Symbols of statehood: Military industrialization and public discourse in India

Review of International Studies

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 353-373

  Kinsella, David ^a   Chima, Jugdep S ^a  

^a NONE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040028694     PISSN: 02602105     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0260210501003539     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. The quotes are from, respectively, ’We Should Feel Proud’, The Times of India, 16 May 1998; Sabyasachi Mitra, ’Newspapers and People Are Ecstatic Over Tests’, India-West, 15 May 1998; and ’Over 2,000 Km Range Agni-II Successfully Test-Fired’, The Times of India, 12 April 1999. Symbolism was also an element in Pakistan’s follow-on nuclear tests: The Muslim, a conservative Pakistani daily, congratulated its military for having ’defied the high priests of the New World Order’. See John Ward Anderson and Kamran Khan, ’Pakistan: "We Are a Nuclear Power"’, Washington Post, 30 May 1998.
2. The quotes are from, respectively, ’We Should Feel Proud’, The Times of India, 16 May 1998; Sabyasachi Mitra, ’Newspapers and People Are Ecstatic Over Tests’, India-West, 15 May 1998; and ’Over 2,000 Km Range Agni-II Successfully Test-Fired’, The Times of India, 12 April 1999. Symbolism was also an element in Pakistan’s follow-on nuclear tests: The Muslim, a conservative Pakistani daily, congratulated its military for having ’defied the high priests of the New World Order’. See John Ward Anderson and Kamran Khan, ’Pakistan: "We Are a Nuclear Power"’, Washington Post, 30 May 1998.
3. The quotes are from, respectively, ’We Should Feel Proud’, The Times of India, 16 May 1998; Sabyasachi Mitra, ’Newspapers and People Are Ecstatic Over Tests’, India-West, 15 May 1998; and ’Over 2,000 Km Range Agni-II Successfully Test-Fired’, The Times of India, 12 April 1999. Symbolism was also an element in Pakistan’s follow-on nuclear tests: The Muslim, a conservative Pakistani daily, congratulated its military for having ’defied the high priests of the New World Order’. See John Ward Anderson and Kamran Khan, ’Pakistan: "We Are a Nuclear Power"’, Washington Post, 30 May 1998.
4. The quotes are from, respectively, ’We Should Feel Proud’, The Times of India, 16 May 1998; Sabyasachi Mitra, ’Newspapers and People Are Ecstatic Over Tests’, India-West, 15 May 1998; and ’Over 2,000 Km Range Agni-II Successfully Test-Fired’, The Times of India, 12 April 1999. Symbolism was also an element in Pakistan’s follow-on nuclear tests: The Muslim, a conservative Pakistani daily, congratulated its military for having ’defied the high priests of the New World Order’. See John Ward Anderson and Kamran Khan, ’Pakistan: "We Are a Nuclear Power"’, Washington Post, 30 May 1998.
5. Raja Ramanna, quoted in Y. P. Rajesh, ’Top Nuke Scientist Drinks Wine to Celebrate Tests’, India-West, 15 May 1998.
6. Mark C. Suchman and Dana P. Eyre, ’Military Procurement as Rational Myth: Notes on the Social Construction of Weapons Proliferation’, Sociological Forum, 7 (1992), p. 151.
7. See also Dana P. Eyre and Mark C. Suchman, ’Status, Norms, and the Proliferation of Conventional Weapons: An Institutional Theory Approach’, in Peter J. Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996).
8. Raju G. C. Thomas, Indian Security Policy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986).
9. Ken Conca, ’Third World Military Industrialization and the Evolving Security System’, in Wayne Sandholtz et al. (eds.), The Highest Stakes: The Economic Foundations of the Next Security System (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 143. Thomas concludes that ’the growth of Indian military capabilities is, to a certain extent, unrelated to Indian threat perceptions and tends to be an autonomous trend based on civilian technological growth’. See Thomas, Indian Security Policy, p. 291.
10. Ken Conca, ’Third World Military Industrialization and the Evolving Security System’, in Wayne Sandholtz et al. (eds.), The Highest Stakes: The Economic Foundations of the Next Security System (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 143. Thomas concludes that ’the growth of Indian military capabilities is, to a certain extent, unrelated to Indian threat perceptions and tends to be an autonomous trend based on civilian technological growth’. See Thomas, Indian Security Policy, p. 291.
11. See Thomas, Indian Security Policy, pp. 246-7, 251-2; also Chris Smith, India’s Ad Hoc Arsenal: Direction or Drift in Defence Policy? (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994) and Timothy D. Hoyt, ’Rising Regional Powers: New Perspectives on Indigenous Defense Industries and Military Capability in the Developing World’, Ph.D. thesis, Johns Hopkins University (1997).
12. See Thomas, Indian Security Policy, pp. 246-7, 251-2; also Chris Smith, India’s Ad Hoc Arsenal: Direction or Drift in Defence Policy? (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994) and Timothy D. Hoyt, ’Rising Regional Powers: New Perspectives on Indigenous Defense Industries and Military Capability in the Developing World’, Ph.D. thesis, Johns Hopkins University (1997).
13. See Thomas, Indian Security Policy, pp. 246-7, 251-2; also Chris Smith, India’s Ad Hoc Arsenal: Direction or Drift in Defence Policy? (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994) and Timothy D. Hoyt, ’Rising Regional Powers: New Perspectives on Indigenous Defense Industries and Military Capability in the Developing World’, Ph.D. thesis, Johns Hopkins University (1997).
14. James Everett Katz, ’Understanding Arms Production in Developing Countries’, in James Everett Katz (ed.), Arms Production in Developing Countries: An Analysis of Decision Making (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1984), pp. 4-5.
15. Shashi Tharoor, Reasons of State: Political Development and India’s Foreign Policy under Indira Gandhi, 1966-1977 (New Delhi: Vikas, 1982), p. 88.
16. Quoted in Hoyt, ’Rising Regional Powers’ (our italics), p. 69. See also V. K. R. V. Rao, The Current Indian Crisis: Darkness Before Dawn (Allahabad: Vohra, 1984).
17. Quoted in Hoyt, ’Rising Regional Powers’ (our italics), p. 69. See also V. K. R. V. Rao, The Current Indian Crisis: Darkness Before Dawn (Allahabad: Vohra, 1984).
18. Surjit Mansingh, India’s Search for Power: Indira Gandhi’s Foreign Policy, 1966-1982 (New Delhi: Sage, 1984), p. 59. See also Ramesh Thakur, The Politics and Economics of India’s Foreign Policy (New York: St. Martin’s, 1994), pp. 101, 106-7; Smith, India’s Ad Hoc Arsenal, pp. 187, 189.
19. Surjit Mansingh, India’s Search for Power: Indira Gandhi’s Foreign Policy, 1966-1982 (New Delhi: Sage, 1984), p. 59. See also Ramesh Thakur, The Politics and Economics of India’s Foreign Policy (New York: St. Martin’s, 1994), pp. 101, 106-7; Smith, India’s Ad Hoc Arsenal, pp. 187, 189.
20. Surjit Mansingh, India’s Search for Power: Indira Gandhi’s Foreign Policy, 1966-1982 (New Delhi: Sage, 1984), p. 59. See also Ramesh Thakur, The Politics and Economics of India’s Foreign Policy (New York: St. Martin’s, 1994), pp. 101, 106-7; Smith, India’s Ad Hoc Arsenal, pp. 187, 189.
21. H. W. Brands, India and the United States: The Cold Peace (Boston: Twayne, 1990), pp. 220-1. Smith suggests that Nehru too ’recognized how much political power was commensurate with nuclear weapons’, despite a great deal of ambivalence about India’s pursuing a nuclear option. See Smith, India’s Ad Hoc Arsenal, pp. 179-80.
22. H. W. Brands, India and the United States: The Cold Peace (Boston: Twayne, 1990), pp. 220-1. Smith suggests that Nehru too ’recognized how much political power was commensurate with nuclear weapons’, despite a great deal of ambivalence about India’s pursuing a nuclear option. See Smith, India’s Ad Hoc Arsenal, pp. 179-80.
23. Sisir Gupta, India and the International System, edited by M. S. Rajan and Shivaji Ganguly (New Delhi: Vikas, 1981), p. 243.
24. Nayantara Pandit Sahgal, Indira Gandhi’s Emergence and Style (New Delhi: Vikas, 1978), p. 40.
25. Tharoor, Reasons of State, p. 71.
26. Adish C. Aggarwala, Prime Minister Narasimha Rao: Scholar Prime Minister (New Delhi: Amish, 1995), p. 121.
27. ’India Wants Peace Everywhere: PM’, The Times of India, 27 May 1999.
28. Indira Gandhi, India: The Speeches and Reminiscences of Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India (Calcutta: Rupa, 1975), pp. 140-1.
29. Tharoor, Reasons of State, p. 88.
30. Pupul Jayakar, Indira Gandhi: An Intimate Biography (New York: Pantheon, 1992), p. 255.
31. See Alexander Wendt, ’The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory’, International Organization, 41 (1987), pp. 335-70.
32. Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979), pp. 128, 74-77. Actually, Waltz is referring to the process by which states learn balancing behaviour, as opposed to bandwagoning, but socialization is said to explain the learning of other forms of behaviour highlighted by realists. For a discussion of the impact on military doctrine, see Barry Posen, The Sources of Military Doctrine: France, Britain, and Germany between the World Wars (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984).
33. Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979), pp. 128, 74-77. Actually, Waltz is referring to the process by which states learn balancing behaviour, as opposed to bandwagoning, but socialization is said to explain the learning of other forms of behaviour highlighted by realists. For a discussion of the impact on military doctrine, see Barry Posen, The Sources of Military Doctrine: France, Britain, and Germany between the World Wars (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984).
34. Jepperson et al., ’Norms, Identity, and Culture in National Security’, p. 33. See also Martha Finnemore, ’Norms, Culture, and World Politics: Insights from Sociology’s Institutionalism’, International Organization, 50 (1996), pp. 325-47, who details constructivism’s roots in institutionalist sociology.
35. Jepperson et al., ’Norms, Identity, and Culture in National Security’, p. 33. See also Martha Finnemore, ’Norms, Culture, and World Politics: Insights from Sociology’s Institutionalism’, International Organization, 50 (1996), pp. 325-47, who details constructivism’s roots in institutionalist sociology.
36. Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), ch. 3. Constructivists, at least some, suggest that their approach should ultimately subsume both realism and liberalism in delineating the conditions under which state behaviour highlighted by these latter theories operate. See Jepperson et al., ’Norms, Identity, and Culture in National Security’, pp. 68-72.
37. Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), ch. 3. Constructivists, at least some, suggest that their approach should ultimately subsume both realism and liberalism in delineating the conditions under which state behaviour highlighted by these latter theories operate. See Jepperson et al., ’Norms, Identity, and Culture in National Security’, pp. 68-72.
38. Wendt, ’The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory’; Anthony Giddens, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984).
39. On state identity (the ’character of statehood’) and the degree to which we might be able to distinguish this empirically from state behaviour, which respects and reinforces existing norms of state sovereignty or practice, see Jepperson et al., ’Norms, Identity, and Culture in National Security’, pp. 35-6.
40. See, respectively, Suchman and Eyre, ’Military Procurement as Rational Myth’, pp. 149-50, 154, and Eyre and Suchman, ’Status, Norms, and the Proliferation of Conventional Weapons’, p. 92.
41. See, respectively, Suchman and Eyre, ’Military Procurement as Rational Myth’, pp. 149-50, 154, and Eyre and Suchman, ’Status, Norms, and the Proliferation of Conventional Weapons’, p. 92.
42. Alexander Wendt and Michael Barnett, ’Dependent State Formation and Third World Militarization’, Review of International Studies, 19 (1993), p. 339. Luckham refers to ’fetishism of the weapon’. Albrecht and Kaldor to ’technology fetishism’. See Robin Luckham, ’Armament Culture’, Alternatives, 10 (1984), pp. 1-44, and Ulrich Albrecht and Mary Kaldor, ’Introduction’, in Mary Kaldor and Asbjørn Eide (eds.), The World Military Order: The Impact of Military Technology on the Third World (New York: Praeger, 1979). See also Michael Barnett and Alexander Wendt, ’The Systemic Sources of Dependent Militarization’, in Brian L. Job (ed.), The Insecurity Dilemma: National Security of Third World States (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1992) and Herbert Wulf, ’Dependent Militarism in the Periphery and Possible Alternative Concepts’, in Stephanie G. Neuman and Robert E. Harkavy (eds.), Arms Transfers in the Modern World (New York: Praeger, 1979).
43. Alexander Wendt and Michael Barnett, ’Dependent State Formation and Third World Militarization’, Review of International Studies, 19 (1993), p. 339. Luckham refers to ’fetishism of the weapon’. Albrecht and Kaldor to ’technology fetishism’. See Robin Luckham, ’Armament Culture’, Alternatives, 10 (1984), pp. 1-44, and Ulrich Albrecht and Mary Kaldor, ’Introduction’, in Mary Kaldor and Asbjørn Eide (eds.), The World Military Order: The Impact of Military Technology on the Third World (New York: Praeger, 1979). See also Michael Barnett and Alexander Wendt, ’The Systemic Sources of Dependent Militarization’, in Brian L. Job (ed.), The Insecurity Dilemma: National Security of Third World States (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1992) and Herbert Wulf, ’Dependent Militarism in the Periphery and Possible Alternative Concepts’, in Stephanie G. Neuman and Robert E. Harkavy (eds.), Arms Transfers in the Modern World (New York: Praeger, 1979).
44. Alexander Wendt and Michael Barnett, ’Dependent State Formation and Third World Militarization’, Review of International Studies, 19 (1993), p. 339. Luckham refers to ’fetishism of the weapon’. Albrecht and Kaldor to ’technology fetishism’. See Robin Luckham, ’Armament Culture’, Alternatives, 10 (1984), pp. 1-44, and Ulrich Albrecht and Mary Kaldor, ’Introduction’, in Mary Kaldor and Asbjørn Eide (eds.), The World Military Order: The Impact of Military Technology on the Third World (New York: Praeger, 1979). See also Michael Barnett and Alexander Wendt, ’The Systemic Sources of Dependent Militarization’, in Brian L. Job (ed.), The Insecurity Dilemma: National Security of Third World States (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1992) and Herbert Wulf, ’Dependent Militarism in the Periphery and Possible Alternative Concepts’, in Stephanie G. Neuman and Robert E. Harkavy (eds.), Arms Transfers in the Modern World (New York: Praeger, 1979).
45. Alexander Wendt and Michael Barnett, ’Dependent State Formation and Third World Militarization’, Review of International Studies, 19 (1993), p. 339. Luckham refers to ’fetishism of the weapon’. Albrecht and Kaldor to ’technology fetishism’. See Robin Luckham, ’Armament Culture’, Alternatives, 10 (1984), pp. 1-44, and Ulrich Albrecht and Mary Kaldor, ’Introduction’, in Mary Kaldor and Asbjørn Eide (eds.), The World Military Order: The Impact of Military Technology on the Third World (New York: Praeger, 1979). See also Michael Barnett and Alexander Wendt, ’The Systemic Sources of Dependent Militarization’, in Brian L. Job (ed.), The Insecurity Dilemma: National Security of Third World States (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1992) and Herbert Wulf, ’Dependent Militarism in the Periphery and Possible Alternative Concepts’, in Stephanie G. Neuman and Robert E. Harkavy (eds.), Arms Transfers in the Modern World (New York: Praeger, 1979).
46. Alexander Wendt and Michael Barnett, ’Dependent State Formation and Third World Militarization’, Review of International Studies, 19 (1993), p. 339. Luckham refers to ’fetishism of the weapon’. Albrecht and Kaldor to ’technology fetishism’. See Robin Luckham, ’Armament Culture’, Alternatives, 10 (1984), pp. 1-44, and Ulrich Albrecht and Mary Kaldor, ’Introduction’, in Mary Kaldor and Asbjørn Eide (eds.), The World Military Order: The Impact of Military Technology on the Third World (New York: Praeger, 1979). See also Michael Barnett and Alexander Wendt, ’The Systemic Sources of Dependent Militarization’, in Brian L. Job (ed.), The Insecurity Dilemma: National Security of Third World States (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1992) and Herbert Wulf, ’Dependent Militarism in the Periphery and Possible Alternative Concepts’, in Stephanie G. Neuman and Robert E. Harkavy (eds.), Arms Transfers in the Modern World (New York: Praeger, 1979).
47. Scott D. Sagan, ’Why do States Build Nuclear Weapons? Three Models in Search of a Bomb’, International Security, 21 (1996/7), p. 74.
48. Mary Kaldor, The Baroque Arsenal (New York, 1981), p. 144.
49. Timothy Luke, ’What’s Wrong With Deterrence? A Semiotic Interpretation of National Security Policy’, in James Der Derian and Michael J. Shapiro (eds.), International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics (Lexington, MA, 1989), pp. 224, 225. See also Jean Baudrillard, Simulations (New York: Semiotext(e), 1983).
50. Timothy Luke, ’What’s Wrong With Deterrence? A Semiotic Interpretation of National Security Policy’, in James Der Derian and Michael J. Shapiro (eds.), International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics (Lexington, MA, 1989), pp. 224, 225. See also Jean Baudrillard, Simulations (New York: Semiotext(e), 1983).
51. Kaldor, The Baroque Arsenal (New York: Hill and Wang, 1981), p. 144. See also A.F. Mullins, Jr., Born Arming: Development and Military Power in New States (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1987), especially ch. 2, and Luckham, ’Armament Culture’.
52. Kaldor, The Baroque Arsenal (New York: Hill and Wang, 1981), p. 144. See also A.F. Mullins, Jr., Born Arming: Development and Military Power in New States (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1987), especially ch. 2, and Luckham, ’Armament Culture’.
53. Luckham, ’Armament Culture’, p. 32. The notion of a ’world military order’ is broached by Albrecht and Kaldor in their introduction to World Military Order, and discussed at greater length in Kaldor, The Baroque Arsenal.
54. Luckham, ’Armament Culture’, p. 32. The notion of a ’world military order’ is broached by Albrecht and Kaldor in their introduction to World Military Order, and discussed at greater length in Kaldor, The Baroque Arsenal.
55. Luckham, ’Armament Culture’, p. 32. The notion of a ’world military order’ is broached by Albrecht and Kaldor in their introduction to World Military Order, and discussed at greater length in Kaldor, The Baroque Arsenal.
56. Eyre and Suchman, ’Status, Norms, and the Proliferation of Conventional Weapons’.
57. Some researchers have explored the domestic political and cultural bases of realpolitik behaviour by states. See, for example, Jack Snyder, Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991) and Alastair Iain Johnson, Cultural Realism: Strategic Culture and Grand Strategy in Chinese History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995). Locating the determinants of realpolitik (or at least some of them) within the state has been viewed by some as expanding the repertoire of realism, but such a focus is not consistent with typical realist analysis.
58. Some researchers have explored the domestic political and cultural bases of realpolitik behaviour by states. See, for example, Jack Snyder, Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991) and Alastair Iain Johnson, Cultural Realism: Strategic Culture and Grand Strategy in Chinese History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995). Locating the determinants of realpolitik (or at least some of them) within the state has been viewed by some as expanding the repertoire of realism, but such a focus is not consistent with typical realist analysis.
59. Suchman and Eyre, ’Military Procurement as Rational Myth’, p. 151.
60. For an analysis of the construction of the ’official’ discourse of security policy and strategies for legitimating it through popular media, in this case films and video, see Michael J. Shapiro, ’Strategic Discourse/Discursive Strategy: The Representation of "Security Policy" in the Video Age’, International Studies Quarterly, 34 (1990), pp. 327-40.
61. Shekar Gupta, ’The New Thrust’, India Today, 15 November 1985.
62. Dilip Bobb, ’Chariot of Fire’, India Today, 15 June 1989.
63. Dilip Bobb, ’Moscow’s New Offensive’, India Today, 31 August 1984.
64. Shekar Gupta, ’The New Thrust’, India Today, 15 November 1985.
65. Ramindar Singh, ’Trouble Before Take-off’, India Today, 31 January 1986.
66. Dilip Bobb and Ramindar Singh, ’Pakistan’s Nuclear Bombshell’, India Today, 31 March 1987.
67. Kanwar Sandhu, ’On Course, Finally’, India Today, 15 July 1993.
68. Raj Chengappa, ’The Missile Man’, India Today, 15 April 1994.
69. Raj Chengappa, ’Nuclear Blackmail’, India Today, 30 April 1994.
70. Avirook Sen, ’Ground Realities’, India Today, 31 December 1996.
71. Suman Dubey, ’Soaring Into the Space Age’, India Today, 15 August 1980.
72. Ramindar Singh, ’Trouble Before take-off’, India Today, 31 January 1986.
73. Dilip Bobb, ’Chariot of Fire’, India Today, 15 June 1989.
74. Raj Changappa, ’PSLV’s Deviant Behaviour’, India Today, 15 October 1993.
75. Raj Chengappa, ’The Missile Man’, India Today, 15 April 1994.
76. Shekar Gupta, ’Design Gap’, India Today, 15 November 1985.
77. Shekar Gupta, ’A Sea Change’, India Today, 31 December 1987.
78. Raj Chengappa, ’The Missile Man’, India Today, 15 April 1994.
79. Raj Chengappa, ’Nuclear Blackmail’, India Today, 30 April 1994.
80. Suman Dubey, ’Soaring Into the Space Age’, India Today, 15 August 1980.
81. Dilip Bobb, ’Chariot of Fire’, India Today, 15 June 1989.
82. Shekar Gupta, ’Shooting Ahead’, India Today, 31 March 1988.
83. Raj Chengappa, ’A Testing Time’, India Today, 31 August 1988.
84. Raj Chengappa, ’The Missile Man’, India Today, 15 April 1994.
85. ’Opinion Poll: Yes to the Bomb’, India Today, 31 December 1995.
86. The notion of quasi-states and distinction between juridical and empirical statehood is discussed in Robert H. Jackson, Quasi-states: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).
87. On the different types of power - bargaining, structural, and hegemonic - potentially exercised by arms suppliers, see Keith Krause, ’Military Statecraft: Power and Influence in Soviet and American Arms Transfer Relationships, International Studies Quarterly, 35 (1991), pp. 313-36.
88. Press Statement, 11 May 1998, 〈http://wwwindianembassy.org/pic/prmay1198.htm〉 (30 May 1998). For a discussion of the debates and decisions that have shaped India’s nuclear programme, see Šumit Ganguly, ’India’s Pathway to Pokhran II: The Prospects and Sources of New Delhi’s Nuclear Weapons Program’, International Security, 23 (1999), pp. 148-77.
89. Press Statement, 11 May 1998, 〈http://wwwindianembassy.org/pic/prmay1198.htm〉 (30 May 1998). For a discussion of the debates and decisions that have shaped India’s nuclear programme, see Šumit Ganguly, ’India’s Pathway to Pokhran II: The Prospects and Sources of New Delhi’s Nuclear Weapons Program’, International Security, 23 (1999), pp. 148-77.