Search

Begin New Search Political Geography United States of America Publication Year within 10 Years

4961. The Global Politics of Gay Rights: The Straining Relations between the West and Africa

Author:
Hakeem Onapajo
Publication Date:
01-2016
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Rest: Journal of Politics and Development
Institution:
Centre for Strategic Research and Analysis (CESRAN)
Abstract:
This article analyses the contemporary global politics of gay rights as it relates to the straining relations between the Western powers and many African states that oppose sexual minorities’ rights. While the West (with emphasis on the United States, EU, and Britain) advocates for the protection of gay rights in the world, Africa provides the largest concentration of states opposed to them. Therefore, there has been rising tension between both regions. This became more apparent after Nigeria and Uganda, respectively, signed their anti-gay bills into law in January and February 2014. In response to this, the Western powers decided to take some punitive measures, especially imposition of sanctions, against the countries to pressurise them to repeal their laws. In an unusual manner, the African states are radically determined to go ahead with their anti-gay laws in open defiance to the demands of the Western powers. This development, which is informed by a number of factors, shows a rather new pattern of behaviour by African states in global politics.
Topic:
Minorities, LGBT+, Sexuality, and Gay Rights
Political Geography:
Africa, Europe, North America, and United States of America

4962. The Paradox of Power Asymmetry: When and Why Do Weaker States Challenge US Hegemony?

Author:
Hong-Cheol Kim
Publication Date:
07-2016
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace
Institution:
Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research
Abstract:
Little is known about how, among weaker states, incentives to challenge the status quo are related to the expected response of the US as the system’s hegemon. In contrast to conventional wisdom that suggests militarized punishment can deter potential challengers, it is argued that weak but strongly motivated challengers can interpret the hegemon’s military intervention against adversaries as a window of opportunity to launch their own actions. Empirical results using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) and binary time-seriescross-section (BTSCS) models reveal that weaker states possess incentives to challenge the international status quo when the hegemon is preoccupied with prior foreign policy commitments, most notably war. In other words, weaker states dissatisfied with the status quo are more likely to challenge the hegemon when it is preoccupied with prior military commitments. They do so because war involvement distracts the hegemon, drains its capabilities and resolve, and opens up a window of opportunity for weaker states to issue challenges. In addition, weaker states that have an alliance portfolio dissimilar to that of the hegemon are more likely than others to initiate Militarized Interstate Disputes. Theoretically, this paper provides microfoundations to answer the question of why weaker parties instigate asymmetric conflicts when it might seem irrational to do so.
Topic:
International Relations, Hegemony, Conflict, Power, and Asymmetric Relations
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

4963. State Legitimacy, Fragile States, and U.S. National Security

Author:
CAP National Security and International Policy
Publication Date:
09-2016
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
The continued growth of powerful transnational challenges poses grave and persis- tent threats to the security and well-being of the United States. America’s approach needs to be updated to include new foreign policy tools and new approaches. The heart of the new foundation for U.S. foreign policy should be an investment in the efforts of nations at risk of collapsing and unleashing global threats to build legitimacy and to escape the trap of repression followed by upheaval. International Compacts for Governance, Prosperity, and Security could transform how the international community works in partnership with fragile states to improve their legitimacy and security over time. The United States will need the political will and leadership to support steady, long-term, and carefully designed investments in fragile states. This will also require rebalancing U.S. foreign policy resources toward development, diplomacy, economic statecraft, and justice sector reform, while maintaining the world’s most powerful military. All of these tools are required to move from a focus on countering terrorism to a focus on defeating extremism and enabling other nations to build the legitimacy they need themselves. This is the strategy that will most effectively and sustainably ensure America’s national security—and, indeed, global security as well.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, National Security, Reform, and transnationalism
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

4964. The Economic Impacts of Removing Unauthorized Immigrant Workers

Author:
Ryan Edwards and Francesc Ortega
Publication Date:
09-2016
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
In every state and in every industry across the United States, immigrants—authorized and unauthorized—are contributing to the U.S. economy. Immigrant labor and entrepreneurship are believed to be powerful forces of economic revitalization for communities struggling with population decline. Estimates suggest that the total number of unauthorized immigrants currently residing in the United States is approximately 11.3 million, or about 3.5 percent of the total 2015 resident population of 324.4 million. Of those 11.3 million, we estimate that 7 million are workers. What is the economic contribution of these unauthorized workers? What would the nation stand to lose in terms of production and income if these workers were removed and returned to their home countries?
Topic:
Economics, Migration, Labor Issues, Border Control, and Immigrants
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

4965. Recalibrating U.S.-China Relations in Southeast Asia

Author:
Vikram Singh, Yuan Peng, Melanie Hart, Brian Harding, Zhang Xuegang, Chen Wenxin, and Zhang Fan
Publication Date:
10-2016
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
The Center for American Progress and the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, or CICIR, have partnered often over the years, working regularly on areas of cooperation between China and the United States and on options for managing areas of competition and tension. Together, CAP and CICIR have held or participated in many conferences, workshops, and symposiums that bring together Chinese and U.S. officials and scholars; we have worked on joint publications; and we believe that we have helped enable substantial cooperation between the United States and China. Mistrust complicates U.S.-China relations and can obscure areas where cooperation might be possible and beneficial. Negative dynamics also obscure from others the depth of U.S.-China cooperation in a wide range of areas. In this report, we try to cut through these dynamics and offer new options. In 2014, CAP and CICIR began to discuss how U.S.-China tensions might be obscuring areas of mutual interest in Southeast Asia, a region of tremendous importance strategically and economically to the entire region and the world. Prior to this project, in our respective organizations, the people who work on Southeast Asia did not work closely with colleagues working on U.S.-China bilateral relations. In most cases, our bilateral experts had spent little or no time in Southeast Asia, yet the tensions at play in the region featured prominently in their day-to-day work. Both the United States and China, meanwhile, were making investments and building new partnerships with Southeast Asian countries. Was Southeast Asia to be an arena of competition for China and the United States, or could there be areas of cooperation with members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, that brought benefit to all? The potential for research by our teams with Southeast Asian counterparts was clear. It was our friend and colleague Nina Hachigian who proposed the concept that would make this a groundbreaking project. Now the U.S. ambassador to ASEAN, Hachigian is a diplomat and scholar of rare skill and creativity. She noted that CAP and CICIR could only do productive work in this area by doing two things: First, the organizations needed to join their stovepiped research teams into a single group with expertise on both Southeast Asia and U.S.-China relations. Second, CAP and CICIR had to partner with scholars in the region who study the United States, China, and ASEAN. And rather than holding a conference, why not travel through the region with local hosts?
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Bilateral Relations, and Economic Cooperation
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, Southeast Asia, and United States of America

4966. Leveraging U.S. Power in the Middle East

Author:
CAP Middle East Team
Publication Date:
10-2016
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
The geopolitical landscape that emerged after the end of the Cold War is facing recent strains from an unprecedented wave of global migration, climate change, and a more assertive Russia and competitive China—and the Middle East has emerged as a focal point for many of these challenges. The administration of the next U.S. president will face a Middle East challenged by regional power tensions; multiple civil wars; state collapse driven by political legitimacy crises; threats from rapidly evolving terrorist networks; record numbers of refugees; and escalating economic and human development pressures. These challenges, along with a new wave of regressive authoritarian forces limiting basic freedoms, will require the next administration to take a proactive and long-term approach to the Middle East. Dynamics in the Middle East have understandably caused many Americans to question the value of U.S involvement in the region. Indeed, this skepticism is supported by the track record of the past 15 years, particularly the fallout from the 2003 Iraq war. But recent events and trends in the Middle East—from the rise of the Islamic State to the refugee crisis spilling over into Europe—demonstrate that the United States has important stakes in what happens in the region. Because of the threats that the Middle East presents for the homeland and the danger that continued conflict in the region poses to global stability, the United States needs to work closely with regional partners to adopt a long-term approach to the region that advances America’s interests and values.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, Hegemony, and Regionalism
Political Geography:
Middle East, North America, and United States of America

4967. How Carbon Pricing Could Span the United States and North America

Author:
Gwynne Taraska and Howard Marano
Publication Date:
11-2016
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
Carbon pricing is flourishing in North America. Canada, for example, has announced a national price to take effect in 2018, while Mexico has announced a 12-month cap-and-trade pilot that will evolve into a national program. These developments join a network of established pricing instruments, including a carbon tax in Mexico and subnational systems in California, the northeast United States, and several Canadian provinces. Once unlikely, it now seems probable that carbon pricing will proliferate not only across Canada and Mexico but also in the United States. Carbon taxes and cap-and-trade programs have found a diverse set of U.S. proponents, including from the private sector and from across the political spectrum, who view carbon pricing instruments as effective and efficient methods of curbing greenhouse gas emissions and the disruptive effects of climate change.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, Regional Cooperation, Carbon Emissions, and Price Control
Political Geography:
Canada, North America, Mexico, and United States of America

4968. 5 Big Ideas for U.S. Policy in the Americas

Author:
Dan Restrepo, Michael Werz, and Joel Martinez
Publication Date:
12-2016
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
The Americas affect U.S. national and homeland security, economic prosperity, and stability perhaps more than any other region in the world. Collectively, they are the destination for more than 40 percent of all U.S. exports,1 the source of 65 percent of all U.S. energy imports,2 and the region of origin or heritage for 17 percent of the U.S. population.3 As the next administration looks to the Americas, it will have a fundamental choice: It can embrace the partnership model that seeks to work with those in the region willing and capable to engage on the wide range of bilateral, regional, and global issues that have predominated the past eight years. Or, in contrast, the administration can unreasonably attempt to wall the United States off from its closest neighbors.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, Hegemony, and Regionalism
Political Geography:
South America, Central America, North America, and United States of America

4969. Moscow on the Potomac

Author:
CAP National Security and International Policy
Publication Date:
12-2016
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
On October 16, 2016, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson issued an extraordinary statement, indicating that the “U.S. Intelligence Community is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations.”1 The release of this hacked information was all directed at the Democratic presidential campaign and its affiliates, with no hacked information leaked regarding the campaign of the Republican presidential nominee, and now president-elect, Donald Trump. These senior U.S. intelligence officials pointed out that Russia, under President Vladimir Putin, had used similar tactics across Europe and Eurasia to bolster right-wing nationalist parties and that “[t]hese thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process.” Director Michael Rogers, head of the National Security Agency, noted, “There shouldn’t be any doubt in anybody’s minds, this was not something that was done casually, this was not something that was done by chance, this was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily. This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect.”2
Topic:
Security, Corruption, National Security, and Leadership
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, North America, and United States of America

4970. U.S. and Russia Relations Under Trump and Putin

Author:
William Danvers
Publication Date:
12-2016
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
The detritus of the U.S.-Soviet Union relationship remains a part of the U.S.-Russian relationship. During the Cold War, U.S. policy went from containment to détente to confrontation. Today, the vicissitudes of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s engagement with the United States range from the productive—the Iran nuclear deal is one example—to confrontation—Ukraine is a good example—to doing a bit of both—Syria is an example of this. Putin wants Russia to not only have a seat at the table where decisions are made about global international issues but also wants the seat once held by the former Soviet Union.1 In other words, Putin wants a return to the great power politics of the Cold War and a free hand in the territory that was part of the Soviet Union. In this regard, Putin needs the United States as an adversary, though not necessarily as an enemy.2 This sort of dynamic allows him to maintain political support at home—he is protecting Russia from an outside threat—which allows him to avoid fixing an economy that is faltering3 and addressing the corruption that is a significant part of the political scene.4
Topic:
Corruption, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Leadership, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, North America, and United States of America

4971. Syrian Immigrants in the United States

Author:
David Dyssegaard Kallick, Cyierra Roldan, and Silva Mathema
Publication Date:
12-2016
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
Syrian immigrants and refugees have frequently been in the news over the past year, and not always in a positive light. President-elect Donald Trump lashed out against Syrians coming to the United States during his campaign, promising a ban on immigration from countries “compromised by terrorism,” calling for “extreme vetting” of immigrants from Muslim and Arab nations, and saying of people already granted refugee status who fled Syria, “If I win, they’re going back.”1 Considering this negative rhetoric, it may come as a surprise to some that immigrants from Syria who live in the United States are in fact doing very well. They are learning English, getting good jobs, owning homes, and starting businesses at impressive rates. These findings are reassuring and should provide the basis for more informed and thoughtful consideration of how to think about current and future Syrian immigrants and refugees. The Syrian immigrants in the study conducted for this issue brief are overwhelmingly people who came to the United States before the recent refugee crisis. Their success is a positive sign that the United States is a place that can provide opportunity for a wide range of people and shows that immigrants from Syria, like other immigrants, are making a real contribution to local economies around the country. Their success is also encouraging as the United States continues to accept refugees fleeing the horrific Syrian war zone. Those refugees will find that it can help to have a receiving community that includes people who speak the same language; share cultural and, in many cases, religious backgrounds; and understand both sides of the transition that ref
Topic:
Migration, Immigration, Border Control, Refugee Crisis, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

4972. How and Why Government, Universities, and Industry Create Domestic Labor Shortages of Scientists and High-Tech Workers

Author:
William Lazonick, Philip Moss, and Joshua Weitz
Publication Date:
12-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET)
Abstract:
On June 2, 1965, under a mandate established by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the U.S. Congress created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to enforce federal anti-discrimination laws related to employment. The expectation was that African Americans would be prime beneficiaries of the EEOC. There was no assumption that the EEOC, on its own, could reverse deep-rooted employment discrimination against blacks. But in the late 1960s there was optimism that, in combination with equal educational opportunity and the strong demand for unionized workers in the well-paid manufacturing jobs that marked the post-World War II decades, the EEOC could help to ensure that an ever-increasing number of blacks would ascend to the American middle class. African Americans as a group are better educated than they were in the 1960s, and, as discriminatory norms and practices have lessened, large numbers of college-educated blacks have experienced upward employment mobility into professional, technical, and administrative occupations. But the promise of a large-scale ascendancy of blacks to middle-class status, characterized by secure and well-paid employment, has not been fulfilled. Our basic thesis is that, in combination with the institutions of racism which remain widespread in American society, the erosion of secure and well-paid employment opportunities is a major reason for the persistence since the 1980s of African Americans as disproportionately disadvantaged. Our contribution to the larger debate on the economics of race is to focus on the role of corporate resource allocation as the prime determinant of the quantity and quality of employment opportunities in the economy. The decline of middle-class employment opportunities has adversely affected the majority of the U.S. labor force of all races, ethnicities, and genders. African Americans, however, have been more vulnerable than other demographic groups to this decline. U.S. institutions of corporate governance vest power over major resource-allocation decisions in the hands of senior executives, supported by their hand-picked corporate boards. Given the enormous size of the major business corporations and their centrality to economic activity, the resource-allocation decisions made by senior executives of major U.S. corporations profoundly influence the operation and performance of the economy as a whole—including the availability, or not, of secure and well-paid employment opportunities. The failure to include an analysis of corporate resource allocation and how it has changed over the past half century in the policy debate on income inequality is what we call the “equal employment opportunity omission.”
Topic:
Race, Employment, Inequality, Civil Rights, Legislation, and Equality
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

4973. The Value-Extracting CEO: How Executive Stock-Based Pay Undermines Investment in Productive Capabilities

Author:
William Lazonick
Publication Date:
12-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET)
Abstract:
The business corporation is the central economic institution in a modern economy. A company’s senior executives, with the advice and support of the board of directors, are responsible for the allocation of corporate resources to investments in productive capabilities. Senior executives also advise the board on the extent to which, given the need to invest in productive capabilities, the company can afford to make cash distributions to shareholders. Motivating corporate resource- allocation decisions are the modes of remuneration that incentivize and reward the top executives of these companies. A sound analysis of the operation and performance of a modern economy requires an understanding of not only how much these executives are paid but also the ways in which the prevailing system of executive pay influences their decisions to allocate corporate resources. In the United States since the last half of the 1980s the overriding goal of U.S. corporations has been to “maximize shareholder value,” with corporate performance measured by a company’s “total shareholder return”: percentage stock-price appreciation plus dividend yield. Also since the 1980s, the most important components of the total compensation of senior executives have been modes of stock-based pay in the forms of stock options and stock awards. This stock-based pay is structured to incentivize executives to make corporate allocation decisions that will boost the stock prices of the companies that employ them and reward them for achieving that objective. There are three drivers of stock prices: innovation, speculation, and manipulation. The first critical question that this paper addresses is which of these drivers, individually or in combination, contribute to a company’s stock-price performance. Then we can ask the second critical question: Does executive compensation reflect the success of the company in value creation, or the power of senior executives to engage in value extraction? The “value- extracting CEO” hypothesis posits that, in the United States, a significant portion of senior executive compensation rewards them for making decisions that foment speculation and manipulate stock prices, and thereby extract value for their own personal gain. In section four of the paper, I invoke the theory of innovative enterprise to support this hypothesis and debunk the dominant ideology that companies should be run to “maximize shareholder value.” Finally, I elaborate the policy implications for controlling the power of the value-extracting CEO, including a) banning stock buybacks, b) requiring executive compensation that rewards innovation rather than speculation and manipulation, and c) placing stakeholders representing households as taxpayers, workers, and consumers on boards of directors of publicly listed companies, along with shareholders who represent households as savers. An intellectual precondition for these reforms is the rejection of the ideology that companies should be run to maximize shareholder value, which means replacing agency theory with innovation theory as a mode of analyzing how the operation of an economy, supported by the strategies and structures of the business enterprises within it, can attain the objectives of stable and equitable economic growth.
Topic:
Leadership, Investment, Corporations, Redistribution, Stock Markets, and Wage Growth
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

4974. The Personal Wealth Interests of Politicians and the Stabilization of Financial Markets

Author:
Ahmed Tahoun and Laurence van Lent
Publication Date:
10-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET)
Abstract:
We examine whether personal wealth interests affect politicians’ decisions about stabilizing financial markets. We use the setting of the government’s support of financial institutions under the 2008 Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. We find that the personal wealth interests of politicians are positively associated with voting in favor of the EESA. We implement several analyses to show that personal wealth interests rather than unobservable beliefs in the financial sector explain our result.
Topic:
Financial Markets, Economic Stability, Economic Crisis, and Wealth
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

4975. The Mismeasure of Mammon: Uses and Abuses of Executive Pay Data

Author:
Matt Hopkins and William Lazonick
Publication Date:
10-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET)
Abstract:
On April 7, 2016, the Wall Street Journal ran an article headlined “CEO pay shrank most since financial crisis,” while on May 27, 2016, a similar New York Times story declared “Top CEO pay fell – yes, fell – in 2015.” Unfortunately, both the Journal and the Times mismeasured the actual take-home pay of each and every one of these CEOs in 2014 and 2015. The reason for this mismeasure is that both articles relied on “fair value” estimates of the stock-based pay of these CEOs as reported in the Summary Compensation Table of the definitive proxy statement (Form DEF 14A) that each publicly listed company files annually with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Yet the very same proxy statements also report the actual realized gains of these CEOs in the Option Exercises and Stock Vested Table. It is the realized gains on stock-based pay, not fair-value estimates, that enter into the total compensation that a CEO actually takes home and reports as income in his or her income-tax return. Moreover, including actual realized gains instead of estimated fair value of stock– based pay in the measure of total executive compensation can make a big difference. In 2014 average total compensation of the 500 highest-paid executives named on corporate proxy statements based on actual realized gains was $34.3 million, with 81 percent coming from stock-based pay. But average total compensation of the 500 highest paid based on estimated fair value was $19.3 million, with 62 percent attributable to stock- based pay. The excess of total actual realized-gains compensation over total estimated fair-value compensation was greatest in those years when the stock market was booming. Why would the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times report estimates of executive pay when they could be reporting the CEOs’ actual pay? In this paper, we answer this question by explaining the origins of the “fair value” estimates of stock-based pay and how the obsession with these estimates by the SEC, relying on the business-run Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), has relegated to statistical obscurity executives’ readily available, accurate, and actual realized gains from stock-based pay. We use Standard & Poor’s ExecuComp database to document that a) stock-based pay, in the forms of realized gains from stock options and stock awards, dominates both the size of and the changes over time in the total compensation of the highest-paid senior executives; and b) the fair-value estimates of stock-based pay tend to understate, often substantially, the realized gains from stock-based pay that these executives actually receive. An irony is that even critics of excessive executive pay, most notably the AFL-CIO on its Executive Paywatch website, use the fair-value estimates when the actual CEO compensation numbers would reveal a much larger ratio of CEO pay to the earnings of the average worker. Indeed, as we discuss in the conclusion to this paper, as mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, this mismeasure of executive pay has become institutionalized in U.S. government policy in the SEC’s Pay Ratio Disclosure Rule, which beginning in 2017 requires every company to publish the ratio of CEO to median-worker pay. Under this rule, the SEC requires companies to use the fair-value measure of CEO pay. The Pay Ratio Disclosure Rule is supposed to provide the public with a company-level indicator of income inequality. Instead it will tend to underestimate inequality, substituting fictitious estimates for actual known amounts of income that CEOs put into their bank accounts and declare in their income-tax returns.
Topic:
Financial Crisis, Inequality, Income Inequality, Stock Markets, and Wage Growth
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

4976. Political Lending

Author:
Ahmed Tahoun and Florin P. Vasvari
Publication Date:
08-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET)
Abstract:
Using a unique dataset provided by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), we document a direct channel through which financial institutions contribute to the net worth of members of the U.S. Congress, particularly those sitting on the finance committees in the Senate and the House of Representatives. These individuals report greater levels of leverage and new liabilities as a proportion of their total net worth, relative to when they are not part of the finance committee or relative to other congressional members. Politicians increase new liabilities by over 30% of their net worth in the first year of their finance committee membership. We do not find similar patterns for members of non-finance powerful committees. We find no evidence that finance committee members arrange new personal liabilities ahead of their appointments to the committees. Finance committee members also report liabilities with lower interest rates and longer maturities. Finally, focusing on banks that lend to U.S. Congress members, we find that the weaker performing financial institutions lend to more finance committee members and provide more new debt to these politicians. Our findings suggest that lenders may create political connections with finance committee members in an attempt to obtain regulatory benefits. !
Topic:
Debt, Institutions, Fiscal Policy, Political Class, and Banking
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

4977. Economic Recessions and Congressional Preferences for Redistribution

Author:
Maria Carreri and Edoardo Teso
Publication Date:
07-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Nottingham Interdisciplinary Centre for Economic and Political Research (NICEP)
Abstract:
We analyze the roots of politicians’ preferences for redistribution by exploring whether early life experiences have persistent, long-run effects on U.S. Members of Congress’ voting records. We study whether having experienced an economic recession during early adulthood affected their positions on redistribution-specific bills during the period 1957–2012. We find that politicians who experienced a recession hold more conservative positions on redistribution, even compared to members of the same party in the same legislature. We rule out alternative accounts and show that experiencing a recession directly affects future politicians’ personal preferences. In light of recent empirical evidence showing that voters become more supportive of redistribution following a recession, our findings suggest that macroeconomic shocks have a polarizing effect: recessions can create an ideological wedge between voters and their future representatives.
Topic:
Politics, Economy, Redistribution, and Recession
Political Geography:
United States of America

4978. Plaintive Plaintiffs: The First and Last Word in Debates

Author:
Elena D'Agostino and Daniel J. Seidmann
Publication Date:
09-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Nottingham Interdisciplinary Centre for Economic and Political Research (NICEP)
Abstract:
Plainti¤s/prosecutors present their evidence before defendants in common law trials. We analyze a model of trials with the following properties. If litigants share a common pool of evidence then they never prefer to present …rst, but may prefer to present second. However, litigants may prefer to present …rst if they have di¤erent available evidence because presenting …rst replicates the follower’s ex ante optimal commitment. If litigants share available evidence then a litigant cannot prefer the option to choose the order after observing the available evidence over always presenting second; and it may prefer to always present second over having the option to choose the order.
Topic:
Politics, Law Enforcement, Courts, and Debates
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

4979. Strategic Standoff: The U.S.-China Rivalry and Taiwan

Author:
Ian Easton
Publication Date:
03-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Project 2049 Institute
Abstract:
The CCP views Taiwan as a grave threat to its grip on power. Consequently, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), which is the armed wing of the CCP, considers the invasion of Taiwan to be its most critical mission. Getting the strategic competition with China right will ultimately help America secure unprecedented levels of prosperity, freedom, and stability for all Pacific nations by the century’s midpoint.
Topic:
Security, Bilateral Relations, Geopolitics, and Strategic Competition
Political Geography:
China, Taiwan, Asia, North America, and United States of America

4980. Reaching the Limits: China as a Responsible Stakeholder

Author:
John Lee
Publication Date:
07-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Project 2049 Institute
Abstract:
Given the U.S.-China economic relationship and China’s importance in Asia, America’s temptation is to seek a comprehensive cooperative framework to perpetuate its leadership and “tame” a rising China in order to promote stability in the region. Increasing economic interdependence does create common interests, and structured dialogues can reduce misunderstanding. But as Asia’s preeminent power and civilization for all but 200 of the past 3,000 years, China is too big, proud, and independently minded for America to “tame” or “manage.” Washington cannot hope to decisively determine the endgame for an authoritarian China-in which the CCP, leading a country of 1.4 billion people, will choose to become a “responsible stakeholder” within a U.S.-led order.
Topic:
Economics, Bilateral Relations, Geopolitics, International Order, and Stakeholders
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America