Abstract:

Fukuyama (1989) was right: a centuries-old argument about government should be over. Liberal democracy is the best regime known to us. It isn’t close: for life’s important aspects, including health, wealth, liberty, and peace, democracy dominates all known alternatives. Empirically, however, the argument is not over. Indeed, there is widespread concern that many citizens (and, sadly, some academics) are less enthusiastic about democracy than the evidence warrants. I argue that when we search for solutions to complex problems (e.g., the design of governments) we often make a serious error in our mental representation of the choice problem: instead of using the criterion of the best feasible option, we ignore important constraints and look for an alternative that satisfies certain value-standards. When these standards are unrealistic, as they often are, we can become disillusioned with the best possible option. Robert Michels was wrong; Voltaire, and Henny Youngman, were right.

 

Speaker Bio:

Jonathan Bendor is the Walter and Elise Haas Professor of Political Economy and Organizations at the Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.His research focuses on models of adaptive behavior and bounded rationality, evolutionary analyses of norms and preferences, organizational decision making under uncertainty, and the modernization of bureaucracy. Most of his current research is on organizational problem solving, with a particular focus on institutional methods for easing or finessing the cognitive constraints faced by individual decision makers. He is working on a book on the evolution of modern problem solving in military organizations.Bendor was a Fellow of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in 1999-2000 and in 2004-2005.  He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.    

Abstract:

Foreign intervention sometimes enters by domestic invitation. Recently, the Malian government asked international actors to send troops to help stabilize and strengthen its rule of law, specifically as it faltered after the country’s coup. In this case, explanations for the intervention by invitation tend to revolve around the relative strength of the government, which was weak compared to the somewhat sophisticated militants that opposed it. Such an explanation, however, is unlikely shed much light on the situation since there are many weak governments with faltering or failing rule of law that do not request or receive such governance assistance, at least as far as reporting on these cases suggests. As the United States and its allies withdraw from the major conflicts of the past decade, the focus of international intervention in conflict and post-conflict contexts is likely to occur in cooperation with host states. This project examines an important set of arrangements for weak states: it identifies and explains when states invite other states to intervene for governance assistance—agreements between sovereign entities—specifically with regard to the security sector. These illustrations and tests draw on new quantitative and qualitative data.

 

Speaker Bio:

Aila M. Matanock is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. Her research addresses the ways in which international actors engage in conflicted and weak states. She uses case studies, survey experiments, and cross-national data in this work. She has conducted fieldwork in Colombia, Central America, the Pacific, Southeast Asia, and elsewhere. She has received funding for these projects from many sources, including the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Minerva Research Initiative, the National Center for the Study of Terrorism and the Response to Terrorism (START), and the Center for Global Development (CGD). Her 2017 book, Electing Peace: From Civil Conflict to Political Participation, was published by Cambridge University Press. It is based on her dissertation research at Stanford University, which won the 2013 Helen Dwight Reid award from the American Political Science Association. Her work has also been published by Governance, International Security, the Journal of Politics, and elsewhere. She has worked at the RAND Corporation before graduate school, and she has held fellowships at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and the Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation at UCSD since. She received her Ph.D. in political science from Stanford University and her A.B. magna cum laude from Harvard University.

Abstract:

While populism takes different forms in different countries, the success of populist parties and leaders comes from their ability to represent grievances. Current analyses emphasize the personality, background and rhetoric of populist leaders, but, often neglect the intermediary mechanisms that help populists not only address and represent but also generate “the people” from a diverse set of constituencies. By focusing on the authoritarian populist context of Turkey, this paper examines the role of pro- government and government-organized NGOs in helping the ruling Justice and Development Party connect with, represent, and shape the youth public in the aftermath of the uprisings across the wider Middle East. The paper argues that the making of authoritarian Turkey and the resilience of President Erdoğan should be traced as much to the mechanisms of consent-building as to the mechanisms of coercion.

 

Speaker Bio:

Ayça Alemdaroğlu is a research assistant professor of sociology and the associate director of the Keyman Modern Turkish Studies Program at Northwestern University. She previously worked as a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Anthropology and a teaching fellow in the Thinking Matters Program at Stanford. Her research engages with a broad range of theoretical and ethnographic issues including youth culture and politics, gender and sexuality, constructions of space and place, nationalism, eugenics, and higher education. She has B.Sc. and M.A. in Political Science and Public Administration from the Middle East Technical University and Bilkent University, and Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Cambridge.

Abstract:

What are the e ffects of mass media campaigns on the norms and behaviors of police officers as pertains to human tra fficking? Namely, can mass media campaigns be employed to induce shifts in knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and practices (KABP) of law enforcement officers, that might reduce the incidence of modern forms of slavery and assist victims of human traffi cking? Mass media, especially `entertainment education, (e.g. comic books, radio soap operas, and street theater) is frequently used as a tool for social change to convey messages around issues such as public health, gender rights, conflict resolution, or development strategies through stories that are both realistic and entertaining. Yet how can we know the e ffects of such campaigns? Specifically, do diff erences in message formats and content a ffect the impact of campaigns against human tra fficking? The research presented here shows that mass media entertainment campaigns can e ffectively convey messages around human traffi cking, influencing attitudes, norms and behaviors of law enforcement officers around the issue. It also demonstrates how messages whose content emphasizes victim empowerment appear to be more e ffective than negative, fear-inducing appeals.

 

Speaker Bio:

 

Margaret Boittin is an Assistant Professor of Law at Osgoode Hall Law School (York University, Canada). Her first book, entitled The Whore, the Hostess and the Honey: Policing, Health, Business and the Regulation of Prostitution in China, is under contract with Cambridge University Press.

Abstract:

Throughout the world, voters lack access to information about politicians, government performance, and public services. Efforts to remedy these informational deficits are numerous. Yet do informational campaigns influence voter behavior and increase democratic accountability? Through the inaugural Metaketa Initiative, sponsored by the Evidence in Governance and Politics (EGAP) research network, we aim to address this substantive question and at the same time introduce a new model for cumulative learning that increases coordination among otherwise independent researcher teams. We present the cumulative results (meta-analysis) from six independently conducted but coordinated field experimental studies, the findings from a related evaluation of whether practitioners utilize this information as expected, and discuss lessons learned from EGAP’s efforts to coordinate field experiments, increase replication of theoretically important questions across contexts, and increase the external validity of field experimental research.

 

Speaker(s) Bio:

Susan D. Hyde is Professor of Political Science and Avice M. Saint Chair in Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley. She is the Executive Director of the EGAP (Evidence in Governance and Politics) research network. Her research examines attempts by international actors to change politics or policies within sovereign states, particularly in the developing world. She earned her Ph.D. from the University of California, San Diego in 2006, and has held residential fellowships at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. and Princeton University's Niehaus Center for Globalization and Governance. Her first book, The Pseudo-Democrat's Dilemma: Why Election Observation Became an International Norm, was published by Cornell University Press in 2011, and has received the Chadwick F. Alger Prize for the best book on the subject of international organization and multilateralism, the best book award from the Comparative Democratization section of the American Political Science Association, and Yale’s 2012 Gustav Ranis International Book Prize. Her articles have appeared in the American Journal of Political Science, the ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, the British Journal of Political Science, Comparative Political Studies, International Organization, The Journal of Politics, Perspectives on Politics, Political Analysis, and World Politics.

 

 

Thad Dunning is Robson Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley and directs the Center on the Politics of Development. He studies comparative politics, political economy, and research methodology. His current work on ethnic and other cleavages draws on field and natural experiments and qualitative fieldwork in Latin America, India, and Africa. Dunning has written on a range of methodological topics, including causal inference, statistical analysis, and multi-method research. He is chairing the inaugural EGAP Metaketa initiative, which aims to achieve greater cumulation of findings from experimental research on international development and political accountability. Dunning is the author of several award-winning books, including Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences: A Design-Based Approach (2012, Cambridge University Press—winner of the Best Book Award from the American Political Science Association’s Experiments Section), and Crude Democracy: Natural Resource Wealth and Political Regimes (2008, Cambridge University Press—winner of the Best Book Award from APSA’s Comparative Democratization Section). He also co-authored Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism: The Puzzle of Distributive Politics (Cambridge University Press, 2013), which won the 2014 Luebbert Prize for best book in comparative politics. Dunning’s articles have appeared in several journals, including the American Political Science Review, Comparative Political Studies, International Organization, Journal of Conflict Resolution, and Political Analysis. He received a Ph.D. in political science and an M.A. in economics from the University of California, Berkeley (2006). Before returning to Berkeley, he was Professor of Political Science at Yale University.

Abstract:

Election forensics adds distinctive value to current efforts to promote the integrity of elections around the world by developing special forensic tools and techniques designed to detect the presence of election fraud and to estimate its magnitude based on the reported results of elections. By utilizing electoral data, election forensics provides statistical evidence, which could refute or support various sorts of accusations related to the presence of election fraud. What methods and techniques are currently used by election forensics? Can election forensics measures be validated by the auxiliary data, such as election observation? What election forensics tells us about election fraud at the Russian elections? To address these questions I’ll discuss election forensics methodology, and present key findings from the analysis of the Russian presidential and parliamentary elections 2000-2016.

 

Speaker Bio:

Kirill Kalinin is a W. Glenn Campbell and Rita Ricardo-Campbell National Fellow at the Hoover Institution. His research focuses on election studies, election forensics, survey methodology, and Russian politics. Kirill is one of the creators of the Election Forensics Toolkit website with funding from USAID, a prototype that implements election forensics methods that have been proposed as useful accuracy diagnostics for detecting election fraud. Currently Kirill is also engaged in data management and analysis of the Survey of Russian Elites: 1993–2016. Kirill received a PhD in Political Science from the University of Michigan (2017).

Abstract:

At their best, decentralizing reforms make government more accountable to citizens and empower local governments to invest in their own development. Yet, successful decentralization requires that local governments raise at least some revenue to finance new service delivery responsibilities, and the capacity of local governments to generate tax revenue varies. This variation is evident in the Philippines, where capacity to tax varies greatly across cities despite uniform tax powers. I argue that business associations contribute to this variation by endorsing tax increases to enable cities to spend on infrastructure, but only if they can sustain distributional consensus and forestall local officials from diverting revenues away from business-friendly projects. I present a controlled comparison of two cities, Iloilo and Batangas, to show that business associations resolve distributional conflict by dispersing benefits across members, and monitor public spending by participating in legislative hearings and jointly managing public projects.

 

Speaker Bio:

I am a postdoctoral fellow at the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law at Stanford University. My research explores the developmental implications of public-private linkages in decentralizing, developing countries, especially in Southeast Asia. I received a PhD in political science at Emory University and an MA in Southeast Asian studies from National University of Singapore.

Abstract:

Societies with deep-seated ethnic or religious divisions pose a challenge for governance: how can a single set of political institutions govern a fragmented population peacefully and effectively? As the institution responsible for implementing and enforcing laws, the police are an especially critical piece of the governance puzzle. I explore the role of sectarian inclusion in the police forces in Iraq and Israel, two countries with legacies of violent conflict along identity lines. I argue that integrating minority groups into the rank-and-file of the police addresses common motives for anti-state violence by shaping citizens' expectations about how they will be treated by the state. I present survey, experimental, and observational evidence showing that citizens interpret police integration as a credible signal that the government does not intend to harm them, which in turn reduces citizens’ willingness to turn to violence.

 

Speaker Bio:

Matthew Nanes is a Postdoctoral Fellow at Stanford's Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law. His research explores the way that political institutions shape the citizen-state relationship, particularly in societies plagued by violent conflict and low state legitimacy. Most of his work is in the Middle East, where he has conducted field work in a number of countries including Jordan, Israel, Egypt, and Oman. He is also involved in ongoing research on policing in the Philippines. Matthew received a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of California San Diego and holds a B.A. from Rice University.

ABSTRACT

The formation of Saudi Arabia’s anti-corruption commission and the arrest of dozens of princes and former ranking officials have brought to focus the prospects for political and economic reform in the Kingdom. Many observers have characterized these recent steps as an attempt by Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman to sideline opponents of his bold, far-reaching reforms. Yet a closer analysis suggests that these measures are part of an effort to consolidate and centralize power in ways that will only move the Kingdom farther away from greater political inclusion and participation. They also threaten the future of stability inside the Kingdom and the region at large. More generally, these recent developments raise critical questions regarding the feasibility of advancing the Crown Prince’s proposed economic reforms in the absence of meaningful political reform that could allow for monitoring and holding accountable the proclaimed leaders of economic reforms.

 

SPEAKER BIO

Jamal Khashoggi is a Saudi journalist, columnist, and author. Born in Medina, Saudi Arabia, in 1958, where he completed high school, Jamal graduated from Indiana State University in 1982. Khashoggi began his career as a correspondent for the English language Saudi Gazette. Between 1987-90, he was a foreign correspondent for the pan-Arab Arabic daily Alsharq Alawsat and the Jeddah-based, English language daily Arab News. He became widely recognized for his coverage of the Afghan War and the first Gulf War (1990-91). From 1990 to 1999, Jamal was foreign correspondent for the other prominent pan-Arab Arabic daily, Al-Hayat. There he reported on Afghanistan, Algeria, Lebanon, Sudan, and various conflicts in the Middle East. As a result of his extensive experience, he became known as an expert in political Islam and related movements. In 1999, Jamal was appointed Deputy Editor-in-Chief of Arab News, the leading English newspaper of Saudi Arabia. In 2003, he became Editor-in-Chief of Al-Watan, the country’s pioneering reformist newspaper. In less than two month he lost his job because of his editorial policies. He was then appointed as the media advisor to Prince Turki Al-Faisal, then-Saudi Ambassador in London and later Washington. In 2007, he returned to Al-Watan as Editor-in-Chief. In 2010, again due to his editorial style, pushing boundaries of discussion and debate within Saudi society, he was fired. In June 2010, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal appointed Jamal to lead a new 24-hour Arabic news channel, Al-Arab. He launched the station in Manama, Bahrain, in 2015. On the air less than 11 hours, the government ordered Al-Arab to cease broadcasting. Jamal is now an independent writer based in Washington, DC.

---