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. 

Ice Breakers

I have posted a list of ice breaker questions below that can be fun to use during the first week of classes. Feel free to comment if you have any more suggestions!

1. If you could meet 3 people, real or fictional, who would they be?

2. Name a political event that has impacted your life. Explain how it has impacted your life.

3. What was your last Facebook status update?

4. Tell us something your parents do not know about you.

5. Write two truths about yourself and then a lie. (Then the class decides which facts are true and which one is a lie).

Observations from Jury Duty

I had the opportunity to serve as a juror this week for a case in Ontario County, NY. This was the first time I served on a jury. I thought it would be funny to do something like this to get out of it, but now I am really glad I served. It was a great experience. I made several observations about the process, and now that the trial is over, I can talk about it!

Jury Selection

Jury selection was a long and tedious process. I was actually quite surprised at how well the judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney handled it. They had to ask 42 potential jurors the same questions over and over, and this lasted about 5 hours. Despite the long and repetitive nature of this procedure, the judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney were polite, friendly, and energetic when they questioned each potential juror. I think this made it easier for everyone to relax and be patient through the entire process.

Next, before this whole process began, I was under the assumption that during jury selection, lawyers tried to choose jurors who were sympathetic to their side. This is probably because I am quite cynical- instead of following the letter of the law, I expected the lawyers to try to manipulate the verdict by stacking the jury with people they could easily manipulate. In this particular case, it does not appear that lawyers did this at all. Instead, the lawyers simply tried to look for jurors who were, in the very least, not biased against their side. For example, the prosecutor had one witness who was disabled and needed assistance testifying. He asked several questions to determine if potential jurors were biased against testimony from witnesses who were disabled, something he clearly wanted to avoid. In addition, the defense attorney knew that the prosecutor would call several law enforcement officials to testify. She asked several questions to determine if potential jurors were biased in favor of witnesses who worked in law enforcement, something she clearly wanted to avoid.

Next, several of the potential jurors were surprised to learn that it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, and that the defense does not have to present any evidence at all. Several of the potential jurors were confused why a defendant would not have to provide evidence. They assumed that if a defendant did not testify, this meant the defendant was guilty. Clearly those jurors were not selected, since they had a clear bias against the process.

Even though I knew prior to this that a defendant does not have to testify in court, I did not know why. Luckily (for me?) the judge told us briefly about the history of this rule. For those of you who do not know, a defendant does not have to testify because forcing a defendant to testify is akin to torture. In England during the 15^th to 17^th centuries, courts would determine guilt by torturing victims until they made a statement. This practice was abolished in the 18^th century, and defendants no longer had to answer questions. This rule was incorporated into US law with the adoption of the Fifth Amendment. (Another random fact I learned from the judge- in the US, judges did not wear formal robes until the 1880s- the history of this dress code formality can be found here).

Last, I was quite amused at the behavior of the last group of potential jurors. Some background- the day began with the first group of 14 potential jurors (they eventually needed 12 regular jurors and 2 alternates). They chose 5 people from this group (I was in this group, probably because I am unlucky, but I digress!). Then there was the second group of jurors, in which 6 people were picked, which brought the total to 11 jurors, with 3 slots left. Then there was the third group of 14 jurors, in which 3 people would be chosen. The judge indicated that the first 7 people in this group were more likely to be called as jurors than the second 7 people. Apparently instead of looking at the entire group of 14 as a whole to determine who would be jurors, the judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney looked at each juror, in the order they were selected, and determined if they would be a juror or not.

So, out of all the potential jurors questioned that day, these 7 potential jurors had the highest probability of being selected compared to all the other potential jurors. If these people really did not want to serve on a jury, they really had to put in the effort to be sent home. In addition, these potential jurors had more information about what would disqualify them as jurors, as they were able to observe how the other 28 potential jurors acted, observe which ones were sent home, and then make inferences based on this information what they had to do to be sent home. As expected, as the judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney asked these 7 potential jurors questions one by one, most of them made unusually inflammatory statements about how they could not be fair and impartial in the trial. I found this slightly amusing (cynical me again). The judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney ended up having to select potential juror 8 as an alternate since 5 of the first 7 jurors disqualified themselves. If the potential jurors in the first two groups acted this way earlier in the day, I imagine the judge would have had to call a fourth group of potential jurors because there would not have been enough people to fill 14 slots.

The Trial

Before the trial began, the judge instructed us to base our decisions on the law and to not make our decisions based on what we think the law should be. In his words, we were not able to legislate. Nevertheless, even though were not able to legislate, it is clear to me now that sometimes when legislators pass laws, they delegate some power to judges, lawyers, and jurors to interpret the laws they write.

Background- The defendant of the case, Grant Ackley, is a Level 3 sex offender. In New York State, all Level 3 sex offenders have to fill out a form with a county or state government office that states their current residence every 90 days. They also have to bring in a letter they received at that address within 10 days of the application to prove they are living there. In addition, if a Level 3 sex offender moves within the 90 day period between applications, they have 10 calendar days to report their move to a county or state government. On December 14, 2011, Grant Ackley filled out a form indicating he was living at the Woodridge Hotel in Canandaigua, NY. He did not provide the proper mail to prove his residence, but the clerk accepted his application anyways. On the same day, he also filled out a form for food stamp benefits stating the same address.

There were three charges in the case: (1) the prosecution claimed that Grant Ackley moved out of the Woodridge Hotel sometime in October 2011, he moved into an apartment of a friend who lived above a toy store, and he failed to inform a county or state government official of his move within 10 days of his move; (2) he falsely filled out his 90 residence form with a fake address; and (3) that he also falsely filled out a food stamps application with a fake address. As a jury, we had to determine what a residence or address really meant, and determine whether Ackley gave his correct residence or address. In other words, instead of the legislature or the bureaucracy determining what a residence or address was, it was the responsibility of the jury to determine this definition.

The trial itself only lasted 2 days. Nevertheless, the prosecution presented a lot of evidence on the first day and it was mentally exhausting. I am glad we were able to go home around 4 pm on that day, as it gave us all the opportunity to process the information.  

Jury Deliberations

Jury deliberations lasted about 4 hours. Every one of the jurors was polite and open to having an honest/ educated debate, so it was a pleasant experience. I really enjoyed working with them. I feel as though we examined the evidence differently than the prosecutor and defense attorney. Although both lawyers connected some of the dots for us, it was really up to us to examine the evidence to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty.

How we decided: We found the defendant guilty on all 3 charges.

How I came to my conclusions:

(1) Based on the evidence presented, it is clear that at some point prior to October 2011, Grant Ackley lived at the Woodridge Hotel. Nevertheless, it is pretty clear that he moved out sometime at the end of October/ beginning of November. He was unable to live at the hotel because he could not pay rent. His income was too low. He would have had 5 dollars left to his name every month if he lived there for an entire month at a time. In addition, back in October, he already owed the hotel back about 250 dollars back rent. One of the witnesses from the hotel testified that he still has not paid his back rent. So by the end of October, he was financially unable to live at the hotel, as his income would have been unable to cover the rent plus the back rent. (2) In addition, he also did not pick up his mail from the Woodridge Hotel, his purported mailing address. The prosecution provided evidence of returned mail from the hotel that indicated Ackley was not there for at least 15 days in November. (3) It was pretty clear throughout the trial that Grant Ackley spent a great deal of time at his friend’s apartment during the months of October, November, and December 2011. He also had a lot of belongings at that apartment. (4) The prosecution also provided 2 pieces of evidence where the defendant stated that his address was his friend’s address, not the Woodridge Hotel. During a 911 call about a domestic dispute, Ackley identified his friend’s address as him own. In addition, when Ackley was arrested on December 31, 2011, he identified his friend’s address as his own. (5) The hotel worker provided evidence that someone else was occupying the Woodridge Hotel room from December 22 to December 28, 2011. Ackley could not have lived there. Even IF Ackley lived at the hotel until December 21, based on the law, he would have had to report this move by December 30, the last calendar day he was able to report, which he did not. (6) Last, the evidence definitely suggested that Ackley was not living in the hotel in November and at the end of December. Could Ackley have paid 400 dollars to stay at the hotel in the middle of December to stay there for the week of December 14, 2011? Maybe, but that would have been half his monthly income and he had no intent on staying there long term. His permanent residence was with his friend, as indicated by him being there after December 21, 2011. Essentially his stay at the hotel would have been considered a short vacation or trip, only a temporary movement.

Final Thoughts

As I stated earlier, I am glad I participated on a jury. I am now less cynical about the judicial process. I can also share this experience with my students in the future. Maybe I can leave them with a more positive view of the US judicial system. In addition, after this experience, I feel like I should participate more in politics and other government related activities. It was fun to analyze the judicial process. But I also feel like I learned a lot too, about a topic that is relevant our discipline.

And, finally, just for fun:

Kudos to those who get the reference!

Military Capabilities

Phil Arena has a very cool post up wherein he explores a potential alternative to the ubiquitous CINC score for measuring military capabilities. This strikes me as something that is long overdue.  And there are a couple of things that I like about the measure just from taking a quick glance at it. First, given that China just launched its first aircraft carrier, which is actually a refurbished Soviet carrier if I recall correctly, I think the notion that China has already surpassed the US in terms of military capabilities is a big pill to swallow. Second, just glancing at his figures for European powers during the late 19th century, Phil's measure looks more noisy, which in truth is kind of what I'd actually expect to see. The CINC measure makes there appear to be a lot more stability than I would expect to come along with a period where many of these European powers are vying for access to colonial possessions, foreign markets, etc. Furthermore, there were definite differences in terms of how each of these countries allocated their military resources. England certainly had the dominant navy during the late 1800s, but countries like France, Germany, and Russia had advantages in terms of their ability to field ground forces that the British just didn't possess.  

As Phil mentions, the measure may need some further development, but I still think this is really neat. 

The Syrian Civil War II

So it's official...ish. It's official-ish.  Or maybe not. The BBC reports that the UN Under Secretary General for Peacekeeping Operations, Herve Ladsous, seems to be the first official to publicly describe the Syrian civil war as a civil war, as opposed to something moving ever closer to that oh so elusive place. However, the article also notes that others have pushed back against this description (big surprise). Officials from the Syrian Foreign Ministry are opting to describe the conflict as follows:  

Talk of civil war in Syria is not consistent with reality... What is happening in Syria is a war against armed groups that choose terrorism.

So they don't quibble with the use of the word "war," but simply the notion that what Syria is experiencing is of the civil variety. Coming from Syrian officials, however, I get it, and I don't really find this to be terribly surprising.

What I'm curious about is how this comment by a UN official will impact the way other public officials talk about the Syrian civil war, henceforth. Last week I wrote about how there has been a widespread reluctance among US, UN, and other policymakers to refer to the Syrian conflict as a civil war. Here's a piece at the NY Times from yesterday addressing the same issue. Barbara Walter and Elizabeth Martin offer some suggestions as to why that might be, and I've offered a few of my own followup thoughts here.

Will more senior officials publicly rebuke Ladsous for comments? Label them "premature"? "Hasty"? Will there be some sort of domino effect, whereby Ladsous' comments make open the door for other policymakers to start using the label? Perhaps there is something to be said for the label arising from the "bottom up" so to speak. Though, I'm not entirely sure that Under Secretary General for Peacekeeping Operations constitutes coming from the bottom. Still, perhaps now that someone with "expertise" in this area (almost like a scientist or something) has used the label, higher level officials will feel that they have cover to use the term. Whereas if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton were to trot out the term first, it could seem more "political" in its derivations? 

Of course, this is all an exercise in aimless musing. Thoughts? 

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. 

Don't Call It A Comeback (This Civil War Has Been Here For Years)

Well, maybe not years. And LL Cool J references aside, while perusing my usual news outlets this morning I've found that in the wake of what is reported to be a fresh massacre, Syria is again a common theme in the headlines (see CNN, BBC, FP). More after the jump.

Math's PR Problem OR Changing our Educational System

I was listening to the BBC's Global News Podast this morning and found an interesting segment on the utility of mathematical modeling. Professor John Adam's book (which can be found here) looks at how one can model various aspects of urban life—pollution, traffic congestion, number of dentists offices, etc. I've not read the book, but Adam's message in his interview was something that I can sympathize with. In particular, Adam talks about the degree to which the educational process divorces math from any kind of applied usage. Learning math in this way, he goes on, is partially responsible for why more children/people are not as interested in mathematics as they might otherwise be. 

Sure, there are the ubiquitous "if a train leaves city A at rate X, and a train leaves city B at rate Z, when will their paths cross," kind of examples. But seriously, is that the best we can do? Now, I recognize that I'm far from being the strongest, or the quickest, when it comes to picking up a lot of the methods that I've been taught over the past few years. I, like many people I suppose, was not the biggest fan of math class in high school. Some of this was laziness on my part, but some of it was also the framework in which the subject matter was taught. Even in college it was far from clear that any kind of math beyond balancing a checkbook would play as big a part in my life as it currently does. I did well enough in these classes, but it was not until graduate school that I really had to seriously engage math and statistics.  

As it turns out, I've really enjoyed the quantitative side of my training here at Binghamton, and I'm far more willing to work at developing my understanding and skills now than I was when I was 16. Had I known in high school that I this stuff could be used to study things like war, human rights, etc., I might have cared a bit more. These are things that I've always been interested in. And this is perfectly rational behavior, right? If the expected utility of learning this material is zero, or even negative, then why expend the effort? Where is the payoff? If this is the case, then a major part of the reason that the expected utility of learning this material is so low is because the people that should be able to provide you with the relevant information to update your expectations simply do not do a very good job of that. In fact, I'd say that I didn't really get that at all until grad school. And being able to make that initial connection between math and statistics, and the substantive topics that I care about, has subsequently led me to develop a greater appreciation for the math itself that underlies the models I often use. 

I don't have any answers for how the educational system could be modified to address this issue. I also realize that you would have to find a way to incorporate applied mathematics into most subject fields, as not everyone has the particular set of interests that would make more math in history or government class a sufficient solution to the problem. Still, there must be a better way. With folks like Neil deGrasse Tyson going around trying to promote greater scientific literacy, and the recent attacks on NSF funding for political science, it seems like there is a space for us to modify how we educate our younglings and how science, math, history, etc., can be better integrated in this process. Maybe if people developed a better understanding of science as a process, or math as something with real world and substantive applications, rather than something that existed strictly from 1pm to 1:45pm during 8th period, people would be better able to develop a more robust appreciation for how mathematics and science fit into, and matter for, our daily lives. This is fairly obvious when phrased like that, but the fact is that it's not really what we do currently, is it?

Am I missing something?

Also—and this is a total aside—Brian Rathbun at the Duck of Minerva has a discussion of how Iron Maiden material can be used to teach political science. This is perhaps a good example of what I was talking about above, so perhaps this is not a total aside, but what we have here is essentially "applied awesomeness."

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...