As Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way's gracious review demonstrates, Ordering Power and Competitive Authoritarianism share much in common. Yet their two main critiques helpfully underscore how our books are also significantly dissimilar. Their skepticism about my book's generalizability highlights our divergent approaches to generalization, while their claim that revolutionary regimes are as robust as counterrevolutionary regimes reflects our different thinking about cohesion and stability.

Blue–Green Coalitions: Fighting for Safe Workplaces and Healthy Communities. By Brian Mayer. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press and Cornell University Press, 2009. 240p. $57.95 cloth. $19.95 paper.

When do labor-environmental coalitions emerge and endure? In a period when headlines are dominated by economic recession, unemployment, and oil spills, the focus of Brian Mayer's book takes on practical urgency. The question is theoretically intriguing as well. Labor unions are often characterized as archetypical interest-based organizations, representing industrial workers' concerns for their own material well-being. Environmental mobilization, in contrast, is seen as a quality-of-life movement most commonly associated with members of the postindustrial middle class who possess leisure time and resources sufficient to enable their activism. When the question of how to regulate industries that employ toxic chemicals arises, these two groups can become locked in an acrimonious jobs versus the environment debate, making them more likely antagonists than allies. This sense of latent opposition is captured by one worker's assertion that greens want to “save the whales and kill the workers” (p. 2). How can these divisions be overcome? In his clearly written and compelling book, Blue–Green Coalitions, Mayer argues that concern over the effects of hazardous materials on human health offers one avenue for generating powerful and enduring coalitions.

It is impossible to look at contemporary Latin America and not be struck by the prevalence of violence, whether in the form of drug cartels in Mexico, criminal gangs in Central America, the long-term conflict in Colombia, or urban violence in Brazil. Further, the headliners of violence from these locations obscure a more complex set of interactions that include not just traditional criminal elements but also various social actors and the state itself. This plural violence in the region is the focus of Violent Democracies in Latin America, the volume edited by Enrique Desmond Arias and Daniel M. Goldstein.

Jytte Klausen's The Cartoons That Shook the World offers an interesting political science account of the Danish cartoon controversy and of a broader set of tensions between multiculturalism, civility, and freedom of expression. The book is also a fascinating case study of how political science can itself become the object of dispute, due to Yale University Press' decision to publish the book without any reproductions of the controversial cartoons.

We have thus asked a range of political scientists to comment on the Danish cartoon imbroglio, the book's analysis of it, and the controversy over the book itself.—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor

Both the labor and environmental movements have recently experienced significant crises of faith in their ability to mobilize enough popular support to carry on with their respective missions. At a 2004 meeting of the Environmental Grantmakers Association, a report entitled “The Death of Environmentalism” proclaimed that environmentalism as a special interest group had accomplished its goal of raising awareness but had ultimately failed to galvanize a sustainable social movement. Mirroring that debate within the environmental movement, in 2004 the Service Employees International Union called for major reforms within the AFL-CIO; demanding that the labor federation focus on organizing new workers rather than defending its existing members. This divide within the AFL-CIO ultimately led to the formation of the Change to Win coalition, with several other major unions joining the SEIU in a new reformist coalition federation.

We inhabit a thoroughly globalized world. People are increasingly and visibly connected by a “World Wide Web,” by a world market, and by universalist discourses of human rights and democracy. At the same time, full citizenship in a political community—and the rights conferred by such citizenship—is an exclusive status that remains, remarkably, tied to accidents of birth and historical circumstance. And what one has a right to—gainful employment, education, health care, political voice, mere presence—is largely a function of whether one has the precious status of citizenship or is, alternatively, regarded as an alien. Ayelet Shachar's The Birthright Lottery: Citizenship and Global Inequality is a compelling account of the moral arbitrariness of this state of affairs. A study in “normative political theory,” it is a work of political science that incorporates legal theory, moral philosophy, political economy, and public policy. The author tackles issues of increasing global political importance—global disparities of wealth; unequal access to clear air, water, and a secure place to live; and the increasingly contentious politics of immigration and immigrant rights.

So it seems fitting to invite a range of political science scholars who work on these topics to comment on the book. The basic editorial charge of this symposium is thus straightforward: How do you assess Shachar's arguments and the attention she focuses on the phenomenon of “birthright lottery”? How does this argument bear upon the topics and approaches that characterize your own scholarship? And how do these topics and approaches shed light on the book and its arguments? While the focus of the symposium is this provocative book, the discussion of it should also be regarded as an opportunity to address the question of whether or not the bases of citizenship need to be fundamentally reconceived, and in what ways political science can and should contribute to such a rethinking.—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor

I want to thank Steven Taylor for his thoughtful comments on the volume Daniel Goldstein and I edited. In this response I will address two key points he raises that help to highlight some of the key differences in our approaches.

The literature on hybrid regimes has a new and undisputed heavyweight champion. Eight years after their widely cited Journal of Democracy article first unveiled “competitive authoritarianism” as a distinctive type of hybrid regime, Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way have constructed a volume that theorizes and traces the trajectories of the countries that have fit into this category since the Cold War's end—all thirty-five of them. While the theoretical ambition of Competitive Authoritarianism stakes the book's rightful claim to the title of hybrid-regime champion, the book's voluminous empirics unmistakably place it in political science's heavyweight class.

In this richly detailed and comprehensive account of environmental organizations in post-Soviet Russia, Laura A. Henry delivers an insightful analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the many green groups to emerge during the post-Soviet era and the challenges they face in sustaining a vibrant movement. Red to Green delivers an important contribution to the field of contemporary Russian politics by utilizing the environmental movement to illustrate the growth of civil society and the strategies used by civic organizations to overcome the institutional and normative barriers created by the legacy of Soviet rule. Given the deplorable state of the Russian Federation's environment, a strong environmental movement would seem a logical outcome of the internationally desired democratization and participation in civil society among the Russian citizenry. Yet as Henry is careful to point out, participation in social movement organizations is not always a natural consequence of environmental grievances, and in order for green groups to survive, they must make use of preexisting norms, institutions, and social networks that both enable and constrain their efforts to advocate for a safe and healthy environment.

We inhabit a thoroughly globalized world. People are increasingly and visibly connected by a “World Wide Web,” by a world market, and by universalist discourses of human rights and democracy. At the same time, full citizenship in a political community—and the rights conferred by such citizenship—is an exclusive status that remains, remarkably, tied to accidents of birth and historical circumstance. And what one has a right to—gainful employment, education, health care, political voice, mere presence—is largely a function of whether one has the precious status of citizenship or is, alternatively, regarded as an alien. Ayelet Shachar's The Birthright Lottery: Citizenship and Global Inequality is a compelling account of the moral arbitrariness of this state of affairs. A study in “normative political theory,” it is a work of political science that incorporates legal theory, moral philosophy, political economy, and public policy. The author tackles issues of increasing global political importance—global disparities of wealth; unequal access to clear air, water, and a secure place to live; and the increasingly contentious politics of immigration and immigrant rights.

So it seems fitting to invite a range of political science scholars who work on these topics to comment on the book. The basic editorial charge of this symposium is thus straightforward: How do you assess Shachar's arguments and the attention she focuses on the phenomenon of “birthright lottery”? How does this argument bear upon the topics and approaches that characterize your own scholarship? And how do these topics and approaches shed light on the book and its arguments? While the focus of the symposium is this provocative book, the discussion of it should also be regarded as an opportunity to address the question of whether or not the bases of citizenship need to be fundamentally reconceived, and in what ways political science can and should contribute to such a rethinking.—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor

Dan Slater offers thoughtful and incisive comments. We respond here to three of his points. The first is that by limiting our study to the post–Cold War period, we convert it into a “period piece,” akin to studies of fascist and communist regimes. Although this may be true, a historically bounded analysis is essential because of the changing character of the international environment. World historical time powerfully shapes regime outcomes. The prospects for democracy and authoritarianism during the Cold War, which was marked by global superpower rivalry, differed dramatically from those during periods of Western liberal hegemony. During the Cold War, for example, nearly all military coups ushered in authoritarian rule; after 1989, nearly 70 percent of coups led to multiparty elections In 1989, single-party rule predominated in Eastern Europe and sub-Saharan Africa; five years later, it had disappeared.

Since early 2011 there have been significant changes in North Africa and the Middle East. Zine El Abidine Ben Ali had ruled Tunisia for 20 years, and Hosni Mubarak reigned in Egypt for 30 years. Yet their bravest challengers were 20- and 30-year-olds without ideological baggage, violent intentions, or clear leaders. Political change in these countries inspired activists across the region. Some tough authoritarian governments responded with tear gas and rubber bullets, others with policy concessions, welfare spending, and cabinet shuffles. The groups that initiated and sustained protests had few meaningful experiences with public deliberation or voting, and little experience with successful protesting. These young citizens were politically disciplined, pragmatic, and collaborative. Where did they come from? How do young people growing up in modern, entrenched, authoritarian regimes find political inspirations and aspirations? Are digital media important parts of the contemporary recipe for democratization?

In his thoughtful review, Brian Mayer identifies some of the key factors that will shape the future development of Russia's environmental movement. In doing so, he provides me the opportunity to highlight and expand upon these themes. Mayer's comments suggest that the study of social movements is enriched by the interaction of scholars focused on vastly different societies. In this vein, attention to one key aspect of my argument—how activists' diverse interpretations of the Soviet period shape their current perceptions—helps respond to some of the questions that Mayer raises.

I'm grateful to Professor Howard for writing a thoughtful review of my book. I agree with some of his charges but find the policy agenda that follows from his critique to be somewhat naïve.

Joshua Dunn presents a carefully researched study of Missouri v. Jenkins, a Kansas City case that led to the nation's “most expansive and expensive” school desegregation effort (p. 4). Dunn draws important lessons from the case regarding the limitations of judicial policymaking and the inability, and often unwillingness, of our nation to respond to demands by urban communities of color that equal and excellent schools be made available to all children.

We inhabit a thoroughly globalized world. People are increasingly and visibly connected by a “World Wide Web,” by a world market, and by universalist discourses of human rights and democracy. At the same time, full citizenship in a political community—and the rights conferred by such citizenship—is an exclusive status that remains, remarkably, tied to accidents of birth and historical circumstance. And what one has a right to—gainful employment, education, health care, political voice, mere presence—is largely a function of whether one has the precious status of citizenship or is, alternatively, regarded as an alien. Ayelet Shachar's The Birthright Lottery: Citizenship and Global Inequality is a compelling account of the moral arbitrariness of this state of affairs. A study in “normative political theory,” it is a work of political science that incorporates legal theory, moral philosophy, political economy, and public policy. The author tackles issues of increasing global political importance—global disparities of wealth; unequal access to clear air, water, and a secure place to live; and the increasingly contentious politics of immigration and immigrant rights.

So it seems fitting to invite a range of political science scholars who work on these topics to comment on the book. The basic editorial charge of this symposium is thus straightforward: How do you assess Shachar's arguments and the attention she focuses on the phenomenon of “birthright lottery”? How does this argument bear upon the topics and approaches that characterize your own scholarship? And how do these topics and approaches shed light on the book and its arguments? While the focus of the symposium is this provocative book, the discussion of it should also be regarded as an opportunity to address the question of whether or not the bases of citizenship need to be fundamentally reconceived, and in what ways political science can and should contribute to such a rethinking.—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor

We inhabit a thoroughly globalized world. People are increasingly and visibly connected by a “World Wide Web,” by a world market, and by universalist discourses of human rights and democracy. At the same time, full citizenship in a political community—and the rights conferred by such citizenship—is an exclusive status that remains, remarkably, tied to accidents of birth and historical circumstance. And what one has a right to—gainful employment, education, health care, political voice, mere presence—is largely a function of whether one has the precious status of citizenship or is, alternatively, regarded as an alien. Ayelet Shachar's The Birthright Lottery: Citizenship and Global Inequality is a compelling account of the moral arbitrariness of this state of affairs. A study in “normative political theory,” it is a work of political science that incorporates legal theory, moral philosophy, political economy, and public policy. The author tackles issues of increasing global political importance—global disparities of wealth; unequal access to clear air, water, and a secure place to live; and the increasingly contentious politics of immigration and immigrant rights.

So it seems fitting to invite a range of political science scholars who work on these topics to comment on the book. The basic editorial charge of this symposium is thus straightforward: How do you assess Shachar's arguments and the attention she focuses on the phenomenon of “birthright lottery”? How does this argument bear upon the topics and approaches that characterize your own scholarship? And how do these topics and approaches shed light on the book and its arguments? While the focus of the symposium is this provocative book, the discussion of it should also be regarded as an opportunity to address the question of whether or not the bases of citizenship need to be fundamentally reconceived, and in what ways political science can and should contribute to such a rethinking.—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor

Philip Howard's important book offers a timely and thorough treatment of a subject that has been catapulted into the global limelight thanks to recent revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt: the impact of the Internet on the political cultures in the Middle East.

I would like to thank Gaston Alonso for his kind review and his perceptive criticisms. We share many concerns about the state of urban education. Our differences center largely on what to do in response to the systemic failure of many urban school systems. Even here, though, I suspect that our differences are not as substantial as they first appear. While Alonso and his coauthors call for an infusion of resources into urban schools, I remain skeptical both that underfunding really is the source of their problems and that more money would be used effectively absent more fundamental reforms. But when an urban school district truly lacks sufficient resources to provide a safe and humane learning environment, then certainly more funding is called for. I would prefer that such funding be contingent on implementing additional reforms that ensure that the resources make their way to students, rather than being diverted or absorbed along the way.

Treading Softly: Paths to Ecological Order. By Thomas Princen. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010. 224p. $22.95.

When you are trying to get someone to embrace new habits of mind and body, like, say, those of ecological sustainability, it sometimes works to appeal to common sense. Thomas Princen employs this stragegy of persuasion—he also invokes enlightened self-interest, but I think he prefers to appeal to common sense—in his bold, tolerant, honest, and powerful short book. To be more specific, he invokes a set of minor or currently rather quiet “segments” (p. 171) inside the mixed bag that is American common sense. Common sense is not, after all, a stable block but a conglomeration of diverse parts, some of which do not fit at all well with the others. And it is the heterogeneity of the common store of wisdom that makes possible Princen's reorganization of it. He highlights some underutilized segments of the “old normal” and harnesses their power to the project of building a society that “takes infinite material growth as impossible,” “embraces limits” (p. 187), and is devoted to “living well by living well within our means” (p. 124).