No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Political dynamics and outcomes around the globe have been transformed by globalization, new patterns of human mobility, and the development of innovative transnational social networks. These new political processes are rooted in communities and networks that are not restricted by geographic location. Although politics has been delinked from territory in this way with regard to processes and actors, this does not mean that transnational politics focuses exclusively on universal issues or global approaches to social justice. Rather much of the new transnational politics is intensely focused on specific locations, identities, and issues (for example, ''globalized'' neighborhood associations, ethnicities, patrimonialism). Transnational politics also includes new conceptions and practices of citizenship and accountability (for example, legislative seats reserved for expatriate labor migrants) as the body politic becomes increasing mobile, political affinities delinked from geographic proximity, and critical constituencies reside outside of the territory of the state. This article outlines a new approach to investigating the actors and processes at the heart of contemporary transnational politics, with a particular focus on the ways in which diasporas are strategically constructed and mobilized to advance political goals through the use of salient symbols, identity frames, and social networks.In this article, we advance the claim that political processes and outcomes within particular nation-states today are significantly impacted by the migrant communities and diasporas of those polities. We argue that it is imperative to systematically unpack the relationship between the transnational political activities of migrants, the construction of diaspora communities, and their concomitant impact on politics in sending countries. Our claims here contrast with work that heralds globalization and transnationalism as the harbingers of a new cosmopolitan and purveyors of postnational identity. Our contrasting perspective seeks to emphasize that bedrock, standard fare concepts and institutions in comparative political analysis-party politics, interest group mobilization, patrimonialism, etc.-not only remain central to the conduct of everyday political life, but have today also become thoroughly transnational in their own right. Understanding contemporary politics therefore requires a perspective that