Abstract
Not long after the completion of Michael Mann’s “quadrilogy” on The Sources of Social Power (1986–2012), social scientists began to interrogate the meaning of his concepts of “despotic” and “infrastructural” power. While we know that the former is the most evident sign of danger in times of war, less well understood is the role of infrastructural power in state/civil society relations. Most important is the ambiguous relationship between the two types of power and the possibility that—especially in times of war—infrastructural power can become the vehicle for despotic ends. But infrastructural power is also reciprocal, offering firms and civil society groups channels with which to contest the state’s projects. In this article, I first explicate the different meanings that Mann gave to his concept of infrastructural power. In the second section, I turn to how the concept has been “received” in political science and historical sociology. In the third part, I argue that the main danger to American democracy in wartime lies not in its becoming a despotic state, but in the use of the state’s infrastructural channels for the exercise of despotic ends. The fourth part illustrates the complexities of infrastructural power in business/government/civil society relations in cybersecurity, which Mann—for understandable reasons—did not examine in his encompassing work.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The four volume work is cited as SOSP below, followed by the volume number.
Tilly’s most ambitious work on state formation was his Capital, Coercion and European States (1990). This was preceded by his edited volume, The Formation of National States in Western Europe (1975). Skocpol’s major contribution was her States and Social Revolutions (1979). Giddens’s was his The Constitution of Society (1986), and Poggi’s was his The State: Its Nature, Development and Prospects (1990).
For example, see Poggi’s critique in his puckishly titled “Political Power Unmanned: A Defense of the Holy Trinity from Mann’s Military Attack” in Hall and Schroeder, eds., An Anatomy of Power: The Social Theory of Michael Mann (2006).
The most through critical evaluation of Mann’s contributions came in 2006 with the essays in John A. Hall and Ralph Schroeder, eds., An Anatomy of Power: The Social Theory of Michael Mann. In particular, see Linda Weiss’s contribution to that book, “Infrastructural Power, Economic Transformation, and Globalization.”
I am grateful to Antonina Gentile for this insight. See her “Afterward” to a debate in Trajectories (2016) on my War, State and Contention.
Slater finds support for his reading of the concept from a number of other scholars and criticizes my own reading in his “State Power and Contentious Politics,” in Perspectives on Politics 14 (2016), pp. 164–165.
The quotation is from p. 3 of the manuscript of Clemens’s forthcoming book, “Civic Gifts: Benevolence and the Making of the American Nation-State”. I am grateful to Professor Clemens for permission to quote from it. The term “expansible state” is taken from Ira Katznelson’s essay, “Flexible Capacity” in his and Martin Shefter’s edited book, Shaped by War and Trade (2002).
Gorski puts this more sharply: While authoritative networks like the Church “tend to be organizationally unified, geographically centralized and internally hierarchical, diffuse networks tend to be fragmented, de-centralized and flat:” they “employ peaceful and persuasive tactics to diffuse their ideologies;” and they “provide partial or incomplete worldviews. They focus on particular realms of life, and provide scripts for acting within them.” They “are often absorbed and deployed without the conscious will or knowledge of the actor” (Gorski, “Mann’s Theory of Ideological Power: Sources, Applications and Elaborations,” in Hall and Schroeder, An Anatomy of Power, 2006, pp. 201–202.
Giddens is an exception. “The very nature of industrialized war in a certain sense,” he concludes in The Nation-State and Violence, “ensures a diversity of interests and concerns” (1985, p. 248, emphasis added). Where the society is plural—if not pluralistic—then its “diversity of interests and concerns” makes the relations between the state and civil society both heterogeneous and potentially contradictory.”
As late as 2013, the Congressional Research Service reported that there were 108,000 private contractors in Afghanistan, compared to the 65,700 American troops who were stationed there. For this report, go to http://www.businessinsider.com/108000-contractors-are-in-afghanistan-2013-6, visited 25 October 2013. A more detailed analysis will be found at http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/06/03/Pentagon-Has-No-Idea-What-108K-Contractors-Are-Doing.aspx#page1#ixzz2ilPdkD4x.
Shorrock’s source for these data was an unclassified PowerPoint presentation that was unwittingly released by the office of the Director of National Intelligence prepared for a Defense Intelligence Agency conference. See the description of how he derived his estimates in note no. 18 on p. 392 of his journalistic but informative book, Spies for Hire (2008).
These examples are drawn from a longer discussion in chapter 8 of my War, States and Contention.
Joris Verhulst, “February 15, 2003: The World Says No to War,” in Steffen Walgrave and Dieter Rucht, eds., The World Says No to War: Demonstrations Against the War on Iraq, 2010, pp. 16–17.
The three most important cases were Rasul v. Bush (542 US 466, argued before the Court in 2004; Hamden v. Rumsfeld (548 US 557, in 2006, and Boumediene v. Bush (553 US 723), in 2008.
For the ACLU’s campaign, go to https://www.aclu.org/free-speech-national-security-technology-and-liberty/reform-patriot-act-section-215.
For the role of the ALA and local public libraries in opposing Section 215, see Florent Blanc, “Dissent After September 11: Mobilization of Librarians, ACLU, Cities and Lawyers,” Unpublished PhD dissertation, Northwestern University, June 2010, chap. 3. The ALA’s position against section 215 can be found at http://www.ala.org/advocacy/advleg/federallegislation/theusapatriotact. Its 2002 Resolution can be found at www.ala/org/ala/washoff/woissues/civillberties/theusapatriotact/alaresolution/cfm .
For the details of the campaign and a list of the cities and states that had passed Bill of Rights resolutions as of the end of 2013, go to http://www.constitutioncampaign.org/map/resos.php.
I am grateful to Kristen Eichensehr for her path-breaking work on cybersecurity that has inspired this section of this article. See, in particular, her “The Cyber-Law of Nations,” Georgetown law Journal 103, pp. 317–380, “Public-Private Cybersecurity,” Texas Law Review 95: pp. 468–538, and her unpublished paper, “Digital Switzerlands,” cited with permission.
Eichensehr takes the term from a keynote speech by Microsoft President Brad Smith, which laid bare “the reality that although somewhat bounded by the laws of the countries in which they are headquartered or operate, US technology companies are increasingly standing as competing power centers, challenging the primacy of governments.”
Andrew Ross Sorkin, “Tech Companies Tread Lightly in Statements on U.S. Spying,” New York Times, June 10, 2013, available at http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/06/10/tech-companies-tread-lightly-in-statements-on-u-s-spying/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0.
Scott Shane and David A. Sanger, “Job Title Key to Inner Access Held by Snowden,” New York Times, June 3, 2013, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/us/job-title-key-to-inner-access-held-by-snowden.html? hpw.
The rally is described at https://rally.stopwatching.us/, visited October 28, 2013.
The Commission issued its report in December 2013 under the title “Report and Recommendations of The President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies,” available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2013/12/18/liberty-and-security-changing-world. The USA Freedom Act (H.R. 2048, Pub.L. 114–123) was enacted on June 2, 2015 to restore in modified form several provisions of the USA Patriot Act, which had expired the day before.
Adam Nagourney, Jan Lovett, and Richard Perez-Pena, “San Bernardino Shooting Kills at Least 14; Two Suspects are Dead,” New York Times, Dec. 2, 2015, p. 1. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/us/san-bernardino-shooting.html?_r=0.
The government relied in its filing on the “All Writs Act,” a revolutionary-era piece of legislation that had hardly ever been used since (28 USC section 1651). The court ruling can be found at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2714001-SB-Shooter-Order-Compelling-Apple-Asst-iPhone.html.\http.
For a succinct summary of what the FBI was asking Apple to do, why Apple refused to comply, and whether it could even be done technically, go to Dave Lee, “Apple vs the FBI- a Plain English Guide,” BBC Technology, February 18, 2016, at www.bbc.com/news/technology-35601035.
Stuart Dredge and Danny Yadron, “Apple challenges ‘Chilling’ Demand to Decrypt San Bernardino Shooter;s iPhone,” The Guardian, February 17, 2016. http://www.theguardian.com.technology/2016/feb/17/apple-challenges-chilling-demand-to-decyrpt-San-Berndadino-shooter’s-iphone.
Eric Lichtblau, “Judge Tells Apple to Help Unlock iPhone Used by San Bernardino Gunman,” New York Times, Feb. 16, 2016, p. 1 at www.nytimes.com/2016/02/17/us/judge-tells-apple-to-help-unlock-iphone-used-by-san-bernardino-gunman.
Tim Cook, “A Message to our Customers,” February 16, 2016. At http:// www.apple.come/customer-letter/.
Jennifer Granick, “Who Sets the Rules of the Privacy and Security Game?” Just Security, February 22, 2016. https://www.justsecurity.org/29446/sets-rules-privacy-security-game/.
“EFF to Support Apple in Encryption Battle: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World.” February 16, 2016. Http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/eff-support-apple-encryption-battle
Danny Yadron, “Facebook and Twitter Back Apple in Phone Encryption Battle with FBI”, The Guardian, February 18, 2016. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/18/apple-fbi-encryption-battle-iphone-facebook-twitter-san-bernardino-shooting. Also see Farhad Manjoo, “Apple’s Stance Highlights a More Confrontational Tech Industry.”New York Times, February 17, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apples-stance-highlights-a-more-confrontational-tech-industry.html.
For the timeline of Fight for the Future’s online activism since 2011, go to https://www.fightforthefuture.org/timeline/.
The petition and the major supporting groups can be found at https://savesecurity.org/. See the account of the Fight for the Future campaign by Evan Selleck, “Fight For the Future is Planning a Pro-Apple demonstration in Front of Apple, FBI Hearing, on Phonehacks, March 16, 2016. http://www.iphonehacks.com/2016/03/fight-for-the-future-is-planning-a-pro-apple-demonstration-in-front-of-apple-fbi-hearing.html.
I am grateful to Chan Suh for providing me with the data in Fig. 2.
Danny Yadron, Spencer Ackerman, and Sam Thielman, “Apple Accuses FBI of Violating Constitutional Rights in iPhone Battle,” The Guardian, February 25, 2016.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/25/apple-fbi-iphone-encryption-request-response.
Joe Nelson, “FBI Ends Case Against Apple After Cracking Gunman’s iPhone in San Bernardino Terror Attack,” Los Angeles News, March 28, 2016. http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20160328/fbi-ends-case-against-apple-after-cracking-gunmans-iphone-in-san-bernardino-terror-attack.
Danny Yadron and Spencer Ackerman, “FBI May Have Found Way to Unlock San Bernardino Shooter’s iPhone Without Apple,” The Guardian, March 22, 2016. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/21/fbi-apple-court-hearing-postpone-unlock-terrorist-iphone.
The tech firms’ defense of their users’ privacy was revived as an issue in the wake of the 2016 election. But this time, both Facebook and Twitter were found to be hosting ads from suspicious but unknown sources—which turned out to be Russian—that had hammered Hillary Clinton’s campaign and generally tried to stoke tensions between opposing groups in this polarized election. When Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was told that Facebook was being used to project “fake news” into the election campaign, he at first denied it, but then, confronted by the evidence that over $100,000 of such ads had been projected on his platform during the campaign, he had to admit his company’s indifference. For an early but serious scholarly report on the issue of Russian hacking through social media, see James M. Ludes and Mark R. Jacobson, “Shatter the House of Mirrors,” a report of the Pell Center for International Relations, http://pellcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Shatter-the-House-of-Mirrors-FINAL-WEB.pdf.
References
Agamben, G. (2005). State of exception. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Anker, L., et al. (1987). The ties that bind business and government. In M. Schwartz (Ed.), The structure of power in America: the corporate elite as a ruling class (pp. 97–122). New York: Holmes and Meier.
Avant, D. (2010). War, Recruitment systems, and democracy. In E. Kier & R. R. Krebs (Eds.), War’s wake: International conflict and the fate of liberal democracy. (pp. 235–252) New York, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. B. (1963). Decisions and non-decisions: an analytical framework. American Political Science Review, 57, 632–642.
Balogh, B. (2015). The associational state: American governance in the twentieth century. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bennett, C. J. (2008). The privacy advocates: resisting the spread of surveillance. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bensel, R. F. (1990). Yankee Leviathan. The origins of central authority in America, 1859–1877. New York, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bentley, A. F. (1949). The process of government: a study of social pressures. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Blanc, F. (2010). Dissent after September 11: mobilization of Librarians, ACLU, Cities and Lawyers. PhD thesis, Political Science, Northwestern University.
Carr, M. (2016). Public-private partnerships in National cyber-security strategies. International Affairs, 92, 43–62.
Clemens, E. S. (2016). Configurations of Power: reflections on Tarrow’s War, states, and contention. Trajectories, 27, 42–46.
Clemens, E. S. (forthcoming). Civic gifts: benevolence and voluntarism in the making of the American nation-state. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cole, D. (2015). Engines of liberty. New York: Basic Books.
Collins, R. (2013). Marx, Weber, and Mann. Contemporary Sociology, 42, 482–484.
Cortright, D. (2014). Protest and politics: how peace movements shape history. In M. Kaldor & I. Rangelov (Eds.), The handbook of global security policy (pp. 482–504). Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.
Dahl, R. A. (1956). Who governs? New Haven: Yale University Press.
Eichensehr, K. (2015). The cyber-law of nations. Georgetown Law Journal, 103, 317–380.
Eichensehr, K. (2017). Public-private cybersecurity. Texas Law Review, 95, 468–538.
Eichensehr, K. (n.d.). Digital Switzerlands, Unpublished paper, UCLA Law School.
Esman, M. J. (2013). The emerging American garrison state. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Eulau, H. (1986). Politics, the self and society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Friedberg, A. L. (2000). The shadow of the garrison state. America's anti-statism and its cold war grand strategy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gentile, A. (2016). Afterword: Building out from war, states, and contention. Trajectories, 27(3), 50–54.
Giddens, A. (1985). The nation-state and violence: a contemporary critique of historical materialism. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Giddens, A. (1986). The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Goldsmith, J. (2012). Power and constraint: The accountable presidency after 9/11. New York: Norton.
Gorski, P. S. (2006). Mann's theory of ideological power: sources, applications and elaborations. In J. A. Hall & R. Schroeder (Eds.), An anatomy of power: the social theory of Michael Mann (pp. 101–134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gramsci, A. (1955). Note sul Machiavelli, sulla politica e sullo stato moderno. Turin: Einaudi.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York: International Publishers.
Greenwald, G. (2014). No place to hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA and the US surveillance state. Londo: Metropolitan Books.
Hacker, J. S. (2002). The divided American welfare state. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hacker, J. S., & Pierson, P. (2016). American amnesia: How the war on government led us to forget what made America prosper. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Hall, J. A. (1987). Introduction. In J. A. Hall (Ed.), States in history (pp. 1–21). New York: Basil Blackwell.
Hall, J. A., & Schroeder, R. (Eds.). (2006). An anatomy of power: the social theory of Michael Mann. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harding, L. (2014). The Snowden files: the inside story of the World's most wanted man. New York: Vintage Books.
Heaney, M. T., & Rojas, F. (2014). Hybrid activism. American Journal of Sociology, 119(4), 1047–1103.
Hobson, J. M. (2006). Mann, the state and war. In J. A. Hall & R. Schroeder (Eds.), An anatomy of power: the social theory of Michael Mann (pp. 150–166). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hunter, F. (1959). Top leadership, USA. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Kaldor, M. (2012). New and old wars: organized violence in a global era. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Kant, I. (1991). Kant: Political writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Katznelson, I. (2002). Flexible capacity: the military and early American statebuilding. In I. Katznelson & M. Shefter (Eds.), Shaped by war and trade. International Influences on American political development. Princeton: Princeton University Press ch. 4.
Kier, E. (2010). War and reform: gaining labor’s compliance on the homefront. In E. Kier & R. R. Krebs (Eds.). War's wake: international conflict and the fate of liberal democracy (pp. 139–161). New York, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krebs, R. R. (2010). International conflict and the constitutional balance: executive authority after war. In E. Kier & R. R. Krebs (Eds.), In War's wake: international conflict and the fate of liberal democracy (pp. 187–210). New York, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lasswell, H. (1941). The garrison state. American Journal of Sociology, 46, 455–468.
Lasswell, H. (1998). Essays on the garrison state. New Brunswick: Transaction Press.
Lowi, T. J. (1979). The end of liberalism: the second Republic in the United States. New York: Norton.
Ludes, J. M., & Jacobson, M. R. (2017). Shatter the house of mirrors. Salve Regina University, Pell Center for International Relations: 1-20.
Madison, J. (1865). Political observations. Letters and Other Writings of James Madison. IV. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Mann, M. (1986–2013). The sources of social power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mann, M. (1987). The autonomous power of the state: Its origins, mechanisms and results. In J. H. Hall (Ed.), States in history (pp. 109–136). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Mann, M. (1988). States, war and capitalism: studies in political sociology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Mann, M. (2006). The sources of social power revisited: a response to criticism. In J. A. Hall & R. Schroeder (Eds.), An anatomy of power: the social theory of Michael Mann (pp. 343–396). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mazzucato, M. (2013). The entrepreneurial state. London: Anthem.
McConnell, G. (1966). Private power and American democracy. New York: Knopf.
Mettler, S. (2011). The submerged state: how invisible government policies undermine American democracy. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.
Mills, C. W. (1956). The power elite. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Neely Jr., M. E. (1991). The fate of liberty: Abraham Lincoln and civil liberties. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Novak, W. (2008). The myth of the “weak” American state. American Historical Review, 113, 752–772.
Poggi, G. (1990). The state: its nature, development, and prospects. Cambridge: Polity.
Poggi, G. (2006). Political power unmanned: a defense of the holy trinity from Mann's military attack. In J. A. Hall & R. Schroeder (Eds.), An anatomy of power: the social theory of Michael Mann (pp. 135–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Porter, B. D. (1994). War and the rise of the state: the military foundations of modern politics. New York: Free Press.
Posner, E. A., & Vermeule, A. (2005). Accommodating emergencies. In M. Tushnet (Ed.), The constitution in wartime: beyond alarmism and complacency (pp. 55–93). Durham, London: Duke University Press.
Rossiter, C. (1963). Constitutional dictatorship : crisis government in the modern democracies (2nd. ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Schattschneider, E. E. (1935). Politics, pressures and the tariff. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Scheppele, K. L. (2006). The migration of anti-constitutional ideas: the Post-9/11 globalization of public law and the international state of emergency. In S. Choudhry (Ed.), The migration of constitutional ideas (pp. 347–373). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Scheppele, K. L. (2013). The empire of security and the security of empire. Temple International and Comparative Law Journal, 27, 241–272.
Schmitt, C. (1985). Political theology: four chapters on the concept of sovereignty. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.
Schneier, B. (2015). Data and goliath: the hidden battles to collect your data and control your world. New York: Norton.
Schwartz, M. (Ed.). (1987). The structure of power in America: the corporate elite as a ruling class. New York, London: Holmes and Meier.
Segal, D. R., & Korb, L. J. (2013). Manning and financing the twenty-first century all-volunteer force. Daedalus 140:75–87.
Shorrock, T. (2008). Spies for hire. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Sidel, M. (2004). More secure, less free? Antiterrorism policy and civil liberties after September 11. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Skocpol, T. (1979). States and social revolutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Slater, D. (2010). Ordering power: contentious politics and authoritarian leviathans in Southeast Asia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Slater, D. (2016). State power and contentious politics. Perspectives on Politics, 14, 164–165.
Sparrow, J. T. (2011). Warfare state: World War II Americans and the age of big government. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stone, G. R. (2004). Perilous times: free speech in wartime. New York: Norton.
Suh, C. S. (2014). Legal opportunities and lawyers’ mobilization: the case of the Guantánamo habeas lawyers. Mobilization, 19, 287–307.
Tarrow, S. (2015). War, states, and contention. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Tarrow, S. (2016). A transnational movement to protect privacy? Close interaction, incompatible regimes, and the securitized internet. WZB Occasional Papers. Wissenschaftzentrum Berlin.
Thorpe, R. (2014). The American warfare state: the domestic politics of military spending. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tilly, C. (Ed.). (1975). The formation of National States in Western Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tilly, C. (1990). Coercion, capital, and European states, AD 990–1992. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
Truman, D. B. (1951). The governmental process: political interests and public opinion. New York: Knopf.
Vasi, I. B., & Strang, D. (2009). Civil liberty in America: the diffusion of municipal bill of rights resolutions after the passage of the USA PATRIOT act. American Journal of Sociology, 114, 1716–1764.
Verhulst, J. (2010). February 15, 2003. The world says no to war. In S. Walgrave & D. Rught (Eds.), The world says no to war: demonstrations against the war on Iraq (ch. 2). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Walker, J. (1991). Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions and Social Movements. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Weiss, L. (2006). Infrastructural power, economic transformation, and globalization. In J. A. Hall & R. Schroeder (Eds.), An anatomy of power: the social theory of Michael Mann (pp. 167–186). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Weiss, L. (2014). America, Inc.? Innovation and enterprise in the national security state. Ithaca, London: Cornell University Press.
Witt, J. F. (2007). Patriots and cosmopolitans: hidden histories of American law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Acknowledgements
This article draws on two previous efforts: my book War, States, and Contention (2015) and a recent paper, “A Transnational Movement to Protect Privacy? Close Interaction, Incompatible Regimes, and the Securitized Internet,” presented to the Berlin Wisschschaftzentrum in 2016. I am grateful to Eitan Alimi, Josh Chafetz, Lis Clemens, David Cole, Mike Dorf, Kristen Eichensehr, Antonina Gentile, Philip Gorski, Jacob Hacker, John Hall, Steve Hellman, Peter Katzenstein, Des King, Michael Mann, Joe Margulies, Doug McAdam, Suzanne Mettler, David Meyer, Steven Pincus, Aziz Rana, Elizabeth Sanders, Dan Slater, Bill Sewell, and Linda Weiss for comments on earlier iterations of this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tarrow, S. Mann, war, and cyberspace: dualities of infrastructural power in America. Theor Soc 47, 61–85 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-018-9306-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-018-9306-x