BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//GRIPE - ECPv6.15.20//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:GRIPE
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://gripe.polisci.ucla.edu
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for GRIPE
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/New_York
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20210314T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20211107T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20220313T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20221106T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20230312T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20231105T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20240310T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20241103T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20250309T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20251102T060000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20241120T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20241120T133000
DTSTAMP:20260514T163534
CREATED:20240909T195928Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20241115T182701Z
UID:1594-1732104000-1732109400@gripe.polisci.ucla.edu
SUMMARY:Sarah Brooks (OSU\, presenter)\, Santiago Lacroix Eussler (OSU) and Erik Voeten (Georgetown)\, "Green Transition versus the Environment?: The Politics of Mining for Critical Minerals"
DESCRIPTION:Abstract: The energy transition has created a global rush for critical minerals that are indispensable for the manufacturing of “green” technology\, such as electric vehicles\, solar panels\, and wind turbines. Critical minerals are predominantly mined\, however\, on land that is proximate to vulnerable communities\, and in developing countries. The environmental toll imposed by mining thus incurs locally and immediately to such communities\, while the benefits of the green transition are long-term and global. How do citizens in those mineral-rich countries evaluate the complicated trade-offs of mining for critical minerals? Mining projects for green technology inputs have in many instances stalled over public protests related to local environmental damages. We ask to what extent do the global environmental benefits of mining’s contribution to decarbonization offset some of these concerns? Are citizens willing to compensate the (indigenous) communities where mining takes place with a share of the government mining revenue? How do nationalism and geopolitical competition between the U.S. and China affect support for mining projects? We answer these questions using a pre-registered conjoint survey experiment in Argentina\, which is rich in lithium. We find that concerns over local environmental damages are by far the most important attribute that determines preferences\, although a mine’s utility for green technology modestly increases support. Argentine citizens with stronger pro-environmentalist attitudes are more opposed to lithium mining\, but respondents are less willing to redistribute tax revenues to local communities when they are informed that the community is indigenous. Finally\, Argentinians prefer ownership by the national state-owned company (YPF)\, while preferences for Chinese or North American ownership are affected by partisanship\, and consistently opposed to Chinese ownership. \nModerator: Stephen Chaudoin \nLink to PDF
URL:https://gripe.polisci.ucla.edu/event/brooks-2024-11-20/
CATEGORIES:season11
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20241016T121500
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20241016T134500
DTSTAMP:20260514T163534
CREATED:20240909T195847Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20241003T215123Z
UID:1591-1729080900-1729086300@gripe.polisci.ucla.edu
SUMMARY:Lauren Ferry (Mississippi\, presenter) and Patrick E. Shea (Glasgow)\, Crises and Consequences: The Role of US Support in International Bond Markets
DESCRIPTION:Abstract: Sovereign default and restructurings should\, in theory\, lead to creditor punishment through higher borrowing costs or capital market exclusion. However\, empirical evidence shows that punishment is inconsistent and not uniform across defaulters. We argue that this disconnect can be explained by examining the role of geopolitical relationships\, particularly with the United States\, in shaping sovereign credit outcomes. US support conditions the expectations of both borrowers and creditors by providing a fiscal cushion and subsidized insurance. This dynamic incentivizes supported states to engage in riskier financial behavior\, increasing their likelihood of default. Paradoxically\, post-default US support continues to signal a greater ability to pay compared to non-supported states\, reducing creditors’ incentives to punish. Using data on commercial defaults from 1970 to 2012\, we find that states with higher levels of US support are more likely to restructure their debts. After restructuring\, these states face lower borrowing costs and experience shorter periods of exclusion from bond markets. Our findings highlight how international political dynamics shape both the likelihood of default and subsequent market reactions\, contributing to our understanding of the complex interplay between geopolitics and sovereign debt. \nModerator: Maggie Peters \nLink to PDF
URL:https://gripe.polisci.ucla.edu/event/ferry-2024-10-16/
CATEGORIES:season11
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20240918T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20240918T131500
DTSTAMP:20260514T163534
CREATED:20240909T195707Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240909T230145Z
UID:1587-1726660800-1726665300@gripe.polisci.ucla.edu
SUMMARY:Didac Queralt (Yale)\, "Her Majesty’s Aid: A Principal–Agent Analysis of Development Assistance in the Late British Empire"
DESCRIPTION:Can foreign aid expand fiscal capacity? Drawing on principal–agent theory\, I argue that foreign aid builds capacity when the interests of the donor and the political leadership of the recipient state are aligned and when aid administrators in the recipient’s bureaucracy face high-powered incentives to exert effort toward the mission’s goal. Using history as a laboratory\, I examine both predictions by studying the impact of the precursor of foreign aid—the Colonial Development & Welfare fund—on tax efforts in 12 British colonies in Africa between 1929 and 1969. Drawing on originally collected data and archival research\, I demonstrate that imperial aid boosted colonial taxation because patronage governors were replaced by career officials who shared Lon- don’s agenda for the colonies; and because meeting the fiscal mandate of the program was incentive-compatible with professional advancement of colonial bureaucrats. The analysis offers practical insights about aid efforts to build capacity in sovereign nations. \n\n\n\nModerator: Cameron Ballard-Rosa \nLink to PDF
URL:https://gripe.polisci.ucla.edu/event/queralt-2024-09-18/
CATEGORIES:season11
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20240417T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20240417T133000
DTSTAMP:20260514T163534
CREATED:20231222T083141Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240410T225912Z
UID:1528-1713355200-1713360600@gripe.polisci.ucla.edu
SUMMARY:Fiona Bare (Princeton) and Jeff Colgan (Brown\, presenter)\, "Has the Paris Climate Agreement Changed Corporate Behavior?"
DESCRIPTION:Abstract: Did firms shift resources to decarbonization in the wake of the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change\, especially in industries where technology permits relatively cheap low- carbon options? The Paris Agreement marked a key moment in climate cooperation\, uniting countries towards a common goal of limiting global temperature increase to well below 2 degrees. However\, achieving this target is largely dependent on the behavior of corporate actors given that companies have been responsible for the lion’s share of greenhouse gas emissions. In this paper\, we examine whether the Paris Agreement changed corporate behavior among “convertible” industries\, focusing on automobile manufacturers. Political science literature points to two very different viewpoints on this question. Using five types of primary source materials such as earnings call transcripts and production reports\, we find quite limited evidence that the Paris Agreement shifted business strategy in the car sector. Overall\, the evidence should lead dispassionate analysts to revise downward their beliefs about Paris impact. Still\, the Paris Agreement might have created an enabling environment for more ambitious domestic policy in the long run. \nModerator: Maggie Peters \nLink to PDF
URL:https://gripe.polisci.ucla.edu/event/colgan-2024-04-17/
CATEGORIES:season10
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20240320T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20240320T133000
DTSTAMP:20260514T163534
CREATED:20231026T210446Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240318T213619Z
UID:1479-1710936000-1710941400@gripe.polisci.ucla.edu
SUMMARY:Carolina Moehlecke (Fundação Getulio Vargas\, presenter)\, Matias Spektor (FGV) and Guilherme Fasolin (Vanderbilt)\, "Drivers of Negative Perceptions of Chinese FDI: Experimental Evidence from Brazil"
DESCRIPTION:Abstract: Over the past decade\, China’s direct investment in Brazil has quadrupled\, making it one of the main investors in Latin America’s largest economy. This study examines Brazilians’ perceptions of this recent phenomenon. Using a conjoint experiment\, we find that Brazilians view Chinese investment as less advantageous compared to investments from Europe and the United States. We propose that this negative stance towards Chinese capital in Brazil arises from informational cues and frames around the topic. To test this overarching hypothesis\, we conduct a vignette survey experiment in Brazil with treatments highlighting worrisome outcomes of Chinese investment\, such as closer ties with a non-democratic country\, excessive economic dependency\, threats to sovereignty\, association with communism\, and the growing influence of Chinese culture in Brazilian society. The results indicate that all treatments except the influence of Chinese culture negatively affect Brazilians’ views on Chinese investment. Moreover\, we observe significant variation based on political self-identification\, with right-leaning individuals more affected by the treatments\, particularly those related to economic dependency and non-democracy. In contrast\, traditional drivers of preferences toward FDI do not produce significant effects. We employ text analysis of Congressional debates to provide further evidence that a top-down process shapes Brazilians’ attitudes toward Chinese FDI\, especially those stemming from the political right. By examining the micro foundations of Brazilians’ stances on Chinese FDI — a globalization feature whose benefits usually surpass the costs — we contribute to a growing literature that examines China’s ability and limits to influence the developing world amid great-power competition. \nLink to PDF \nModerator: Sarah Bauerle Danzman
URL:https://gripe.polisci.ucla.edu/event/moehleck-2024-03-20/
CATEGORIES:season10
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20240221T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20240221T133000
DTSTAMP:20260514T163534
CREATED:20231222T083642Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240214T182126Z
UID:1531-1708516800-1708522200@gripe.polisci.ucla.edu
SUMMARY:Danielle Gilbert (Northwestern) and Lauren Prather (UCSD)\, "No Man Left Behind? Hostage Deservingness and the Politics of Hostage Recovery"
DESCRIPTION:Abstract: Kidnappings of soldiers\, journalists\, aid workers\, and other civilians by armed groups happen every day\, yet the politics of hostage recovery remains understudied. We develop an original theory about hostage deservingness that investigates how hostages’ personal responsibility for their own capture shapes public opinion and elite decision-making. We also examine the influence of traditional principles associated with hostage recovery and the costs of recovery. Our multi-method approach includes the use of survey experiments embedded in large national surveys of Americans and 22 interviews with current and former senior hostage recovery personnel. Across our experiments\, we find that when capture occurs under circumstances that suggest the hostage bears responsibility\, support for recovery decreases\, especially when costs are high. We further demonstrate that policymakers are similarly susceptible to notions of deservingness\, which affects all parts of the recovery process: internal debate among policymakers\, operational decisions\, and messaging to the public. \nLink to PDF
URL:https://gripe.polisci.ucla.edu/event/prather-2024-02-21/
CATEGORIES:season10
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20240117T093000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20240117T110000
DTSTAMP:20260514T163534
CREATED:20231221T140339Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240117T064113Z
UID:1524-1705483800-1705489200@gripe.polisci.ucla.edu
SUMMARY:Tuuli-Anna Huikuri (Zurich) and Sujeong Shim (NYU Abu Dhabi)\, "Never Let Me Go: Exit Clauses in International Agreements"
DESCRIPTION:Abstract: Growing literature examines when states exit international institutions and why. International agreements\, however\, differ in how easy it is for signatory states to withdraw from them. Why do some states sign treaties that are difficult to terminate\, while others prefer treaties that are easy to withdraw from? We investigate this question in the context of international investment agreements\, exploiting variation in the flexibility of their exit clauses. We argue that the strictness of treaty commitments depends on the extent of domestic-level uncertainty and the severity of the international-level commitment problem.  Capital exporting democracies face a dilemma: they have to balance between constraining capital importers and maintaining flexibility for themselves. They resolve the dilemma by adjusting their demands for treaty-strictness based on the commitment problem of their partner states\, demanding exit clauses that require longer commitment periods when dealing with autocratic importers\, while allowing more flexibility with democratic importers. To test our argument\, we construct an original dataset of termination features in over 2\,500 international investment treaties\, conduct elite interviews with treaty negotiators\, and find supporting evidence for our theory. This study contributes to the understanding of durability in international institutions\, as well as negotiations over economic agreements.\n\nModerator: Federica Genovese\n\nLink to PDF
URL:https://gripe.polisci.ucla.edu/event/huikuri-2024-01-17/
CATEGORIES:season10
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20231206T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20231206T133000
DTSTAMP:20260514T163534
CREATED:20230906T184114Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231201T223956Z
UID:1421-1701864000-1701869400@gripe.polisci.ucla.edu
SUMMARY:Allison Carnegie (Columbia\, presenter) and Ricky Clark (Cornell)\, "Perils of Populism: How Populists Warp Global Governance"
DESCRIPTION:Link to PDF \nNote: The PDF contains two chapters: the introduction and one empirical chapter from the book. \nModerator: Stephen Chaudoin
URL:https://gripe.polisci.ucla.edu/event/carnegie-2023-12-06/
CATEGORIES:season9
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20231115T093000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20231115T110000
DTSTAMP:20260514T163534
CREATED:20230906T183755Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231107T223310Z
UID:1417-1700040600-1700046000@gripe.polisci.ucla.edu
SUMMARY:Chloe Ahn (UPenn) and Nina Obermeier (King’s College London\, presenter)\, "Cryptocurrency and the State: Evidence from South Korea"
DESCRIPTION:Abstract: National currencies regulated by state monetary authorities have long been associated with nation-state building and the expansion of state control. The rise of cryptocurrencies—that is\, digital currencies outside of state control—has the potential to challenge the dominance of the state in this area and to disrupt state-society relations traditionally mediated through state-issued currencies. However\, as recent crises and scandals involving cryptocurrencies demonstrate\, cryptocurrencies may—in the absence of regulation—be perceived as too volatile and unsafe to act as a true alternative to state-regulated currencies or to investments that offer some level of government protection. In fact\, the failure of cryptocurrencies to provide a safe alternative financial system may lead people to appreciate the role of government in regulating markets more. We test these expectations in the case of South Korea\, using a number of different approaches. First\, a quantitative content analysis of recent South Korean news media shows that despite public attention to the possibility of “striking it rich” through cryptocurrency investment\, public discourse on cryptocurrency has recently become dominated by discussion of the weaknesses of non-state-regulated currencies\, particularly after a series of scandals. Second\, a nationally representative survey experiment reveals that exposing South Koreans to information about the volatility of cryptocurrencies increases their trust in government\, as hypothesized. At the same time\, exposure to positive information about cryptocurrencies does not undermine trust in government or support for government regulation. These results point to limitations to the potential of unregulated cryptocurrencies to offer an alternative to state-issued currencies or government-regulated investment vehicles. \nModerator: Federica Genovese \nLink to PDF
URL:https://gripe.polisci.ucla.edu/event/obermeier-2023-11-15/
CATEGORIES:season9
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20231011T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20231011T133000
DTSTAMP:20260514T163534
CREATED:20230906T183546Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231004T181152Z
UID:1414-1697025600-1697031000@gripe.polisci.ucla.edu
SUMMARY:Bobby Gulotty (Chicago\, presenter) and Anton Strezhnev (Chicago)\, "The Political Benefits of the Monoculture: Estimating Political Manipulation in the Market Facilitation Program"
DESCRIPTION:Abstract: Many redistributive programs use estimates of need to determine access. These esti- mates\, in turn\, depend on a formulaic combination of objective measures and subjective evaluations. Such formulas do not eliminate political influence\, but instead force politicians to use industrial policy to target individuals by way of their positions as economic producers or consumers\, rather than by their membership in a relevant political community. In the politics of farm subsidies\, the government may lack the data or expertise to render political communities sufficiently legible to target via product-specific transfer schemes. We use these constraints to examine the impact of the US Department of Agriculture’s Market Facilitation Program (MFP) which provided over $16 billion in direct payments\, surplus purchasing\, and other forms of support to US agricultural producers from 2018 to 2020. According to official statements\, these funds were allocated in response to “objective” econometric estimates of the damage caused by the US-China trade war. We use county and crop-level administrative data to reconstruct the formula used to significantly expand payments in 2019 and show how the determination of damages for particular crops propagated via the formula into county-specific compensation rates based on these counties’ prior planting decisions. We find that counties receiving higher levels of formula-induced compensation\, on average\, have higher Republican Party presidential vote shares in the 2020 presidential election. Instrumenting for actual MFP disbursements in 2019-2020 using the reconstructed formula\, we find that each additional $10 million in MFP payments to a county increased that county’s 2020 Trump vote share by about 0.6 percentage points on average. \nLink to PDF \nModerator: Iain Osgood
URL:https://gripe.polisci.ucla.edu/event/gulotty-2023-10-11/
CATEGORIES:season9
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20230920T093000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20230920T110000
DTSTAMP:20260514T163534
CREATED:20230906T182913Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230917T213625Z
UID:1408-1695202200-1695207600@gripe.polisci.ucla.edu
SUMMARY:Haillie Lee (Seoul National University) and Erik Voeten (Georgetown\, presenter)\, "Transboundary Air Pollution and Hazy Accountability: Evidence from South Korea and China"
DESCRIPTION:Abstract: Environmental problems often originate at least partially in other jurisdictions. We argue that trans- boundary pollution can increase public hostility towards the polluting country and break accountability links in the country that receives some of its pollution from abroad. We examine this argument in the context of trans-boundary air pollution in South Korea. South Korea’s air pollution is the worst in the OECD and it partially originates in China. We combine daily air quality measurements with Gallup World Poll surveys from 2015-2022 to show that on days with bad air quality\, Koreans become significantly less satisfied with China’s leadership but not with the Korean government\, including the government’s efforts to preserve the environment. We also use air quality as an instrument for subjective satisfaction with air quality and find that subjective beliefs about air quality have a strong negative causal effect on satisfaction with China’s leadership but have no significant effect on satisfaction with the Korean government. This evidence suggests that air pollution partially causes negative Korean views to- wards China and that cross-border deflection of responsibility may relief pressure from the South Korean government to adopt stronger environmental measures. Moreover\, we find that the effect runs through reduced confidence in the local economy rather than the effects of pollution on perceived life satisfaction or health. \nLink to PDF \nModerator: Stephen Chaudoin
URL:https://gripe.polisci.ucla.edu/event/voeten-2023-09-20/
CATEGORIES:season9
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20230712T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20230712T133000
DTSTAMP:20260514T163534
CREATED:20230303T235114Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230704T054022Z
UID:1307-1689163200-1689168600@gripe.polisci.ucla.edu
SUMMARY:Siyao Li (Pittsburgh)\, Aditi Sahasrabuddhe (Brown\, presenter)\, Scott Wingo (CACR)\, "The Limits Of Economic Statecraft: RMB Internationalization And The External Security Environment"
DESCRIPTION:Abstract: \n\n\n\nExpanded use of the Chinese currency beyond China’s own borders is an important indication of China’s growing influence in global affairs. Contrary to earlier expectations however\, China has only internationalized its currency\, the renminbi (RMB)\, on a very limited scale. While this outcome is not altogether puzzling\, we argue that the conventional wisdom on international reserve currencies has overlooked security considerations\, namely security and military partnerships from the currency issuing state\, and the external security environment as key factors in generating and strengthening support for international markets in its currency. We advance an historically informed argument of the security limits to RMB internationalization. We demonstrate that the deployment of China’s primary tool for currency internationalization—RMB swaps—is constrained by the dual exigencies of guaranteeing security for overseas economic interests in addition to domestic goals of maintaining domestic financial stability. We then show that RMB internationalization is influenced by both Chinese and US security alliances. We find that\, counterintuitively\, the growth of China’s military power and ability to back its economic interest seem to constrain its choice of BSA partners in regions closer to China given existing US military alliances. \n\nModerater: Sarah Bauerle Danzman \nLink to PDF
URL:https://gripe.polisci.ucla.edu/event/sahasrabuddhe-2023jul12/
CATEGORIES:season8
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20230614T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20230614T133000
DTSTAMP:20260514T163534
CREATED:20230303T234925Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230525T195513Z
UID:1300-1686744000-1686749400@gripe.polisci.ucla.edu
SUMMARY:Sung Eun Kim (Korea)\, Rebecca Perlman (Princeton\, presenter) and Grace Zeng (Princeton)\, "The Politics of Rejection: Explaining Chinese Import Refusals"
DESCRIPTION:Abstract: \nHealth and safety standards offer a convenient means by which governments can credibly claim to be protecting the population\, even while pursuing less publicly- oriented goals. In the realm of international trade\, such regulatory standards have most often been studied as a method of veiled protectionism that can help nations privilege domestic industry while skirting World Trade Organization requirements of openness. Yet precisely because health and safety standards create ambiguity about their intent and are therefore difficult to punish\, nations may be incentivized to use them for goals that extend well beyond protecting domestic industry. In particular\, we theorize that governments will\, at times\, use regulatory barriers as a means of po- litical retribution. In order to show this\, we collect and translate detailed\, original data on import refusals by Chinese border inspectors between 2011 and 2019. Though os- tensibly intended to keep dangerous products out of the hands of Chinese consumers\, we demonstrate that import rejections have systematically been used by the Chinese government as a way to punish states that act against China’s interest. \nModerator: Lauren Prather \nLink to PDF
URL:https://gripe.polisci.ucla.edu/event/perlman-2023jun14/
CATEGORIES:season8
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20230517T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20230517T133000
DTSTAMP:20260514T163534
CREATED:20230303T234801Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230509T153831Z
UID:1295-1684324800-1684330200@gripe.polisci.ucla.edu
SUMMARY:Minju Kim (Syracuse\, presenter) and Shu Fu (Chicago)\, “Bringing Home the Bacon: Politician Ambassadors and Home State Trade”
DESCRIPTION:Abstract: \n\n\n\nAmbassadors promote domestic exports to a host country and represent the inter- est of their home country at large. However\, are trade benefits equally distributed domestically? In the United States\, a substantial number of ambassadors are former governors or legislators (“politician ambassadors”). We argue that politician ambas- sadors are particularly equipped with knowledge and incentives to promote exports from their home states to host countries. Leveraging the biographic information of 164 ambassadors and US state-level exports to 30 major export destinations from 2002 to 2020\, we find that the home states of politician ambassadors\, compared to other states\, enjoy a significant export increase to host countries on average (“home-state effect”). We find that the home-state effect is particularly apparent in countries where the US exports the most\, and in industries that export final goods. Personal background of ambassadors can explain how the benefits of diplomacy are distributed domestically. \nModerator: Maggie Peters \n\n\n\nLink to PDF
URL:https://gripe.polisci.ucla.edu/event/kim-2023may17/
CATEGORIES:season8
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20230419T093000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20230419T110000
DTSTAMP:20260514T163534
CREATED:20230103T042925Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230411T165833Z
UID:1223-1681896600-1681902000@gripe.polisci.ucla.edu
SUMMARY:Boram Lee (LSE)\, "Baptists and Bootleggers in Trade Politics: How Treaty Recognition Makes Side Agreements Credible"
DESCRIPTION:Studies show that liberalizing governments include social and environmental clauses in trade agreements to gain pro-trade support from activists. However\, these studies do not address how the government makes issue linkage credible to activists\, who understand that the government has weak incentives to enforce such linkages once the agreement is ratified. How do liberalizing governments make issue linkage credible to activists despite the commitment problem? Focusing on U.S. government decisions regarding environmental clauses in trade agreements\, I argue that a liberalizing government uses international treaties to mitigate activists’ fears of defection. By recognizing environmental international organizations’ authority in trade agreements\, the government can mitigate activists’ fear of defection and increase their support for trade agreements. Using original data\, I find that the government recognized environmental treaties with more ties to U.S.-based activists in designing environmental clauses in trade agreements from 2000 to 2016. Based on a comparative case study\, I also show that activists with ties to recognized treaties supported issue linkage whereas those without ties to the treaties joined forces with anti-trade groups. \n\n\n\nModerator: Federica Genovese \nLink to PDF
URL:https://gripe.polisci.ucla.edu/event/lee-2023april19/
CATEGORIES:season7
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20230322T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20230322T133000
DTSTAMP:20260514T163534
CREATED:20230103T041148Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230302T173857Z
UID:1220-1679486400-1679491800@gripe.polisci.ucla.edu
SUMMARY:Ed Mansfield (Penn\, presenter) and Omer Solodoch (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)\, "Pandemic Protectionism: COVID-19 and the Rise of Public Opposition to Trade"
DESCRIPTION:Abstract: \n\n\n\nHow did the COVID-19 pandemic affect public attitudes toward international trade? In this study\, we argue that the pandemic promoted protectionist sentiment in the United States. Based on cross-sectional and panel data\, we find a substantial increase in Americans’ opposition to trade following the outbreak of the pandemic. This heightened opposition was both long-lasting and pervasive\, cutting across demographic\, economic\, and partisan lines. We also find that experiencing a personal pandemic shock stemming from contracting the Coronavirus or suffering economically from the pandemic contributed to rising hostility to trade. Further\, the effect of such shocks was driven primarily by Republicans\, a result that accords with partisan motivated reasoning. \n\n\n\n\n\n\nLink to PDF \nModerator: Cameron Ballard-Rosa
URL:https://gripe.polisci.ucla.edu/event/mansfield-2023mar22/
CATEGORIES:season7
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20230215T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20230215T133000
DTSTAMP:20260514T163534
CREATED:20230103T040526Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230525T190341Z
UID:1215-1676462400-1676467800@gripe.polisci.ucla.edu
SUMMARY:Kate McNamara (Georgetown)\, "The Politics of the New European Industrial Policy: How a Post-Neoliberal Shift Is Transforming the European Union"
DESCRIPTION:Abstract: \nMarkets require rules\, made and enforced by governments\, and modern market-making has therefore unfolded as an intrinsic part of state-building. While the European Union is not a Weberian state\, it has not been immune to these processes. Over the last three decades it has constructed a Single European Market and a currency while building political authority and expanding its institutional capacities. The EU has done this through supranational market-making largely centered on neoliberal precepts of competition and openness. Today\, however\, the EU is breaking with that tradition by pursuing an active\, interventionist European industrial and geopolitical market-making strategy\, layered above the member-states. Scholars have yet to fully grapple with this new and contentious shift. This paper begins this task by describing and mapping European industrial policy and situating it within the larger global turn to industrial policy\, while raising a series of questions about the political sources and consequences of this change for the EU’s political development\, and for broader transformations in capitalism in Europe and beyond. \nModerator: Sarah Bauerle Danzman \nLink to PDF
URL:https://gripe.polisci.ucla.edu/event/mcnamara-2023feb15/
CATEGORIES:season7
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20230125T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20230125T133000
DTSTAMP:20260514T163534
CREATED:20230103T034828Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230118T162912Z
UID:1212-1674648000-1674653400@gripe.polisci.ucla.edu
SUMMARY:Patrick Bayer (Strathclyde\, presenter) and Federica Genovese (Essex)\, "Climate Policy Costs\, Regional Identity and Backlash against International Cooperation"
DESCRIPTION:Abstract: \n\n\n\nScholars in international political economy are increasingly interested in how the sub- national patterns of major economic adjustments such as trade investment and environmental reforms fuel public opposition to international institutions that are meant to catalyze those adjustments. While the literature has sharpened the understanding of material policy costs and their implications for public opinion\, the impact of less material considerations—for example\, specific subnational identities—is still largely unexplained. In this paper\, we explore if and how vulnerability to climate policy\, which pushes communities to lash out against rapid decarbonization\, is moderated by a sense of strong regional identities\, which may reduce the appreciation for national policies at the expense of international ambition. We present new survey evidence from the United Kingdom that assesses if and how communities with different sensitivities to distributive climate policy costs and subnational identities form varying preferences for international cooperation. Our study of 3\,000 individuals from three different geographically targeted areas supports our argument and highlights the importance of new climate-related cleavages among politically relevant constituencies on international integration. \n\n\n\nModerator: Iain Osgood \nLink to PDF
URL:https://gripe.polisci.ucla.edu/event/bayer-2023jan25/
CATEGORIES:season7
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20221130T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20221130T133000
DTSTAMP:20260514T163534
CREATED:20220921T082120Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20221130T052203Z
UID:1045-1669809600-1669815000@gripe.polisci.ucla.edu
SUMMARY:Chase Foster (Technische Universität München) and Jeffry Frieden (Harvard)\, "Compensation\, Austerity\, and Populism: Social Spending and Voting in 17 Western European Countries"
DESCRIPTION:Abstract: \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThere has been a dramatic rise in voting for populist parties in Europe over the past twenty years. There are clear material and non-material sources of this backlash against political and economic integration\, which is part of the broader global trend. We assess the role of government social policy in dampening or provoking populist sentiment\, on two different dimensions. First\, we ask whether the existence of a broader and deeper social safety net mitigated the political discontent that took the form of populist voting. Here we examine a panel of 187 elections from 1990 to 2017 and find evidence that populist parties fared worse where countries spent more on social support\, especially for labor market programs that provide income to workers experiencing unemployment or early retirement from the workforce (“passive labor market” policies). This suggests that “compensatory” social spending did work to dampen support for populism. Second\, we ask whether cuts to government support for those facing economic distress\, largely undertaken with reforms in the 1990s and early 2000s\, stimulated populist discontent. Here we add an analysis of pooled cross-sectional data from eight waves of the European Social Survey. We find that cuts to social spending\, especially spending on passive labor market policies\, were strongly associated with increased support for populist parties. The effect was stronger among those individuals who had experienced unemployment and among those facing adverse economic circumstances. This suggests that the welfare and labor-market reforms of the 1990s and early 2000s may have alienated vulnerable segments of the population and driven them toward populist political parties. \n\n\n\nModerator: Iain Osgood \nLink to PDF
URL:https://gripe.polisci.ucla.edu/event/frieden_foster-2022nov30/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20221116T093000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20221116T110000
DTSTAMP:20260514T163535
CREATED:20220921T081909Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20221116T221908Z
UID:1041-1668591000-1668596400@gripe.polisci.ucla.edu
SUMMARY:Simone Cremaschi (Bocconi)\, Paula Rettl (Bocconi)\, Marco Cappelluti (UCL)\, and Catherine E. De Vries (Bocconi\, presenter)\, "Geographies of Discontent: How Public Service Deprivation Increased Far-Right Support in Italy"
DESCRIPTION:Abstract: \n\n\n\n\n\n\nElectoral support for far-right parties is often linked to specific geographies of discontent. We argue that public service deprivation\, defined as reduced access to public services at the local level\, helps explain these patterns in far-right support. Public service deprivation increases the appeal of far-right parties by making people more worried about immigration and increased competition for public services. We examine our argument using three studies from Italy\, home to some of the most electorally successful far-right parties in recent decades. We examine cross-sectional data from municipalities (study 1)\, exploit a national reform forcing municipalities below a certain population threshold to jointly share local public services (study 2)\, and explore geo-coded individual-level election survey data (study 3). Our findings suggest that public service deprivation helps us better understand geographic differences in far-right support and the mechanisms underlying them. \nModerator: Federica Genovese \nZoom link: https://essex-university.zoom.us/j/95646499175?pwd=cGszcEpXSU9iVHBmRndIWjd3eGh2Zz09 \nMeeting ID: 956 4649 9175\nPassword: gripe2022f\nLink to PDF
URL:https://gripe.polisci.ucla.edu/event/devries-nov16/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20221026T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20221026T133000
DTSTAMP:20260514T163535
CREATED:20220921T081801Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20221026T211730Z
UID:1038-1666785600-1666791000@gripe.polisci.ucla.edu
SUMMARY:David Gill (Nottingham)\, "The Default Taboo: Repayment Norms during the Great Depression"
DESCRIPTION:Abstract: \n\n\n\nFrance and Britain were responsible for the two largest sovereign defaults in modern history when they unilaterally suspended war debt repayments to the United States during the Great Depression. Despite facing similar economic challenges\, Paris defaulted in 1932 whereas London continued payment until 1934. Conventional explanations for why states default or repay their debts— which tend to focus on future borrowing costs\, the risk of sanctions\, economic spillover effects\, or domestic-political trade-offs—struggle to explain this variation. This article refocuses attention on the role of ideas and norms in policymakers’ decision-making at critical moments on the path to default. Archival research in Britain and the United States reveals a default taboo in operation in London. The taboo functioned instrumentally\, affecting cost-benefit calculations\, but also substantively\, making repayment legitimate and appropriate. Variation in the key mechanisms of normative influence— domestic public opinion\, international reputation\, and personal moral convictions—provides a stronger explanation of repayment behavior than existing theories. British policymakers were initially concerned about outraging the public\, feared non-payment by Britain’s own debtors\, and believed repayment was morally right. Britain defaulted only after these concerns faded\, and despite economic recovery. In contrast\, French policymakers faced immediate and strong public resistance to repayment\, held more limited concerns about international reputation\, and were more divided on the morality of default. Analysis of these historical examples\, which represent difficult cases due to pervasive assumptions about economic rationality\, highlights the importance of ideas and norms in the study of sovereign debt and helps to explain why states can repay debts in bad times or default in good times. \nModerator: Maggie Peters \nLink to PDF \nClick here for Zoom recording with passcode: se*tT97%
URL:https://gripe.polisci.ucla.edu/event/gill-oct26/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20220928T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20220928T133000
DTSTAMP:20260514T163535
CREATED:20220913T223429Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20220928T184246Z
UID:998-1664366400-1664371800@gripe.polisci.ucla.edu
SUMMARY:Julian Michel (UCLA)\, Michael K. Miller (GWU)\, Margaret E. Peters (UCLA)\, "Get Out: How Autocratic Regimes Select Who Emigrates"
DESCRIPTION:Abstract: Most autocracies restrict emigration\, yet still allow some citizens to voluntarily exit. How do these regimes decide who can leave? We argue that many autocracies strategically target anti-regime actors for emigration\, thereby crafting a more loyal population without the drawbacks of persistent cooptation or repression. However\, this generates problematic incentives for citizens to join opposition activity to secure exit. In response\, autocracies simultaneously punish dissidents for attempting to emigrate\, screening out all but the most determined opponents. To test our theory\, we examine an original dataset coded from 20\,000 pages of declassified emigration applications from East Germany’s state archives. In the first individual-level test of an autocracy’s emigration decisions\, we find that active opposition promoted emigration approval\, but also punishment for applying. Pensioners were also more likely to secure exit and professionals less likely. Our results shed light on global migration’s political sources and an overlooked strategy of autocratic resilience. \nModerator: Stephen Chaudoin \nLink to PDF \nClick here for Zoom recording with passcode: U8rc=EeP
URL:https://gripe.polisci.ucla.edu/event/maggie-peters-ucla-get-out-how-autocratic-regimes-select-who-emigrates/
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR