Search

Begin New Search Political Geography United States

1. The Causes and Consequences of Refugee Flows: A Contemporary Re-Analysis

Author:
Andrew Shaver
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Empirical Studies of Conflict Project (ESOC)
Abstract:
The world faces a forcible displacement crisis. Across the world, tens of millions of individuals have been forced from their homes and across international boundaries. The causes and consequences of refugee flows are, therefore, the subjects of significant social science inquiry. Unfortunately, historical lack of reliable data on actual refugee flows has significantly limited empirical inferences on these topics. Using data newly released by the United Nations on annual dyadic flows, we replicate twenty-seven studies published in economics and political science journals on the causes and consequences of these flows. We extend fourteen of these. We find that some of the causes of flows described in the literature are less substantively and/or statistically significant than previously reported while others are more. Generally, with some exceptions, we find that previously reported effects of refugees on security conditions are attenuated, suggesting that the literature’s predominant focus on refugees as sources of violent instability may be overstated.
Topic:
Civil War, Terrorism, and Violence
Political Geography:
United States and Global Focus

2. Far-Right Violence and the American Midterm Elections: Early Warning Signs to Monitor Ahead of the Vote

Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED)
Abstract:
A narrow focus on aggregate trends in political violence can obscure important new patterns and warning signs. While the total number of political violence events in the United States declined in 2021 after far-right groups stormed the Capitol at the start of the year, trends since then reflect an ongoing evolution in anti-democratic mobilization on the right — not the aftermath of its high-water mark. Many of the same far-right groups and networks involved in the Capitol attack have adapted their activity to fit the new environment. These adaptations have manifested in multiple ways: the landscape of actors has become more defined; demonstration engagement has shifted, with a focus on protests that allow for the co-option of new supporters; some actors, like the Proud Boys, have increased their use of violence; armed protests have proliferated, particularly at legislative facilities; contentious counter-demonstration trends have intensified; offline propaganda and vigilantism is on the rise, especially motivated by white supremacy and white nationalism; and preparatory actions have surged, including recruitment drives and training exercises. ACLED data indicate that political violence in the United States, and specifically violence involving far-right militias and militant social movements, typically manifests in peaks and lulls. Against this backdrop, the recent decline in aggregate events should not be taken as a sign that the threat of violence has abated. On the contrary, current trends indicate that it may only represent a relative calm before the next storm. The United States faces many latent risks, and a wide range of factors that can contribute to and elevate these risks — from the ascendance of extremist protest drivers like white supremacy, to the increased rate of armed demonstrations at statehouses, to a rise in militia training and recruitment campaigns — are intensifying. Monitoring these factors, and these groups, will be critical for detecting emerging threats, particularly in the lead-up to potential flashpoint events, such as this year’s midterm elections.
Topic:
Political Violence, Elections, and Far Right
Political Geography:
United States

3. Health and Health Care for Women of Reproductive Age: How the United States Compares with Other High-Income Countries

Author:
Munira Z. Gunja, Shanoor Seervai, Laurie Zephyrin, and Reginald D. Williams II
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Commonwealth Fund
Abstract:
The maternal mortality crisis in the United States has been well documented: U.S. women have the highest rate of maternal deaths among high-income countries, while Black women are nearly three times more likely to die from pregnancy-related complications than white women are.1 But maternal deaths and complications may be a bellwether for the U.S.’s wider failures with respect to women’s health and health care. Using data from the Commonwealth Fund’s 2020 International Health Policy Survey and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), this brief compares selected measures of health care access and outcomes for women of reproductive age (18 to 49) in 11 high-income countries. After identifying gaps in U.S. health system performance for women in this age group, we explore some of the policies other nations have put in place to ensure more equitable access and better health outcomes. We also suggest policy options for the United States.
Topic:
Health Care Policy, Reproductive Rights, Reproductive Health, and Abortion
Political Geography:
United States

4. Spring 2021 edition of Strategic Visions

Author:
Alan McPherson
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Strategic Visions
Institution:
Center for the Study of Force and Diplomacy, Temple University
Abstract:
Contents News from the Director Colloquium………………………..2 CENFAD sponsored lectures……...3 Prizes………………………………4 CENFAD Workshop………………4 Thanks to the Davis Fellow……….5 News from the CENFAD Community…6 Note from the Davis Fellow……………9 Book Reviews A Wall of Our Own: An American History of the Berlin Wall Review by Brandon Kinney…..11 Civil Aviation and the Globalization of the Cold War Review by Michael Fischer…..13 Imperial Metropolis: Los Angeles, Mexico, and the Borderlands of American Empire, 1865–1941 Review by Amanda Summers..15 Educating the Empire: American Teachers and Contested Colonization in the Philippines Review by Madison Ingram…17 Fantasy Island: Colonialism, Exploitation, and the Betrayal of Puerto Rico Review by Graydon Dennison..19 Beatriz Allende: A Revolutionary Life in Latin America Review by Michael Onufrak….21
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Cold War, Military Affairs, Empire, Diplomatic History, and Statecraft
Political Geography:
United States, Philippines, Germany, Latin America, Global Focus, and Puerto Rico

5. Issue 12 of Ìrìnkèrindò

Author:
Mojúbàolú Olufúnké Okome
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
Ìrìnkèrindò: a Journal of African Migration
Abstract:
CONTENTS Editorial Perilous, Precarious, Dangerous, and Multidimensional Migrations: African and Black Migrants at the US-Mexican Border and Beyond — Jill M. Humphries ......................................... 1 Articles Beyond Trump’s Wall: Reflections from an African Migrant in a U.S.A Prison — Giscard Nkenglefac and Anne-Marie Debbané ........................................................... 5 A Perilous Journey Chasing Dreams — Hiwot Zegeye .......................….................................... 33 Historical Invisibility: Black Migrants and Mexico’s Colonial Past — Brenda Romero ........... 36 En/Gendered and Vulnerable Bodies: Migration, Human Trafficking and Cross-Border Prostitution in Chika Unigwe’s On Black Sisters’ Street — Olumide Olugbemi-Gabriel ..............................................................................…...... 56 Shifting Identity to a Negotiated Space: Wole Lagunju and the Translocation of Gẹ lẹ dẹ́ — Timothy Olusola Ogunfuwa ..............................................................................…...... 81 Irregular Migration and Regional Security Complex in the Sahel-Lake Chad Corridor: A Human Security Discourse — Adeyemi S. Badewa and Mulugeta F. Dinbabo ................…..... 123
Topic:
Migration, Immigration, Prisons/Penal Systems, Borders, Human Trafficking, Discourse, Black Politics, and African Americans
Political Geography:
Africa, United States, Mexico, and Chad

6. The Divide between Economic History and History: From Ideology to Methodology

Author:
Gavin Wright
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Economics for Inclusive Prosperity (EfIP)
Abstract:
I attended grad school at Yale in the late 1960s, when the New Economic History was on the ascendancy. Although the NEH was mainly in economics, the broader field of economic history clearly included members of both parent disciplines. At Yale, history grad students like Jan de Vries and Fred Carstensen could do an economic history track by taking a few core econ courses. There was also fair amount of common cause with a movement called the New Social History, interested in pursuing quantification to write “history from the bottom up.” Membership and presidents of the Economic History Association were about equally divided between the two disciplines. When I started at Michigan in 1972, there were two card-carrying economic historians in the history department (Sylvia Thrupp and Jacob Price), and similar lineups were not unusual elsewhere. The era of coexistence came to an abrupt end with the publication of Time on the Cross by Fogel and Engerman in 1974. The book was controversial not just because of its claims about slavery in the United States — that slavery was efficient, productive, and not all bad for the slaves — but because these claims were presented as a summation of research by cliometric economic historians over the previous decade or more. Even though some of the most robust critiques came from within economic history — consolidated in Reckoning with Slavery, published in 1976 — many historians felt that any discipline that could generate such an offensive brand of history did not deserve respectful intellectual status. In truth, History was probably going its own way towards the “cultural turn” anyway. To the extent that economic history had something to do with this move, it would have been a reaction to the observation that much of the new work seemed drawn moth-like to the discovery of markets and market processes in history, concluding that “markets worked.” Bill Parker remarked on this tendency in his presidential address to the EHA: “From Old to New to Old in Economic History” (JEH 1971), describing the NEH as “a gigantic test of the hypothesis of economic rationality of a system and of the behavior of individuals within it.” Robert Lucas wrote: “The central lesson of research in economic history is that neoclassical economics applies anytime, anywhere.” This now seems like something of a caricature, but for the NEH roughly through the 1970s, Lucas was largely correct. A case in point that mattered to many historians was the agricultural regime of the postbellum South. Works published in the 1970s by Joseph Reid, Stephen DeCanio and Robert Higgs all concluded that sharecropping was not an exploitive economic form, and that any racial oppression that did occur was rooted in politics rather than markets. Small wonder that historians found little to attract them to this style of research.
Topic:
Economics, Education, History, Slavery, Ideology, and Macroeconomics
Political Geography:
United States

7. A Policy Matrix for Inclusive Prosperity

Author:
Dani Rodrik and Stefanie Stantcheva
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Economics for Inclusive Prosperity (EfIP)
Abstract:
One of the biggest challenges that countries face today is the very unequal distributions of opportunities, resources, income and wealth across people. Inclusive prosperity – whereby many people from different backgrounds can benefit from economic growth, new technologies, and the fruits of globalization – remains elusive. To address these issues, societies face choices among many different policies and institutional arrangements to try to ensure a proper supply of productive jobs and activities, as well as access to education, financial means, and other endowments that prepare individuals for their participation in the economy. In this paper we offer a simple, organizing framework to think about policies for inclusive prosperity. We provide a comprehensive taxonomy of policies, distinguishing among the types of inequality they address and the stages of the economy where the intervention takes place. The taxonomy clarifies the differences among contending approaches to equity and inclusion and can help analysts assess the impacts and implications of different policies and identify potential gaps.
Topic:
Economics, Labor Issues, Economic Inequality, Macroeconomics, Job Creation, Polarization, Productivity, Inclusion, Workforce, and Production
Political Geography:
United States

8. Majoritarian versus Proportional Representation Voting

Author:
Ethan Kaplan
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Economics for Inclusive Prosperity (EfIP)
Abstract:
What kind of voting system should countries have? This policy brief discusses the two main electoral systems in modern political democracies. It makes an argument that majoritarian systems such as what exists in the United States fail to properly represent voters. It suggests replacing the U.S. majoritarian political system with a proportional representation system and shows how this could be done within the context of current U.S. law. Both economists and political scientists have worked on the impact of electoral systems. Empirical methods from economics as well as economic analysis of the incentives created by different political systems have contributed to our understanding of the consequences of electoral systems on representation. Additionally, economists have estimated the impact of electoral system on fiscal expenditures, something we will discuss towards the end of the policy brief. There are two main voting systems in modern democratic societies: majoritarian systems and proportional representation systems. Federal voting in the United States is majoritarian though some states such as Maryland have proportional representation at the state level. In a majoritarian system, also known as a winner-take-all system or a first-past-the-post system, the country is divided up into districts. Politicians then compete for individual district seats. The candidate who receives the highest vote share wins the election and represents the district.
Topic:
Economics, Democracy, Representation, Macroeconomics, Voting, and Electoral Systems
Political Geography:
United States

9. 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

10. 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