Search

Begin New Search Political Geography United States Publication Year within 5 Years

41. EfIP Online Panel: A New Macroeconomics?

Author:
Jón Steinsson
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Economics for Inclusive Prosperity (EfIP)
Abstract:
There is a narrative within our field that macroeconomics has lost its way. While I have some sympathy with this narrative, I think it is a better description of the field 10 years ago than of the field today. Today, macroeconomics is in the process of regaining its footing. Because of this, in my view, the state of macroeconomics is actually better than it has been for quite some time. The most important problem with macro over the past few decades has been that it has been too theoretical. When I say this, I don‘t at all mean to say that theory is useless. To the contrary, theory is an essential element of a healthy science. But a healthy science needs a balance between theory and empirical work. Macro lost this balance in the 1980s and is only regaining it now. Most narratives about the evolution of macro focus on the evolution of macroeconomic theory and the rational expectations revolution in particular. An under-appreciated part of this story is that the rational expectations revolution shifted the field away from empirical work. This was partly because building models that met the higher standards of rigor set by Lucas and his co-revolutionaries was a challenging and therefore highly absorbing task. But that isn’t the only reason. For reasons that are not entirely clear to me, a very substantial fraction of macroeconomists came to believe that the Lucas critique implied that quasi-experimental empirical methods could not be used in macro. The idea that changes in policy could radically alter empirical regularities (i.e., the Lucas critique) somehow came to be interpreted to mean that the only way to do empirical work in macro was to write down fully specified general equilibrium models of the whole economy and evaluate the entire model (either by full-information inference methods or moment matching). Sargent, for example, placed enormous emphasis on the idea of “cross-equation restrictions.“ It seems that this line of thinking led large numbers of macroeconomists astray in terms of how to think about empirical work in macro for several decades.
Topic:
Economics, Political Economy, and Macroeconomics
Political Geography:
United States

42. New Directions in Macroeconomics

Author:
Gillian Brunet
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Economics for Inclusive Prosperity (EfIP)
Abstract:
Without being overly prescriptive, macro research must meet two standards to keep the field moving in a productive direction: models must be tested empirically and researchers must think carefully about how underlying assumptions restrict the set of questions that can be answered with a given model. Models move knowledge forward through rigorous empirical testing. Matching moments in model calibration is not enough—nor should it be considered true empirics. When economics is done well, theory and empirics are complements: empirical research disciplines models and theory disciplines empirical research. In recent decades, macro research has tilted very heavily towards theory, forgoing the feedback generated by rigorous empirical testing and, as a consequence, dramatically reducing the ratio of insight to effort. Macro as a field must value empirical contributions to flourish fully. There has been significant progress in the last decade, but the balance still tilts heavily towards theory. Macroeconomists must stop dismissing empirical contributions as trivial for macro theory to reach its potential. It’s not an accident that many of today’s best macroeconomists stand out for their work in both theory and empirics: empirical work disciplines their theoretical research. Over the past 40-50 years, research in short-run macroeconomics has focused on the goal of creating unified, internally consistent models of the macroeconomy. While this is a worthy goal, it has perhaps become too dominant—and imposes hidden costs on research. The emphasis on developing a central baseline model to which idiosyncratic features are added for addressing a specific problem discourages many researchers from considering the suitability of the underlying model to the specific question being asked. As economists we are taught that every model is a simplification, so that the relevant question is not whether a model is good or bad but whether it is good or bad for answering a specific question. Yet choosing a single baseline model of the macroeconomy tends to obscure the closeness of the relationship between the model and the question it is used to answer. Often macroeconomists think carefully about the relationship between their question and the idiosyncratic features they add to the baseline model, but many of the assumptions underlying the baseline model become invisible and thus unquestioned. This is understandable given the complexity of modern macro models, but it has high costs. More careful consideration of the assumptions underlying baseline models and their appropriateness to individual research questions can help move the field forward.
Topic:
Economics, Political Economy, Macroeconomics, and Models
Political Geography:
United States

43. A Movement Between Parliamentary Politics and the Pathway to Violence and Terrorism: Germany’s Radical Right Narratives and Counter-narratives

Author:
Maximilian Kreter
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Hedayah
Abstract:
This country report, written by Maximilian Kreter, is one of the outputs of the CARR-Hedayah Radical Right Counter Narratives Project, a year-long project under the STRIVE Global Program at Hedayah funded by the European Union and implemented by the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right (CARR). The overall project creates one of the first comprehensive online toolkits for practitioners and civil society engaged in radical right extremist counter narrative campaigns. It uses online research to map narratives in nine countries and regions, including Australia, Canada, Germany, Hungary, New Zealand, Norway, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and the United States. It also proposes counter narratives for these countries and regions and advises on how to conduct such campaigns in an effective manner.
Topic:
Civil Society, Far Right, Radical Right, Civil Society Organizations, and Countering Violent Extremism
Political Geography:
United States, United Kingdom, Ukraine, Canada, Norway, Germany, Hungary, Australia, and New Zealand

44. Radical Right Narratives and Norwegian Counter-narratives in the Decade of Utøya and Bærum Solo-actor Attacks

Author:
Mette Wiggen
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Hedayah
Abstract:
This country report, written by Dr. Mette Wiggen, is one of the outputs of the CARR-Hedayah Radical Right Counter Narratives Project, a year-long project under the STRIVE Global Program at Hedayah funded by the European Union and implemented by the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right (CARR). The overall project creates one of the first comprehensive online toolkits for practitioners and civil society engaged in radical right extremist counter narrative campaigns. It uses online research to map narratives in nine countries and regions, including Australia, Canada, Germany, Hungary, New Zealand, Norway, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and the United States. It also proposes counter narratives for these countries and regions and advises on how to conduct such campaigns in an effective manner.
Topic:
Civil Society, Terrorism, Violent Extremism, Counter-terrorism, Political Extremism, Civil Society Organizations, and Countering Violent Extremism
Political Geography:
United States, United Kingdom, Ukraine, Canada, Norway, Germany, Hungary, Australia, and New Zealand

45. How Syria Changed Turkey’s Foreign Policy

Author:
Francesco Siccardi
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
Between August 2016 and the present, Turkey has launched four military operations in northern Syria. Each operation has served specific objectives and was designed to respond to rapidly changing scenarios on the ground. It is possible to identify the key priorities that have informed Turkey’s Syria policy over the years. Boiled down to its core, the Turkish government’s activism in Syria has been driven by domestic politics and has helped Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP) preserve power. Domestically, Ankara has used the Syrian conflict as a pretext to suppress the rights of the Kurds living in Turkey and limit their parliamentary representation to secure a landmark constitutional reform in 2017. In the following years, successive military operations in Syria have helped Erdoğan connect with increasingly nationalistic constituencies and drum up support around key electoral dates. Finally, after the failed coup in July 2016, the Turkish government’s Syria policy played a major role in rebuilding the credibility of the Turkish Armed Forces while redrawing the balance between civilian and military power. In foreign policy terms, Turkey’s military operations in Syria have resulted in increasingly tense relations with the United States. Washington’s support for the Syrian Kurds has alienated Ankara to an extent that U.S. policymakers failed to anticipate. The thorniest topic of the day in the U.S.-Turkey bilateral relation—Ankara’s decision to deploy the Russian S-400 missile system—is also deeply related to the Syrian crisis. This decision was made in the context of a strategic realignment between Turkey and Russia that has helped both countries pursue their respective objectives in Syria: the survival of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad’s regime for Moscow and the weakening of the Syrian Kurds for Ankara. Finally, Ankara’s involvement in Syria has also given Turkey new leverage over the EU when it comes to the management of refugee flows. Solving the question of Syrian refugees in Turkey has been a priority of the Turkish government since the early stages of the Syrian civil war—and a main driver of Ankara’s policies toward both Syria and the EU. Overall, Ankara’s involvement in Syria has not only been a source of conflict—or rapprochement—with its traditional partners and neighbors across the region. It has also equipped Turkey with new tools for conducting a more aggressive, nationalistic foreign policy. The strategies Turkey has employed in Syria have boosted the country’s image and international role. These operations have secured a seat for Turkey at the negotiating table with Russia and the United States. Ankara has used these tools, these lessons learned, and its new capabilities to inform its revisionist foreign policy posture. Going forward, and with an eye on the country’s 2023 presidential election, Turkey will continue to use these tools to reinforce its position in the international arena.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, European Union, Syrian War, and Military
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Turkey, Middle East, and Syria

46. International Intellectual Property after the New NAFTA

Author:
Jeremy de Beer
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation
Abstract:
The Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) is the new high-water mark in international intellectual property (IP) law. CUSMA includes most of the Trans-Pacific Partnership provisions that were suspended in the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership, except for a few pharmaceutical-related provisions amended after signing. Canada will be required to make meaningful changes to domestic IP laws, including copyright term extension, criminal penalties for tampering with digital rights management information, restoration of patent terms to compensate for administrative and regulatory delays, broader and longer protection for undisclosed testing data and other data, new civil and criminal remedies for the misappropriation of trade secrets, and additional powers for customs officials to seize and destroy IP-infringing goods.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Regional Cooperation, Intellectual Property/Copyright, NAFTA, and USMCA
Political Geography:
United States, Canada, North America, and Mexico

47. Competing in Artificial Intelligence Chips: China’s Challenge amid Technology War

Author:
Dieter Ernst
Publication Date:
03-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation
Abstract:
This special report assesses the challenges that China is facing in developing its artificial intelligence (AI) industry due to unprecedented US technology export restrictions. A central proposition is that China’s achievements in AI lack a robust foundation in leading-edge AI chips, and thus the country is vulnerable to externally imposed supply disruptions. The COVID-19 pandemic has further decoupled China from international trade and technology flows. Success in AI requires mastery of data, algorithms and computing power, which, in turn, is determined by the performance of AI chips. Increasing computing power that is cost-effective and energy-saving is the indispensable third component of this magic AI triangle. Research on China’s AI strategy has emphasized China’s huge data sets as a primary advantage. It was assumed that China could always purchase the necessary AI chips from global semiconductor industry leaders. Until recently, AI applications run by leading-edge major Chinese technology firms were powered by foreign chips, mostly designed by a small group of top US semiconductor firms. The outbreak of the technology war, however, is disrupting China’s access to advanced AI chips from the United States. Drawing on field research conducted in 2019, this report contributes to the literature by addressing China’s arguably most immediate and difficult AI challenges. The report highlights China’s challenge of competing in AI, and contrasts America’s and China’s different AI development trajectories. Capabilities and challenges are assessed, both for the large players (Huawei, Alibaba and Baidu) and for a small group of AI chip “unicorns.” The report concludes with implications for China’s future AI chip development.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Science and Technology, Sanctions, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
United States, China, Asia, and North America

48. Toward a Robust Architecture for the Regulation of Data and Digital Trade

Author:
Dan Ciuriak and Maria Piashkina
Publication Date:
04-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation
Abstract:
The rapid digital transformation occurring worldwide poses significant challenges for policy makers working within a governance framework that evolved over centuries. Domestic policy space needs to be redefined for the digital age, and the interface with international trade governance recalibrated. In this paper, Dan Ciuriak and Maria Ptashkina organize the issues facing policy makers under the broad pillars of “economic value capture,” “sovereignty” in public choice and “national security,” and outline a conceptual framework with which policy makers can start to think about a coherent integration of the many reform efforts now under way, considering how policies adopted in these areas can be reconciled with commitments under a multilateral framework adapted for the digital age.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Reform, Digital Economy, Multilateralism, and Digitization
Political Geography:
United States, China, Europe, Asia, and North America

49. Data Is Dangerous: Comparing the Risks That the United States, Canada and Germany See in Data Troves

Author:
Susan Ariel Aaronson
Publication Date:
04-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation
Abstract:
From posting photos and videos to tracking physical activity, apps can do almost anything, but while they may seem like harmless fun, they may also pose a threat to personal data and national security. This paper compares the different responses of the United States, Canada and Germany to data risks posed by popular apps such as FaceApp, Facebook, Strava, TikTok and ToTok. These apps and many others store troves of personal data that can be hacked and misused, putting users (and the countries in which they live) at risk.
Topic:
Security, Digital Economy, Social Media, and Data
Political Geography:
United States, Europe, Canada, Germany, and North America

50. A New Horizon for the Korea-India Strategic and Sustainable Partnership under Korea's New Southern Policy

Author:
Choong Yong Ahn
Publication Date:
03-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
Abstract:
India and South Korea, Asia’s third- and fourth-largest economies, respectively, established a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) in 2010 and upgraded their relationship to a special strategic partnership in 2015. South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s “New Southern” policy and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s “Act East” policy share important objectives and values through which Korea and India can maximize their potential to pursue high tech-oriented, win-win growth. Both countries face the great challenge of diversifying their economic partners in their respective geo-economic domains amid newly emerging international geo-economic dynamics as well as rapidly changing Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies. Given the two countries’ excessive dependence on the Chinese market and potential risks and uncertainties involved in the U.S.-China trade war and related security conflicts, South Korea and India need to deepen bilateral linkages in trade, investment, and cultural contacts. South Korea-India cooperation is crucial in promoting plurilateralism, prosperity, and harmony in East Asia. This paper suggests a specific action agenda to fulfill mutual commitments as entailed in the “Special Strategic Partnership” between these two like-minded countries of South Korea and India.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Science and Technology, Bilateral Relations, and Industry
Political Geography:
United States, China, South Asia, India, Asia, South Korea, and Korea