over state policy levers. This
concept can be contrasted with that of ‘‘developmental capture’’ of state agencies by
networks of reformist bureaucrats within the state who seek to promote inclusive state
social and developmental policies of benefit to the broader populace. Building on work
that has pointed to instances in which state bureaucrats act autonomously from societal
and political pressures, this article argues that existing explanations are insufficient for
explaining Thailand’s universal health care policy. It points to the critical role played by
a network of bureaucrats within the state who strategically mobilized resources in the
bureaucracy, political parties, civil society, and international organizations to institutionalize
universal health care in the face of broader professional dissent, political
uncertainty, and international pressure.
Research Interests: Sociology, Political Sociology, Social Movements, Development Studies, Southeast Asian Studies, and 25 moreSocial Networks, International Development, Political Science, Global Health, Southeast Asia, Thailand, Social Movements (Political Science), Bureaucratic Politics, Public Health, Health Reforms And Health Politics, Health Policy, Health Reform, Health Care reform, Bureaucracy, State, Politics in Thailand, Universal Health Care, Universal Coverage, Health Politics, Healthcare policy, Politics of Health Policy, Policy Diffusion, Regulatory capture, Universal Health Coverage, and Public Policy
The policy responses to human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) in the Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) nations have played out amid radically different political environments that have... more
The policy responses to human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) in the Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) nations have played out amid radically different political environments that have shaped state-civil society relations in critical ways. In contrasting these different environments, this article offers the first comparison of the policy response to AIDS in the BRICS nations and seeks to understand the way in which political context matters for conditioning the response to a major epidemic. Using a comparative historical approach, we find that while collaborative state-civil society relations have produced an aggressive response and successful outcomes in Brazil, democratic openness and state-civil society engagement has not necessarily correlated with an aggressive response or better outcomes in the other cases. Response to the epidemic has been worst by far in democratic South Africa, followed by Russia, where in the former, de...