This chapter outlines the theoretical and historical argument of the book by criticizing extant accounts of the origin of the modern international system. It does so be engaging the view according to which the modern international system emerged as a consequence of a transition from a world of empires to a world of states, arguing that this presupposes that empires and states are categorically distinct and can be placed in historical succession. It also engages the view according to which the modern international system spread to other continents as a result of a diffusion of European ideas, instead arguing that this was a result of their creative appropriation.

In this chapter, Gijsbert Rutten, Iris Van de Voorde and Rik Vosters, refine the Labovian distinction based primarily on the type of language learning involved by bringing in the contact-based insights of Milroy (2007) on this issue. Exploring the extent to which the transmission-diffusion distinction can also apply to orthographic, rather than phonological or morphosyntactic, changes, the authors discuss a range of different examples of both transmission and – various subtypes of – diffusion, mostly from Dutch, German and English. Their central argument is that diffusion must be seen as the dominant driver of orthographic change, but transmission-type changes are also possible in specific historical contexts, for instance in relation to explicit instruction in schools or in closely-knit social networks. Building on different examples and cases, the chapter also explains the link between diffusion and supralocalization, as local and regional spelling practices in medieval times give way to more supraregional writing traditions in postmedieval times. As such, these processes of geographical diffusion of innovations across communities often lay the ground work for later standardization efforts. However, by discussing a slightly more elaborate case study on spelling change and pluricentricity in Dutch language history, the authors show how the development of such supraregional writing traditions often leads not only to linguistic standardization, but also results in a linguistic landscape which can best be described as pluricentric, consisting of different national and regional normative centers from which innovations spread.

Having lived through a global pandemic, or more trivially, having seen online memes “go viral,” we are all intuitively familiar with the spread of things through network ties. Diseases, memes, used books, and cash are ready examples of things passed from one person to another. Somewhat less familiar, perhaps, is that a fundamentally similar mechanism underlies many of our social behaviors. Understanding such processes is therefore related to understanding how anything – information, rumors, diseases, and so on – diffuses through a system. Key questions include: How does a network structure as a whole (its topology) affect the diffusion process? And how does a node’s position in this structure affect the likelihood of transmitting and receiving flows?

India’s federal structure is unsuited to the localized demands of climate governance. It is highly centralized, with a federal government that enjoys fiscal, bureaucratic, and jurisdictional powers greater than in more classical, decentralized federations. Indian states, however, are responsible for several areas crucial to climate action, from water and health to the emissions-intensive electricity sector. This makes elaborate forms of cooperation between the two levels essential. In this chapter, we show that the federal system has organically begun evolving some institutions and practices to keep up with the demands of climate change, including climate-specific financing and capacity flowing from the centre to the states, and instances of bottom-up experimentation and learning. But these developments are uncoordinated and lack strategic direction; policies appear and fade away with regularity, unpegged to long-term goals or a plan to rectify top-heaviness in Indian climate federalism.

The chapter sets out to explain what is meant by authoritarian learning. It starts by defining authoritarianism, learning and authoritarian learning before detailing the research findings that it is under-theorised, that it is less hierarchical then widely considered in the literature, that the intra-state level is as crucial to learning as the inter-state level, that regional organisations are important, and that authoritarian learning is more than the spread of ideas. Rather, learning between authoritarian-minded elites is direct, with regular dialogue to develop best survival practices to consolidate power. Authoritarian learning theoretically incorporates experiential and social learning and integrates diffusion, emulation, linkage, policy-transfer, and lesson-drawing. Having addressed the theoretical aspects of authoritarian learning, we address the external and internal networks of authoritarian learning. The chapter ends by providing a plan for the book.

This final chapter brings the analysis together, highlighting the findings of the book once again. Authoritarian learning is not as vertical as widely considered in the literature, with Russia playing less of a role in the processes of learning than previously considered. Another key finding is that there are clear instances of dialogue in this type of learning. This points to – at the very least – a strong form of diffusion that provides for regular contact, dialogue and sharing of best practices for consolidation. A final key finding is the importance of post-Soviet regional organisations in providing learning opportunities and chances for sharing best practices. Therefore, these organisations are crucial for learning. The chapter ends by developing some policy recommendations for coping – and countering – the likely continuation and growth in the number of authoritarian regimes in the coming years.

The basics of wave propagation in three dimensions, including the wave nature of sound, are considered. When waves from a common source reach a common end point, but by different paths, wave interference can result. Wave amplitudes that add or subtract result in constructive and destructive interference, respectively. Diffraction results when the components of a continuum of sources, initially from the same source, arrive at an end point following different paths. Diffraction becomes very significant when the wavelength becomes comparable to, or larger than, the objects in its path. Diffusion of sound energy in a room will occur if the reflections look as if they are randomized. Increasing the amount of sound diffusion in a room is often desirable, so special acoustic treatments have been devised for this purpose that are known as diffusers. Some of those treatments are based on variable-depth walls, where the depths are determined by a numerical series, including pseudo-random numbers and some results from numbers theory.

While the transport of concentration fields arising in nature and technology is often predominantly advective, it invariably has at least a small diffusive component as well. The inclusion of diffusivity in transport studies increases their complexity significantly, as we will see. At the same time, introducing the diffusivity creates an opportunity to settle on a broadly agreeable definition for a transport barrier. Indeed, diffusive transport through a material surface is a uniquely defined, fundamental physical quantity, whose extremizing surfaces can be defined without reliance on any special notion of coherence. In the limit of zero diffusivity, the results we describe in this chapter also give a unique, physical definition of purely advective LCSs as material surfaces that will block transport most efficiently under the addition of the slightest diffusion or uncertainty to the velocity field.

South Asian countries, i.e., Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, are not only at similar stages of economic development and have comparable relationships with multi-lateral agencies, but are also connected to each other through their geographies as well as parallel and sometimes overlapping histories. Among them, besides India and Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and more recently Maldives have also enacted competition legislation, while Bhutan has a competition policy, and Afghanistan a draft competition legislation which is yet to be enacted. This chapter outlines the pre-conditions of transfer in each of these countries and charts the progress of their competition regimes along the deliberation–enactment–implementation continuum. In doing so, the chapter analyses the motivations, mechanisms, and institutions engaged by each of these countries and evaluates the compatibility and legitimacy generated, or where the adoption has not been completed, likely to be generated, in the course of adoption.

Although law was placed at the centre of the development process in the Law and Development movement launched in the 1960s, there was limited understanding at the time of the factors necessary for borrowed laws to succeed in the adopting country. This chapter investigates the theoretical links between adoption and implementation of borrowed competition laws and integrates strands from comparative law, literature on policy diffusion and transfer, and new institutional economics to develop a framework for examining competition law transplants as they proceed along the deliberation–adoption–implementation continuum. This chapter argues that a borrowed law may be considered successful if it is understood, utilised, and applied in the borrowing country and continues to grow in and become a part of its pre-existing legal system. It further argues that this is only possible if the borrowed law is compatible with the context of the adopting country and enjoys a degree of legitimacy in it.