The Quantitative Peace

Links Galore

It's been a while since my last post, so I thought it was time to put up at least a little something:

Senate Republicans are, for the moment, blocking Chuck Hagel's nomination as Defense Secretary. Admittedly, my attention to current events has been spotty over the past couple of months, but it seems that every time I turn my attention back to this the basic rationale for opposing Hagel has changed. Initially it concerned his comments regarding Israel, then it morphed to include a means of obtaining more information about the attacks on Benghazi, and now it seems to have evolved further to include concerns over compensation Hagel received for giving some speeches since he left the Senate. Ultimately I guess I remain unsure as to how this works out for the better for Republicans—now, or in the long run. 

A meteor injured several hundred people in Russia. 

Spencer Ackerman has a piece up at Wired looking at the mistakes made by the Galactic Empire at the Battle of Hoth. There is also a broader set of responses to Ackerman's piece at Wired, and the folks at the Duck of Minerva have several followup posts debating the shortcomings of the Empire in a wider context. Itemize these posts, I will:

1. Here's Ackerman's post.
2. Wired's symposium.
3. Dan Nexon's piece for said Wired symposium.
4. Patrick Thaddeus Jackon's piece at the Duck.
5. Robert Kelly's piece at the Duck.
6. Steve Saideman piece at the Duck.
7. Patrick Thaddeus Jackson's followup at the Duck.

As these discussions have mirrored some of the lunchtime discussions I've had over the past few years with fellow bloggers Chad Clay and Michael Allen, I've enjoyed reading them immensely. I will try to update this list if there are any new additions.

 

 

Quick Plug on New Pubs (Shameless partial self-promotion edition)

A bit of shameless self-promotion before the holidays. The kind folks at International Studies Quarterly have put a new article by Colin Barry, Chad Clay, and myself up on early view. The link to the article, entitled "Avoiding the Spotlight: Human Rights Shaming and Foreign Direct Investment", is here, and here's the abstract:

Nonstate actors, such as international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) and multinational corporations (MNCs), have attained an increasingly prominent role in modern world affairs. While previous research has focused on these actors’ respective interactions with states, little attention has been paid to their interactions with each other. In this paper, we examine the extent to which the decisions of private actors seeking to invest abroad are affected by the reputational costs of doing business in countries publicly targeted by human rights activists. We find that ‘‘naming and shaming’’ by human rights INGOs tends to reduce the amount of foreign direct investment received by developing states, providing evidence that INGO activities affect the behavior of MNCs. An additional implication of our findings is that shaming by INGOs can impose real costs on targeted states in the form of lost investment.

We have a few projects along these lines that link our respective core research agendas in various ways, so (editorial and reviewer gods willing) be on the lookout for more in the future. 

Happy holidays to all!

 

Election Predictions 2012

Discussing the election is all but inevitable.  Given my proclivity for numbers, I gathered opinions from 11 willing "experts," including 5 political scientists, 3 bloggers from the QP, 8 PhDs, and members from other related field (Public Policy, Communication, and Planning). Nine of the members are from Boise State.  Of course, to reward those who did better, there were points assigned to each category and I will be able to declare a winner likely by tomorrow.

The Battleground States:

Pennyslvania: 11-0 in favor of the Democrats winning.
North Carolina:9-2 in favor of the Democrats winning.
New Hampshire: 10-1 in favor of the Democrats winning. 
Iowa: 8-3 in favor of the Democrats winning.
Colorado: 7-4 in favor of the Democrats winning.
Wisconsin: 10-1 in favor of the Democrats winning.
Nevada: 11-0 in favor of the Democrats winning.
Virginia: 9-2 in favor of the Democrats winning.
Florida: 8-3 in favor of the Republicans winning.
Ohio: 11-0 in favor of the Democrats winning.

The Popular Vote for the Winner:

Mean: 50.78
Range: 48.3 - 52.3

The Electoral College for the Winner:

Mean: 306.82
Range: 287-330

Senate Seats:

Massachusetts: 10-1 for the Democrat candidate.
Connecticut: 7-4 for the Democrat candidate.
Missouri: 11-0 for the Democratic candidate.
North Dakota: 10-1 for the Republican candidate.
Indiana:6-5 for the Republican candidate.
Wisconsin: 9-2 for the Democrat candidate.
Arizona: 11-0 for the Republican candidate.
Montana: 7-4 for the Republican candidate.
Nevada: 7-4 for the Republican candidate.
Virginia: 8-3 for the Democrat candidate.

Idaho Proposals (Keeping it local):
Proposition 1: 8-3 predict the measure will fail.
Proposition 2: 7-4 predict the measure will fail.
Proposition 3: 9-2 predict the measure will fail.
HJR 2: 9-2 predict the amendment will pass.
SJR 102: 9-2 predict the amendment will pass.

Seats held by the Democrats in the House

 Mean: 200.46
Range: 194-207 

 

 

Many of those who participated in the poll (from Boise State) are live blogging over at the Blue Review.

 

The Syrian Civil War

Over at the new Political Violence at a Glance blog, Barbara Walter and Elizabeth Martin address a question that I raised last week regarding the reluctance of policymakers to label the Syrian conflict a civil war. Walter and Martin raise three/four points in particular (I may be lumping something together here) to help explain this behavior, but I have a couple of further questions/comments. 

NSF Funding Amendment, Part II

Erik Voeten at the Monkey Cage with an update on the amendment that cuts NSF funding for political science programs. A version of the amendment passed the House with a vote of 218-208. You can see the breakdown of the votes here (thanks for Erik for so conveniently providing the link to the votes). Erik also notes a couple of important points: 1) This is not the end of the issue, and 2) No other discipline was singled out in the same way as political science. 

Other interesting facts:

1. Jeff Flake has a BA in International Relations (see his official House bio page).
2. Jeff Flake has an MA in Political Science (see his official House bio page).
3. As described above, political science appears to have been singled out. In 2011 political science programs were awarded approximately $21 million dollars. Keep in mind these are awarded amounts, and do not reflect the actual amount spent in a given year. The Duck of Minerva makes reference to actual annual expenditures being something closer to $9 million. 
4. Economics programs were awarded $55 million in 2011. If we assume a similar pattern applies, that means econ programs are getting somewhere around $23 million per year in actual appropriations.
5. Sociology programs were awarded approximately $15.5 million, working out to be about $6.7million per year.

Political science awards do not even come close to what economics programs are awarded each year. Consequently, I'm not entirely sure what the fiscal justification for this cut can be. To single out only political science in this way would seem to indicate the gripe is more substantive than fiscal. If not, then why not make a flat cut of 10%-20% across all BSES programs? Spread the cuts evenly? You could cut the annual econ awards by half and that would be the equivalent of cutting all of the annual political science awards AND some of the sociology program. So, what gives?

There is probably a better/more efficient source for summary information than what I used, but you can search NSF records of programs and awards here. My estimates of yearly expenditures are extremely rough. Again, it's important to note that these are awarded amounts, not what is actually spent each year. There is going to be overlap from one year to the next as programs are often funded over the course of a couple of years. There is also some degree of overlap between programs as well. Accordingly, the figures provided should be taken as rough guidelines/comparisons, as well as with a healthy grain of salt. If anyone has a link to actual annual expenditure statistics by program, as opposed to awards, please share. I did a quick search this morning but didn't find anything more helpful than this particular source. 

NSF Funding Amendment

Via Henry Farrell at the Monkey Cage: Republican Jeff Flake of Arizona may today introduce an amendment to cut NSF funding for political science. Both APSA and Farrell call for folks to contact their representatives, and I will echo that call. I've benefitted enormously from NSF funding during my time in grad school and it funds a lot of great programs. As the Monkey Cage has previously noted, even Senator Tom Coburn, who previously campaigned to cut NSF funding for political science, has reaped the benefits of political science research, exploiting that research for his own professional/quasi-public purposes. And beyond that, I mean who cares about things like war, right? Or voting? I could go on...

Social Science Bloggers, You Can Win Money

3 Quarks Daily is hosting its 3rd Annual 3QD Politics & Social Science Prize for "best blog writing in politics & social science:"

As usual, this is the way it will work: the nominating period is now open, and will end at 11:59 pm EST on December 3, 2011. There will then be a round of voting by our readers which will narrow down the entries to the top twenty semi-finalists. After this, we will take these top twenty voted-for nominees, and the four main editors of 3 Quarks Daily (Abbas Raza, Robin Varghese, Morgan Meis, and Azra Raza) will select six finalists from these, plus they may also add up to three wildcard entries of their own choosing. The three winners will be chosen from these by Professor Walt.

The first place award, called the "Top Quark," will include a cash prize of one thousand dollars; the second place prize, the "Strange Quark," will include a cash prize of three hundred dollars; and the third place winner will get the honor of winning the "Charm Quark," along with a two hundred dollar prize.

Stephen Walt is judging:

We are very honored and pleased to announce that Professor Stephen M. Walt, who was also the winner of the 3QD politics prize last year, has agreed to be the final judge for our 3rd annual prize for the best blog writing in politics & social science

 

Hat tip: Henry at Crooked Timber

Stuff is still happening in (the sequel)...

I really don't know how many times I'll be able to use that title, but given that the American audience has become so distracted by the Washington debt ceiling battle, I decided to check on some old favorites and post a quick update on goings on elsewhere.  

Libya:  Apparently Libyan rebels have made "significant" gains in the past week, taking control of some key cities on the way to Tripoli.  NATO planes have damaged or destroyed over 150 targets in the past week alone.  However, who really knows what qualifies as a "military target" for these purposes.  Sources in the article also indicate that some of Ghadaffi's forces have begun consolidating in Tripoli and have begun removing their uniforms, apparently gearing up for a transition in tactics.  It will be interesting to see what the next month brings.  

Syria:  It sounds like the body count in Syria is continuing to rise steadily.  Syrian security forces are apparently combating "armed gangs" in an effort to protect the people.  This includes firing into Palestinian refugee camps as well it seems.  The article also mentions a Youtube video that has surfaced, purportedly showing some pretty graphic scenes from the crackdown.  I've not seen it, but it sounds pretty unsettling.  

Bahrain:  It sounds as though things have quieted down for the time being, but Bahrain is still dealing with the fallout from the previous protests and crackdowns.  Quiet doesn't necessarily mean good, however, as the BBC is reporting that hundreds of people are still in jail and there are reports of widespread torture.  Not terribly surprising, but it's important to keep in mind the fact that the violence carries on even once the streets have cleared.    

Summer Reading List?

This is a partial bleg post. While finishing up some weekly chores in the laundromat I realized that my kindle was quickly running out of content and needed some fresh additions. Summer can be a good time to catch up on reading that we intended to do during the semester or to check off some divergent topics that we had not had time to get to earlier.  As such, what is everyone reading this summer and/or what do they recommend?  I am generally looking for books that are in international relations or methodology and can be bought for the kindle, but any discussion on any summer reading would be desireable. If you already have a blog post with a reading list for the summer or create a new one, leave a note in the comments. Below is my partial list.

Books I have completed so far:

Dawkins, Richard. 2009. The Greatest Show on Earth: the Evidence for Evolution. This was the subject of a recent post and was a wonderfully fascinating book.  Beyond providing overwhelming evidence for evolution as a causal fact, it provides a plethora of intriguing examples (lab experiments, geological and biological evidence, etc.) as well as analogies that are useful for political science.  A great read for someone who is interested in research on evolution but would prefer not to go to the source scientific articles.

Watts, Duncan. 2011. Everything You Know is Obvious (once you know the answer). I picked this book up not too long after Andrew Gelman recommended it over at the Monkey Cage. He has a long review of the book and I will not go into detail here, but it does some decent work at shoring up Social Science as a worthy exercise even if it is testing otherwise obvious implications.

The next two items on the list:

Gary King et. al. (editors) 2011. The Future of Political Science. The title seemed compelling enough to download.  I have yet to crack it open and see what is inside.

J. Samuel Barkin. 2010. Realist Constructivism: Rethinking International Relations Theory. This book was recommended to me in a conversation after it was noted that my constructivist-fu was weak.  Since this particular theoretical approach to international relations is a weak point for me, I am partly reading it to see if I could usefully assign it to an introductory level graduate course on international relations.

This list, of course, are in addition to the books I am using for my courses next semester and may exclude some of my non-fiction indulgences as well (Doyle's Holmes is looking a bit tempting right now).

Obama's New Chairman of the Joint Chiefs

Things have been fairly quiet here---all of us here at QP have been pretty busy with the end of the year and the onset of summer.  Anywho, I came across this article today and wanted to offer a few quick comments.

Obama has named Admiral Mike Mullen's replacement as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and as is often a general trend, a Democrat  has appointed an Army officer.  General Dempsey was actually just named to be the new Army Chief of Staff after General George Casey.  

I don't really have too much to say about this appointment, but I'm curious about this appointment in the context of Obama's having named Petraeus and Panetta a few weeks to to two very important posts.  I don't really know much about Dempsey to be honest, but shy of asking Admiral Mullen to stay on I'm surprised that Petraeus wasn't chosen for this post.  As I've said previously, being a good commander doesn't necessarily mean that Petraeus will make a good CIA director.  

That said, I reiterate that I don't know much about Dempsey's career, aside from the fact that he has experience in the middle-east region as deputy and then acting commander of central command.  In any event, I assume that the Obama administration wants to appoint someone that is in sync with the trajectory that the current team has been pursuing.  As near as I can tell, the administration's relationship with Mullen has been a harmonious one, so I can't imagine that his replacement will be much different with respect to his attitudes on military spending, troop withdrawals, etc.  

This CNN article has a bit more than the BBC on the reasons why current vice-chairman James Cartwright didn't get the top job.  These may be valid reasons, but there really isn't much of a precedent for this happening anyway.  Richard Myers and Peter Pace both served as vice-chairman before being promoted to chairman, but aside from these two appointments there is nothing to give one cause to assume that this would be the case.  Now, it may be the case that Cartwright has a "special relationship" with the administration that would lead one to believe this, but the CNN article suggests that this was probably not going to happen, and that it has been pretty apparent that this wouldn't happen for some time now.  That said, the vice-chairman as an office has only been around since the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986, so insofar as these top national security positions are concerned, it's still a young post, and such norms may develop in the future.