Search

Begin New Search Political Geography North America Content Type Policy Brief Publication Year within 3 Years Publication Year within 1 Year

1. The Persistent Consequences of the Energy Transition in Appalachia’s Coal Country

Author:
Eleanor Krause
Publication Date:
03-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
The persistence and intensification of earnings, employment, and opportunity gaps across place has become an increasingly salient feature of the United States economy over the past several decades.1 This economic divergence has occurred alongside a remarkable transition away from coal-fired electricity that is expected to continue as lower-carbon energy sources become more economically viable. While essential to minimizing the damages of climate change, the shift poses significant challenges to the relatively rural and distressed communities traditionally reliant on this resource. Indeed, many historically coal-dependent communities in Central Appalachia have long been characterized by deep poverty, limited employment opportunities, and high rates of public assistance, and recurrent adverse shocks to coal employment over the past several decades have amplified many of these qualities, potentially elevating the risks associated with the energy and economic shifts ahead. How have Appalachia’s coal-dependent communities adjusted to historical and contemporary declines in demand for coal, and how do these shocks – and their consequences for the educational composition of affected communities – influence the capacity for future generations to adapt to new challenges? In this policy brief, I present estimates of how Appalachia’s coal country has adjusted to recent declines in coal mining employment (“coal shocks”), and I demonstrate how this adjustment process is, in part, dictated by the persistent consequences of historical employment shocks in Appalachia. The evidence suggests that recent coal shocks (i.e., declines in coal employment occurring between 2007 and 2017) have been relatively painful for affected communities, causing large reductions in local population sizes, declines in local employment counts, declines in earnings, and increases in the rate of government transfer receipt. All of these adjustment costs are more severe in counties with a history of “selective migration” induced by shifting employment opportunities in the 1980s. That is, the estimated effect of recent coal shocks on population sizes, employment, earnings, and transfer payments is significantly larger in counties that lost greater numbers of their college-educated adults in the 1980s thanks to historical employment shocks in proximate labor markets. The upshot is that coal-dependent communities may demonstrate little resilience to recent coal shocks in part because of the persistent consequences of historical shocks, which fundamentally altered the educational composition of affected communities. By dramatically reducing the number of college-educated individuals living in a community, adverse shocks have the capacity to put places on a pathway of decline that makes it more difficult to adapt to economic shifts in subsequent generations. These insights preview the potentially damaging implications of future contractions in the coal industry, revealing the need for greater empirical investigation of the types of policy efforts that might ameliorate the painful local adjustment costs associated with the energy transition going forward.
Topic:
Climate Change, Employment, Coal, and Energy Transition
Political Geography:
North America, United States of America, and Appalachia

2. Decentralized Autonomous Organizations and Policy Considerations in the United States

Author:
Sarah Hubbard
Publication Date:
05-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) can be defined as global, digitally-native organizations which enable people to coordinate and govern shared resources and activities through the use of smart contracts on blockchains. The explosive growth of DAOs since 2020 has led to experimentation, speculation, and investment in this emerging organizational framework. There are an estimated 6,000 DAOs as of June 2022, with participation from contributors around the world and an aggregate treasury value of an estimated $25 billion. While the web3 space has been marred by scams and bad actors, there are legitimate use cases for DAOs. Early applications include focuses on fractionalized ownership and control, incentive alignment, resilient operations, and collective action. DAOs demonstrate innovative potential and are producing new forms of tax revenue and employment for the U.S. States have taken various approaches towards legislation, including establishing a DAO LLC. The U.S. government needs a comprehensive strategy for addressing DAOs as novel organizational structures to retain domestic innovation and protect consumers. Future policy solutions should consider the following: DAOs have technical and operational uniqueness that should be taken into account by legislators and regulators. The United States must provide legal clarity to retain domestic innovation. The friction of existing organizational formation should be reduced and adapted. A multi-pronged approach is needed across the federal-level, state-level, and industry self-governance practices. This report aims to serve as an accessible primer for United States policymakers to understand the unique opportunities and challenges DAOs present, and how these organizations may be addressed in the regulatory landscape of the U.S. The first section of this report establishes the societal context in which DAOs have emerged, with an emphasis on the trends in organizational frameworks and working conditions to which DAOs respond. The second section describes the underlying technical and structural components that DAOs are built upon. The third section outlines the key purposes and applications of DAOs and shares findings from case studies and semi-structured interviews with 12 DAOs and 20 DAO contributors. The final section provides an overview of existing legislation and concludes by outlining directional considerations for policymakers.
Topic:
Decentralization, Autonomy, and Cyberspace
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

3. The Science of Rapid Climate Change in Alaska and the Arctic: Sea Ice, Land Ice, and Sea Level

Author:
John P. Holdren
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
The Earth’s surface north of the Arctic Circle, which includes nearly a third of Alaska, is warming 3-4 times faster than the global average.1 Alaska as a whole is warming twice as fast as the lower 48 states.2 As is true for most of the manifestations of anthropogenic climate change, moreover, the extremes of temperature are growing faster than the averages: the highest-ever temperature north of the Arctic Circle—100.4°F—was recorded in Verkhoyansk, Siberia, in June 2020;3 Anchorage reached an all-time high of 90°F on July 4, 2019;4 and Utqiavgik, Alaska, the northernmost U.S. city, reached an all-time winter high of 40°F in December 2022.5 The reasons warming is so fast in the Far North are quite well understood scientifically. The most important factor is the ice-snow-albedo feedback, in which warming reduces the area of land and water covered by ice and snow, which means less reflectivity and more absorption of incident solar energy at the surface, hence further warming.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, Carbon Emissions, and Sea Ice
Political Geography:
North America, Alaska, Arctic, and United States of America

4. China's response to the US tech war: The closing of detours

Author:
Yang Jiang
Publication Date:
07-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS)
Abstract:
In the US-China rivalry, no battle is currently more fierce than the one over technology, with both countries ramping up efforts to pursue global technological leadership. The tech war has intensified under President Joe Biden, with the US’s strangling of China’s technological bottleneck getting tighter and tighter. The US’s stated aims are protecting its national security and foreign policy interests and preventing sensitive technologies with military applications from being acquired by China. Some analysts point to Beijing’s Made in China 2025 as the trigger of the tech war because that is China’s plan to upgrade manufacturing and seek the top positions in global value chains. The US is pursuing a strategy to outcompete and outmanoeuvre China, as is stated in the Biden administration’s National Security Strategy in October 2022: “this decade will be decisive, in setting the terms of our [the US’s] competition with the PRC”. Especially in the sector of semiconductors or chips, where the West controls China’s access to the most advanced technology, US restrictions and its ability to bring its allies into line have been destructive to China’s development. On 21 May 2023, Beijing’s ban of American chipmaker Micron from critical information infrastructure in China signals a first direct retaliation from Beijing. China has also realised that some of its hitherto measures—turning to alternative sources of import, utilising policy loopholes, and sufficing with lower-level technology—are just detours. They are not long-term solutions; nor can they be the foundation of China’s national security. The US restrictions have forced China to adopt new measures to accelerate domestic innovation with more focus on basic research and market forces. How the tech war will play out has important implications for Western countries and global supply chains. This policy brief will focus on China’s responses to the US-waged tech war, specifically: What have been China’s domestic measures to respond to the tech restrictions from the US, and what is China’s potential for technological breakthrough? What have been China’s international responses, and what are China’s options for retaliation?
Topic:
Science and Technology, Sanctions, Strategic Competition, Rivalry, and Supply Chains
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

5. De-escalation Efforts: What Tehran wants from a prisoner swap deal with Washington?

Author:
FARAS
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Future for Advanced Research and Studies (FARAS)
Abstract:
US National Security Council Spokesperson Adrienne Waston, in a statement on August 10, 2023, affirmed that Iran has released from prison five Americans who were detained and has placed them on house arrest. US citizens Siamak Namazi, Morad Tahbaz, Emad Shargi, and two others were released from Tehran’s notorious Evin prison to house arrest. The US official described their release as “an encouraging step” and stressed that Washigton will continue efforts to bring them “all back home in the United States.”
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements, Sanctions, and Regional Politics
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

6. Integrating US and allied capabilities to ensure security in space

Author:
Nicholas Eftimiades
Publication Date:
04-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Over the last two decades, the world entered a new paradigm in the use of space, namely the introduction of highly capable small satellites, just tens or hundreds of kilograms in size. This paradigm has forever changed how countries will employ space capabilities to achieve economic, scientific, and national security interests. As is so often the case, the telltale signs of this global paradigm shift were obvious to more than just a few individuals or industries. Air Force Research Laboratory’s Space Vehicles Directorate began exploring the use of small satellites in the 1990s. The Air Force also established the Operationally Responsive Space program in 2007, which explored the potential use of small satellites. However, both research efforts had no impact on the US Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) satellite acquisition programs. The advancement of small satellites was largely driven by universities and small commercial start-up companies.1 The introduction of commercial and government small satellites has democratized space for states and even individuals. Space remote sensing and communications satellites, once the exclusive domain of the United States and Soviet Union, can now provide space-based services to anyone with a credit card. Eighty-eight countries currently operate satellites, and the next decade will likely see the launch of tens of thousands of new satellites.2 Commercial and government small satellites have changed outer space into a more contested, congested, and competitive environment. The United States has shared space data with its allies since the dawn of the space age.3 Yet it also has a history of operating independently in space. Other domains of warfare and defense policy are more closely integrated between the United States and its allies and partners. The United States has military alliances with dozens of countries and strategic partnerships with many more.4 In recent years, there have been calls to coordinate with, or even integrate allied space capabilities into US national security space strategy and plans. In this regard, the US government has made significant advances. However, much work needs to be done. There is pressure on the United States to act quickly to increase national security space cooperation and integration, driven by rapidly increasing global capabilities and expanding threats from hostile nations and orbital debris. This paper examines the potential strategic benefits to US national security of harnessing allied space capabilities and the current efforts to do so, as well as barriers to achieving success. The paper identifies pathways forward for cooperating with allies and strategic partners on their emerging space capabilities and the potential of integrating US and allied capabilities.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, NATO, National Security, European Union, and Space
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Canada, North America, and United States of America

7. Security at Sea: A Turning Point in Maritime

Author:
Scott Tait
Publication Date:
06-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC)
Abstract:
Since the end of the Second World War, the United States has been the pre-eminent naval power and ultimate guarantor of global maritime security. It has also been one of the primary beneficiaries of the global maritime economic system, which in turn resourced its naval strength and increased the incentive to use that strength to protect the freedom of the seas. But a number of global changes, all likely beyond the United States’ control, are driving new dynamics in both security and economics in the maritime domain. These challenges include the return of great power competition at sea, the maritime consequences of climate change, increased pollution, the rapid rise of illicit trade and resource exploitation, and the erosion of maritime governance. These challenges are dynamic and inter-related—a change in one will often drive second and third order changes in the others. The United States has proven historically to be resilient and adaptive in the face of great challenges, and the maritime community has traditionally been a leader in innovation, collaboration, and positive-sum solutions. To meet the challenges of today and tomorrow, the United States should double down on those strengths, and work with allies to maintain and strengthen the rules-based international maritime system. Moreover, the United States should be a leader in envisioning changes to that system that will ensure it equitably meets the needs of all, accounts for the changes being driven by climate change and pollution, and anticipates a near-term future where autonomous systems will play a major role in the ecosystem.
Topic:
Security, Environment, Science and Technology, United Nations, and Maritime
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

8. Uncle Sucker: Why U.S. Efforts at Defense Burdensharing Fail

Author:
Justin Logan
Publication Date:
03-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
In 2022, the United States counted 50 of the world’s 195 countries as formal treaty allies, not including dozens more informal security relationships. U.S. allies do not carry a proportionate share of the burden of their defense; Washington’s allies account for roughly 36 percent of world economic output but only 24 percent of world military spending. In every alliance, the United States is the most important member and gives more than it gets in return. American politicians and the American public regularly express frustration with allies’ behavior. In 1959, for example, President Dwight D. Eisenhower lamented that the insufficient defense efforts of U.S. allies in Europe meant that the Europeans were close to “making a sucker out of Uncle Sam.” Things have gotten worse since 1959. Today, America’s alliances act as transfer payments from U.S. taxpayers to taxpayers in allied countries. History and theory both suggest that hectoring allies is unlikely to produce much change. Allies know that they can pocket the gains from U.S. commitments, then spend their own money in the ways they believe benefit them most. Policymakers should evaluate alliance commitments in the context of the net contributions of U.S. allies to U.S. defense, weighed against the costs and benefits of a non‐​alliance. The only way to produce more equitable burdensharing is to make allies doubt the strength of the U.S. commitment: the stronger the belief in the U.S. commitment, the harder it is to get allies to defend themselves. Unless policymakers fundamentally change their approach to alliances, there is little hope that defense burdens can be spread more equitably.
Topic:
History, Alliance, Defense Spending, Military, and Burden-sharing
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

9. The Fiscal Impact of Immigration in the United States

Author:
Alex Nowrasteh, Sarah Eckhardt, and Michael Howard
Publication Date:
03-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
The National Research Council and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published groundbreaking investigations into the economics of immigration in 1997 and 2017. Both publications contained thorough literature surveys compiled by experts, academics, and think tank scholars on how immigration affects many aspects of the U.S. economy. The 2017 NAS report included an original fiscal impact model as a unique contribution to immigration scholarship. Its findings have been used by policymakers, economists, journalists, and others to debate immigration reform. Here, we acquired the exact methods used by the NAS from its authors to replicate, update, and expand upon the 2017 fiscal impact model published in the NAS’s The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. This paper presents two analyses: a measure of the historical fiscal impacts of immigrants from 1994 to 2018 and the projected long‐​term fiscal impact of an additional immigrant and that immigrant’s descendants. An individual’s fiscal impact refers to the difference between the taxes that person paid and the benefits that person received over a given period. We use and compare two models for these analyses: the first follows the NAS’s methodology as closely as possible and updates the data for more recent years (hereafter referred to as the Updated Model), and the second makes several methodological changes that we believe improve the accuracy of the final results (hereafter referred to as the Cato Model). The most substantial changes made in the Cato Model include correcting for a downward bias in the estimation of immigrants’ future fiscal contributions identified by Michael Clemens in 2021, allocating the fiscal impact of U.S.-born dependents of immigrants to the second generation group, and using a predictive regression to assign future education levels to individuals who are too young to have completed their education. Other minor changes are discussed in later sections. Immigrants have a more positive net fiscal impact than that of native‐​born Americans in most scenarios in the Updated Model and in every scenario in the Cato Model, depending on how the costs of public goods are allocated. The Cato Model finds that immigrant individuals who arrive at age 25 and who are high school dropouts have a net fiscal impact of +$216,000 in net present value terms, which does not include their descendants. Including the fiscal impact of those immigrants’ descendants reduces those immigrants’ net fiscal impact to +$57,000. By comparison, native‐​born American high school dropouts of the same age have a net fiscal impact of −$32,000 that drops to −$177,000 when their descendants are included (see Table 31). Results also differ by level of government. State and local governments often incur a less positive or even negative net fiscal impact from immigration, whereas the federal government almost always sees revenues rise above expenditures in response to immigration. With some variation and exceptions, the net fiscal impact of immigrants is more positive than it is for native‐​born Americans and positive overall for the federal and state/​local governments.
Topic:
Immigration, History, and Fiscal Policy
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

10. Balance of Trade, Balance of Power: How the Trade Deficit Reflects U.S. Influence in the World

Author:
Daniel Griswold and Andreas Freytag
Publication Date:
04-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
The U.S. trade deficit is a misunderstood symbol of U.S. economic strength and influence in the world. The deficit is not driven by unfair trade abroad or industrial weakness at home and, as the Trump years show, cannot be “fixed” through higher tariffs. Instead, the trade deficit is driven by a persistent net inflow of foreign capital, which reduces interest rates and fuels economic output. Contrary to myth, the trade deficit is not a cause of deindustrialization or a loss of manufacturing jobs. In fact, the current balance of trade points to America’s continuing influence in global affairs—as a haven for global investment, as a robust producer and buyer of global goods and services, and as the provider of a strong dollar that remains at the center of the global economy. Policymakers should reject measures that restrict trade and foreign investment and instead seek to expand America’s commercial ties to the rest of the world.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Economy, Trade, and Trade Deficit
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America