The Quantitative Peace

Sci-Fi Poli Sci, Episode I: Regime Types Across Sci-Fi Universes

Assuming that one is looking for them, it is fairly easy to find internet arguments that stem from comparisons among and between science fiction universes, and a great many of these arguments center on comparing governments within those universes. Which government is more democratic: Star Wars' Galactic Republic or Star Trek's United Federation? Who is more repressive: Firefly's Alliance or Star Wars' Galactic Empire? How do the military assets of the Stargate universe stack up against those found in all of the other sci-fi universes? Indeed, given that nerd culture is now nearly synonymous with pop culture, these conversations seem to be quite common, particularly if one regularly eats lunch with the bloggers at The Quantitative Peace.  However, while some political scientists and economists have tried to answer questions that have clearly spawned from science fiction, I am unaware of any that have attempted to apply some of the more commonly used quantitative measurements in political science to the governments seen in such universes. Therefore, this post represents a first attempt to apply quantititative measures from political science to the polities envisioned in some of the most beloved science fiction franchises, in an attempt to answer the question: Which sci-fi governments are the most democratic, and which are the most autocratic? In the paragraphs below, I take a close look at a few sci-fi governments and use a couple of the more popular measures of regime type to compare them.

While this is mostly an attempt to have some Friday fun with political science measurement, I do not think it is an entirely frivolous exercise.  If our measurement schemes are valid, then they should apply quite nicely across regimes, even imagined ones.  Furthermore, as someone who regularly teaches classes about quantitative research in political science, I think there may be instructional advantages to using fictional regimes to introduce students to the methodological challenges associated with developing valid quantitative measures of such things as human rights, regime type, military capabilities, etc.  In fact, the use of fictional governments may allow the instructor to escape the various normative hang-ups and national attachments that can often impede undergraduates' willingness to pursue strict coding guidelines in quantitative data collection.  Thus, to quote Paul Krugman (1978, 2), "while the subject of this [post] is silly," the content should make sense, and as such, the post should be viewed as a "serious analysis of a ridiculous subject."

Obama's Next Cabinet

Via Steve Clemmons at The Washington Note, The New York Times has a story on who will be tapped to be the next Secretary of Defense.  And the winner is?  Mr. Leon Panetta!  Panetta is currently the director of the CIA, and according to the Times article, it is expected that Obama will soon announce Panetta's move to the Pentagon upon the exit of Bob Gates.  

Of course this move opens up Panetta's post at the CIA, and apparently some low-level no-name general named David Petraeus is expected to move on in to that post with Panetta's move to the DOD.  Personally, I think this is the more interesting side of the story.  It's not new for a military leader to be put into the top spot at the CIA--Panetta's own predecessor Michael Hayden was an Air Force General, and the Agency's first four directors were all high ranking military officers.  The most famous among them probably being Hoyt Vandenberg and Walter Bedell Smith.  But I suppose the question here is what is it that Obama is hoping to get out of Petraeus' appointment to the CIA?

Petraeus is arguably one of the most versatile and effective generals that the United States currently has.  That said, this is far from a guarantee that he will be an effective administrator in the CIA, which is notorious for being incredibly resistent to change.  Furthermore, the Agency's reputation has been pretty beat up since 9/11, so its moral is bound to be pretty low.  This problem has been accentuated by the fact that many Agency directors often have very poor relations with the White House.  Basically, there's a lot to do.  Although I do think there's reason to believe that Petraeus will have a significantly stronger relationship with Obama than many directors have had with their respective presidents.  

But at the moment I think the strongest connection that Petraeus has with the CIA currently is the use of drones to attack insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  At first glance this may sound like a cozy relationship--Petraeus has certainly had contact with CIA officers working in the area, and those responsible for operating the drones in the area.  But I'm skeptical at just how in sync Petraeus' preferences would be as the Agency's leader with those career officials in the Agency itself.  Some authors have argued that the CIA has, throughout its history, pretty firmly embraced the sexier tasks of covert operations as opposed to intelligence gathering.  Currently this has manifested itself in the form of the CIA's stewardship of the drone programs.  

Alternatively, Petreaus' approach to Iraq and Afghanistan has placed a significant emphasis on the human element of the operations--he's been pretty active in integrating military and political operations and taking a more robust approach to warfighting.  If he appoaches his job with this same sort of emphasis on robustness while at the CIA, then I wonder just how much resistance he'll run into should he try to beef up the intelligence gathering and analysis areas of the CIA's operations.

Basically, there's a distinct possibility that Petraeus will be a bad Director of Central Intelligence--however great a general he may be.  And this is not necessarily any fault of Petraeus'--as I mentioned above, the CIA has a reputation for being particularly difficult for its bosses to deal with.  Furthermore, replacing Stanley McChrystal with Petraeus may have been a brilliant political move that offered Obama some cover from critics, but playing the Petraeus card can only work so often.  I'm not convinced that letting him be for the time being wouldn't be a better bet.  Some day he might make a great Secretary of Defense, but until he's eligible he might just be of greater use in the field.  But maybe there are some political points to be had by bringing him closer to the administration?  

Welcome Aboard!

The title is slightly inappropriate, as Italy had previously decided to send military advisors to Libya.  Maybe we should say welcome more aboad, or welcome aboard again.  Well...whatever.  The point is Britain and France had previously been pleading with their NATO allies for more support in the air campaign to remove Ghadaffi from power and replace his autocracy with a "democratic government" protect civilians.  But now the Italians have decided to contribute some planes to the campaign to help out their British and French pals.

I don't know what the recent media climate has been like in Italy, but with Berlusconi's troubles lately, I have to wonder if we're observing an example of that elusive animal---the diversionary use of force.  Or, maybe it's simply a desire to exert more control over a conflict that has been having some less than desirable spillover effects on states that are geographically proximate to the turmoil unfoling in North Africa.  I think events over the past couple of weeks have continued to add some support for what others have previously made note of regarding the effects of immigration on decisions to partake in the Libyan intervention (See these links for previous comments on this subject by Steve Saideman and Phil Arena).

Healthcare Incentives

I've apparently been sitting on this post for a while, so this might be (is quite literally) old news for many out there.  It's an op-ed piece from The New York Times from a few months back on the healthcare legislation (No, this it not about IR).   

What caught my eye was at the end of the article when he starts talking about the incentives created by mandating that people obtain health insurance.  The gist of it is that in spite of all of the cries about this legislation representing the onslaught of the communist hoards, this kind of legislation might actually help to promote the capitalist spirit.  Leonhardt (the author) argues that ensuring that everyone has access to decent healthcare and retirement will allow/encourage individuals to take greater risks than they otherwise would.  When individuals get healthcare primarily through their employer, and when individual premiums are generally through the roof, thereby leading many healthy people to not buy insurance if they don't already have it, people will be more reluctant to leave the safety of their cushy corporate or government job for the sake of starting up a business.  Leaving that job means having to provide yourself with insurance at a much higher cost, and this is something that those with a family may be especially reluctant to do.

I think this article has two particularly interesting points.  1) It challenges the typical narrative that surrounds the healthcare by offering a third view, asserting that this does not have to be a zero-sum game between fans of the free-market and fans of social welfare programs, and 2) offers a decent example of the potentially counterintuitive effects that some legislation might have.  

One problem that I have with this argument is that it assumes most individuals are generally worried about the provision of healthcare for their families, and seems to ignore that other important aspect that employment carries---money.  While ensuring your children's health coverage is certainly important, putting food on the table is also important.  If one parent's income can provide for the family so the other parent can give a crack at starting a new company, then that's great.  However, I suspect that many people would still be reluctant to leave their jobs knowing that this will potentially slice their family income in half.  Even if everyone is still covered by the spouse's workplace coverage, that's a pretty big gamble.  This does not mean that Leonhardt's argument is wrong per se, but that it may simply apply to a much smaller subsample of the population than he makes it sound.  I would imagine that this would also have some minor effect in increasing the unemployment rate, if we assume that of all the folks that do decide to take this gamble, the majority will not succeed in starting up a successful business.     

I think this is a generally incomplete picture, but fundamentally serves as a decent example of how the effects of legislation can be counterintuitive because they alter the basic incentive structures that people face.  Granted, it will take several years to find out if the legislation has ever had these sorts of effects.

 

Let's Rent Liechtenstein

The entire country of Liechtenstein is now up for rent. Yes, you read correctly, the entire country! It costs $70,000 a night, with a two night minimum, and there are accommodations for 900 guests. Some of the perks include being presented with the symbolic key to the state by parliament, renaming the streets and the town square, and printing your own currency with your picture on it.

Even though renting the country of Liechtenstein sounds like fun, there are limits to what you can do. Unsurprisingly, you do not get to determine what type of government it has, get involved in politics, or make laws.  If you could, the potential for social experiments would be endless.

Although Liechtenstein cannot be rented to conduct social experiments, it would be an oddly appropriate venue to hold a political science conference. Therefore, we should petition APSA to hold a conference there. If they could get 900 attendees, it would only cost $156 a person. That is on par with the cost of going to most conferences- and they get to rent a whole country with it!

Does language change the way we play games?

A friend posted a link to a list of 20 words that were not directly translatable into the English language. Most of the words appear to come from Altalang.com, a website that focuses on linguistics and understanding. A few highlights include:

 

• Ilunga: Tshiluba (Southwest Congo) – A word famous for its untranslatability, most professional translators pinpoint it as the stature of a person “who is ready to forgive and forget any first abuse, tolerate it the second time, but never forgive nor tolerate on the third offense.”
• Tingo: Pascuense (Easter Island) – Hopefully this isn’t a word you’d need often: “the act of taking objects one desires from the house of a friend by gradually borrowing all of them.”

 

While the initial posts were relatively old, my digging came across a much more interesting column from a year ago that surveys the literature on the word "fair" and if it is translatable into non-English languages.  This has some obvious, potential impliciations for game theoretic treatments such as the ultimatum game.

Facts and Stuff on the Distributions of Income and Race in America

Via Andrew Gelman at the Monkey Cage, an article on this recent Gallup poll regarding people's income and their perceptions of income distributions, tax burdens, etc. 

The thrust of the article is that there are some disparities between where people fall in the overall income distribution and their perceptions of how the tax burden should be distributed---Not my normal thing, but interesting nevertheless.

More below...

Finally Choosing Sides, Huh?

This isn't terribly surprising, but it seems that some NATO states have finally made their preferences publicly known.  The UK is sending a small group of military advisors to Libya to...well, advise, and train Libyan rebels.  This is apparently part of a joint British and French operation.  

I don't think it was a secret that most of the states involved in the intervention in Libya wanted Ghadaffi gone---They have said as much.  However, I think most of these states expected that their objective could be achieved under the guise of acting on a UN mandate, whereas the prolonged fighting has now led these states to a point where they must become more directly involved to achieve their desired outcome.  What will be interesting to observe is how far they are willing to go---the rebels have seemed to be on a seesaw over the past few weeks, and their victory (whatever that looks like) is far from guaranteed. 

NATO has already been calling for additional jets, suggesting that their resources are fairly limited (apparently no other NATO partners are willing to pitch in any more).  Although, this may simply be the British and the French wishing for their gradual escalation of involvement in Libya to appear more multilateral than it really is.  Alternatively, it may be that the British and the French, having exposed their enthusiasm for removing Ghadaffi, have sent a signal to their partners regarding their willingness to carry the weight.  Hmm...Some guy wrote about this sort of thing once...  In any event, it seems that there are increasing costs to the British in the French in terms of manpower and material, or, possibly in terms of reputational costs. 

Mr. Y. is no Mr. X.

I've been meaning to say something about this for a while now, but happen to be a little late to the show.  A couple of weeks ago two Marine Corps officers, whom I presume are members of the joint staff, released an article under the pseudonym "Mr. Y.," harkening back to George Kennan's "X" article in Foreign Affairs.  In a nutshell, their article attempts to provide a broad conceptual framework through which America's role in global affairs can be viewed through the next century.  John Norris at FP has some comments on the piece for those who are interested.  I have a few thoughts of my own...

Chinese Military Capabilities

Interesting article from Defense News on US-Chinese relations.  The US CINC of Pacific Command has noted that Chinese naval forces have seemed less aggressive this year than they were last year, and offers a couple of explanations for why.  I have some thoughts on these explanations, but there is one other point that I also find particularly interesting: