The Quantitative Peace

Tom Coburn's Grudge, Part II

Via Jennifer Diascro's Twitter feed: The Economist has an article up addressing the specific targeting of Political Science Research by Senator Coburn. The article addresses a point that I've brought up a couple of times in the past (see here for example). Specifically, why only political science?

The Economist:

The real debate seems to be over what is of value. For many Republicans the answer is nothing having to do with political science. Yet it is hard to see how that discipline is any more frivolous than—or even all that different from—economics, sociology or anthropology.Mr Coburn's measure wouldn’t touch NSF funding for other social sciences. But this is the fourth time since 2006 a Republican has singled out political science for cuts.

If we look closer at those efforts, the picture becomes a bit clearer. Mr Coburn, for example, has particularly objected to studies on American attitudes to the filibuster, at a time when Republicans are using the filibuster routinely. Mr Flake had likewise complained about research on climate-change negotiations. When Mr Coburn first proposed cutting off funding in 2009, he complained that NSF money had gone to fund The Human Rights Data Project, which, he noted, had “concluded that the United States has been ‘increasingly willing to torture enemy combatants and imprison suspected terrorists,’ leading to a worldwide increase in ‘human rights violations’ as others followed-suit.” Mr Coburn even groused that Paul Krugman had received NSF grants more than 15 years earlier. Presumably that was because Mr Krugman went on to become a liberal columnist and not because the research won him a Nobel prize.

In all of these cases, the research risked calling into question the wisdom of policies supported by the Republican Party. In none of the cases did Republicans argue that the studies were flawed. They appeared to simply object to financing research that might contradict their point of view.

I would add that my impression is that political science research is probably the one field that is most likely to draw upon and combine insights from all of these other fields. Perhaps I'm mischaracterizing the work of scholars from these other disciplines, but if this view is accurate then it further hurts the credibility of Coburn's claims to be going after wasteful spending. If the idea is to get as much bang for our buck as taxpayers, political science seems like exactly the right field to invest in. But does this matter? Probably not. Most people just don't know or care enough about this to really see the problem, and for these people Coburn's credibility is really a non-issue, so he can still claim to be simply fighting the good fight against bloated government budgets. 

Finally, I'd urge all of my Americanist and comparativist colleagues to start building up the national security implications of their work. After all, we must remain ever vigilant to safeguard our democratic institutions from infiltration by the communist scourge. Maybe ANES can just add a question asking "Are you a communist spy?" or "Are you a terrorist?" and Coburn will be satisfied. 

Tom Coburn's Grudge

So I'm a little late getting to this, but Tom Coburn is at it again—more successfully this time, it appears. The short version is that Coburn was able to get an amendment through that prohibits the National Science Foundation from funding political science research, with the exception of research that "promotes the national security or economic interests of the United States." I just have a couple of thoughts:

1. Whose economic interests are we talking about, Tom? I mean thank god government contributes such a negligible portion of Oklahoma's economy (See page 13). Sure this is a petty point, but it does speak to an important issue that political scientists have spent some time working on. What is "good" in terms of the economy—and security for that matter—is often defined in very different ways by different groups across society. So perhaps the Senator would be so kind as to clarify who will be the ultimate arbiter on that issue in the case of political science funding.  
2. Why political science again? This is not the first time we've seen this show, yet I remain unclear as to why political science specifically is being targeted. Unless I've missed something, there is no comparable amendment to eliminate funding for economics or sociological research. If this were genuinely about cutting "unnecessary" spending, I'd have to imagine that with just a little more effort on Coburn's part, he could be extend his watchful anti-waste gaze to other fields too.  Maybe I just missed this though...

Again, I've benefited personally from NSF funding (though not any longer) Though I do think the particular project I worked on was important, I realize that's not a satisfactory defense for a lot of people. But I'm not entirely sure that such a defense is required. The NSF's purpose is to advance our collective knowledge and understanding of a whole range of subjects—even if we as individuals may not understand the specific research that is being conducted at any given time in any given field, or see its immediate practical applications for that matter. And they're not just giving this money out, either. I applied for a dissertation improvement grant a couple of years ago. I spent a lot of time working on what I believe was a fairly thorough and well thought out proposal, and I was ultimately rejected. This is a highly competitive process, and the NSF isn't just handing out cash to people that put their hands out and ask for it. 

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.

 

 

"Kountry" Package for STATA

I may be late to the ball on this one, but in discussing a project that we're working on, fellow QP blogger Michael Allen recently pointed me to the "kountry" package for STATA. The package was created by Rafal Raciborski for the purposes of facilitating the creation of country codes and switching between codes provided by different sources (e.g. COW, IMF, etc.). The cite for the STATA Journal piece corresponding to the package is below:

 Raciborski, R. 2008. kountry: A Stata utility for merging cross-country data from
        multiple sources.  Stata Journal 8: 390-400

Anyone that has worked with country codes knows that this can be a pretty big pain. I've used it once so far, but it seems to work pretty well. Others may have been aware of this before now and might be aware of any bugs, problems, etc. If so, please add to the comments section any notes that you might want to make on the matter.

---

On another note, I just wanted to reiterate the earlier message that posting will continue to be sparse for a while longer. While we would all very much like to be blogging more regularly—especially in light of the recent debates, and the final upcoming foreign policy debate—everyone is currently engaged with other professional responsibilities. I believe this will prove to be time is well-spent, though, as everyone seems to be keeping busy and is pretty productive. 

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...

Sounds About Right

courtesy: www.smbc-comics.com

Rumsfeld Interview

Given this piece from the other day, I thought this was an appropriate followup.  Daily Show fans have probably already seen his interview from last night with former Defense Secretary Donald Rumseld, but for those who have not I would recommend it.  Rumsfeld was unquestionably one of the most important architects of the Iraq war, and I think this interview fits in nicely with the discussion from the other day regarding the influence of unelected actors in the policymaking process.  I found it particularly interesting how Rumsfeld acknowledges the important role played by presidential advisors in this process, but really seems to shift accountability away from the Defense Department and onto the State Department and the non-descript "intelligence community" (of which the DOD is an incredibly important member).  

It's worth noting Rumseld's comments regarding his previous remarks on "going to war with the military you have, not the one you wish you had."  I think it's easy to dismiss this comment as another of Rumsfeld's  witticisms, but I think the question it poses is important and worth exploring.  How much do we really know about how the decisions of an administration's predecessor constrain the ability of the current administration to act in certain ways?  If we are to take Rumsfeld at his word--not much.  He seems to be implying that the capabilities of the state don't factor into decisions related to the use of force, or at least that they only matter to a certain extent.  Policy objectives come first--capabilities matter second. 

Some of his remarks also suggest some interesting things insofar as the learning process of the miltiary/DOD is concerned.  Is it preferable to invest significant amounts of money and resources up front to address possible shortfalls?  Or is it better to go to war, knowing that capabilities are less than optimal, but that investments in updating or upgrading capabilities will be more efficiently and effectively applied after more information is gained through battlefield encounters?  Rather, that it is impossible to know what the optimal allocation of funds is until more information is gained? 

Thoughts?  

Quick Post

So it's been a little while since I've posted here (very busy times these are).  Anyway, I wanted to link to this post by Phil Arena over at his blog.  Phil discusses how his views on various topics related to IR have changed over the past few years.  I agree with a lot of what he has to say on these issues--I think a lot of what IR scholars focus on, to the extent that we're interested in the domestic forces generating foreign policy outcomes, tend to place too much stock in the qualities we typically assume to characterize democracies and autocracies.  I also agree that economic forces play a huge role in shaping the incentives of political actors--particularly the elites that Arena mentions. 

Citing eBooks

I got my Amazon Kindle about a year ago and I really enjoy it, but I am  finding myself become increasingly frustrated by the apparent lack of standards when it comes to citing eBooks.  On some occassions this isn't really a problem---if you need a particular page number you can often times type a phrase into Google Books and find what you're looking for (assuming the correct edition is available).  But to some extent this defeats the purpose of having an eReader.  Furthermore, Google Books often censors the content of a variety of books, so it's not guaranteed that you will be able to find the specific page that you happen to be searching for.  

I am clearly not the first person to find this frustrating.  Upon searching for an answer I came across this page with some comments written by a certain Stephen Smith.  The location numbers that eReaders like the Kindle feature should indeed be more accurate, as I understand it.  Depending on the reader's preferences you can change the size of the font.  But, as this will change the content featured on each "page" of the eReader, page numbers are not particularly useful guides when searching for specific content. 

The page referenced above suggests a solution offered by the Chicago Manual of Style, wherein a section title or chapter be listed for eBooks in place of page numbers.  But this is really not much of a solution.  Depending on the writer's style and length of the book, particular sections or chapters could be enormous, thereby making it difficult to track down what it is that you are looking for.  True, as this page points out, even hard copies of books have some issues with page numbers varying across different editions.  But this is only a problem when tracking content across multiple readers.  And even in a situation where two or more readers are working from different editions, the content is often similar enough where the page different might only be a matter of a couple of pages. 

The problem with eReaders seems to be that the reader/author themselves cannot accurately convey, by current academic standards, where it is that they are drawing information from.  And it is more difficult to translate a location number into a page number than it is to navigate from a page number from one edition to the correct spot in another edition of the same hard copy.  I haven't yet seen an article published in a political science journal that features eReader locations for some readings, in addition to page numbers for others.  A quick Google search for political science style guides did not seem to shed any light on the issue either.  I'm not sure this problem affects that many people at present, but it does seem like an issue that would, conceivably, be fairly simple to resolve.                

Biology and Politics

A few years ago I wrote a blog post about a study that found a link between certain genes and interest in politics. Two new studies have come out since that go even further, and find a link between brain region size and genes, and political preference. I discuss them below.

Brain Region Size and Ideology

A new study by scientists at University College London has found a link between the size of certain areas of the brain and political viewpoints. In sum:

"Scientists have found that people with conservative views have brains with larger amygdalas, almond shaped areas in the centre of the brain often associated with anxiety and emotions.

On the otherhand, they have a smaller anterior cingulate, an area at the front of the brain associated with courage and looking on the bright side of life."

Although I find these findings interesting and worth exploring further, I am slightly skeptical that there is a link between fear and anxiety, and being conservative. In my opinion, fear is embedded in both the liberal and conservative viewpoints, the only difference is what scares liberals and conservatives. Conservatives tend to fear foreign enemies, terrorists, and the government overreaching its power in the economy. Liberals tend to fear strong governments that interfe with people's privacy (such as too much survelliance). They also fear big business and corruption. Hence, it is unclear whether fear and anxiety would lead anyone to be conservative.

While I do not think there is a link between anxiety and being conservative, I would not be surprised if there was a link between fear and anxiety and having extreme political positions. This is only based on ancedotal evidence, but it seems to me that those with the most extreme ideologies, both left and right, tend to be the most paranoid about government and politics (in US politics, Glenn Beck and Michael Moore come to mind). It would be interesting to see a study that examines this potential link.

Genes and Political Ideology

In another study, published in the October 2010 edition of JOP, Settle, Dawes, Christakis, and Fowler suggest that people may be genetically predisposed to being liberal or conservative. In sum:

"Scientists at the University of California San Diego and Harvard University determined that people who carry a variant of the DRD4 gene are more likely to be liberals as adults, depending on the number of friendships they had during high school....

The four authors, including UCSD's James Fowler, wanted to explore if politics were heritable by identifying a specific gene variant associated with political leaning. They hypothesized that individuals with a genetic predisposition toward seeking out new experiences would tend to be more liberal.

The 7R variant of DRD4, a dopamine receptor gene, had previously been associated with novelty seeking. The researchers theorized novelty seeking would be related to openness, a psychological trait that has been associated with political liberalism.

However, social environment was critical. The more friends gene carriers have in high school, the more likely they are to be liberals as adults."

The potential for a link between genes and ideoloy has several implications for real world outcomes. How common is this gene (and how common is it for people to have this gene and be outgoing)? How much can the existence of outgoing people with this gene in the voting age population have on electoral and legislative outcomes? Furthermore, are social movements only possible if there are a large number of outgoing people with this gene? And finally, what does this mean for how we view the leaders of social movements? Did the consciously choose to change society, or are their actions simply the result of their genes and their social environment?