Spring 2006 Colloquia


Colloquia during Spring 2006


















Monday, January 23, 2006




Presented by Professor Colin Allen, Department of History and Philosophy of Science, Program in Cognitive Science, and Center for the Integrative Study of Animal Behavior, IUB (Coauthors: Iva Smit, E&E Consultants, The Netherlands,, and Wendell Wallach, WW Associates, Bloomfield, CT,


Abstract: A principal goal of the discipline of artificial morality is to design artificial agents to act as if they are moral agents. Intermediate goals of artificial morality are directed at building into AI systems sensitivity to the values, ethics, and legality of activities. The development of an effective foundation for the field of artificial morality involves exploring the technological and philosophical issues involved in making computers into explicit moral reasoners. The goal of this paper is to discuss strategies for implementing artificial morality and the differing criteria for success that are appropriate to different strategies.


Keywords: artificial morality, autonomous agents, robots, machines, values, ethics



BIO: Professor Allen's main area of research is on scientific theories of the mind, particularly with respect to nonhuman animals (cognitive ethology). He has also published on other topics in the philosophy of mind and philosophy of biology, and has published a description of a neural network of a primary memory process and about the future of artificial intelligence. Currently, he is working on the prospects for artificial moral agents -- robots with ethics!


He received his bachelor's degree in philosophy from University College London and his Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of California at Los Angeles. While at UCLA he completed all course work for a master's degree in computer science (artificial intelligence), but left before completing his master's thesis in order to take the position of Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Texas A&M University in 1989. He was promoted to Associate Professor in 1995, served as Assistant Department Head in 1996-2000, and was promoted to Full Professor in 2000. In fall 2004, he moved to Indiana University, Bloomington, where he is in the History and Philosophy of Science department with a joint appointment in the Cognitive Science Program. He is also on the faculty of IU's Center for the Integrative Study of Animal Behavior.


Since 1998, he has been consulting and programming for The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; and is currently Associate Editor of the encyclopedia. In 1995, he created the first interactive logic site on the World Wide Web and this system remains under active development by him and his colleague Chris Menzel at They are also co-developers of the site at


Paper in PDF


Monday, January 30, 2006




Presented by Dr. Lauren Morris MacLean, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, and Affiliated Faculty, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, IUB


Abstract: While Indian gaming has focused the media spotlight on conflicts between tribes and states, health policy issues have recently spurred some examples of unprecedented collaboration. This study usefully highlights that not all policy arenas are as contentious for tribes and states as Indian gaming. Still, this more positive tribal-state cooperation in health policy has not been uniformly achieved across the U.S.  The project attempts to explain this puzzling variation in the expansion of tribal influence at the state level in the 34 states with federally-recognized tribes.  Using an original dataset, the paper is a comparative statistical analysis of the factors influencing more or less tribal-state consultation in health policy. Rather surprisingly, the study’s findings suggest that Indian gaming is not a significant causal factor in getting the state to sit down with tribes at the health policy bargaining table.  Instead, what appears to matter most are the number of tribes in the state and whether or not the state exercised PL-280 jurisdiction in the past. The paper draws on qualitative and quantitative analysis to investigate the causal mechanisms of the above factors in the policy process, arriving at two main conclusions. First, new state institutions are built in an iterative feedback process going back and forth between the bureaucracy (i.e., the state health departments) and the executive branch (i.e., the Governor’s office).  Second, the development of government-to-government accords in certain states has been critical to deepening initial tribal participation in policymaking.  Overall, the project contributes to understanding how to create and sustain democratic institutions that facilitate the participation of poor and marginalized groups or ethnic minorities, both in the U.S. and elsewhere.


BIO: Lauren Morris MacLean received her PhD in 2002 from the University of California at Berkeley. After completing a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Scholars in Health Policy post-doctoral fellowship at the University of Michigan from 2002-2004, she joined IU’s Department of Political Science in January 2005. Her research focuses on the politics of poverty and social policy in Africa and the rural U.S. She has published articles from her dissertation research in the Journal of Modern African Studies, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Studies in Comparative International Development, and the International Journal of Public Administration. In addition to revising her book manuscript from her research in West Africa, she is now in the midst of data collection and analysis for a second project on the participation and representation of American Indians in state and federal politics in the U.S.


Paper in PDF


Monday, February 6, 2006




Presented by Dr. James Lancaster, Lecturer, School of Business Administration, Stamford International University, Petchburi, Thailand, and Visiting Scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, IUB


Abstract: Sustainability of funds is crucial in implementing rural credit programs and those relying on their services. Understanding the impact of outreach on non-performing loans performance would contribute to better information for policy decision making at BAAC.


Regression analysis is used to determine how the non-performing loan ratio of BAAC branches can be explained by the debt suspension program implementation and the average loan of customers. Results of the five multiple regression analysis tests show that debt suspension program has negative impact on the non-performing loan ratio of BAAC branches in all areas while and average loan has positive impact on the non-performing loan ratio of BAAC branches in the area with highest income only.


Expansion of loan amount should go together with the expansion of number of borrowers. There is no evidence suggesting that lower average loan (higher depth of outreach) would contribute to higher non-performing loan ratio.


BIO: James Lancaster is a full-time lecturer in the faculty of Business Administration at Stamford International University, Thailand. He received his Ph.D. in Development Administration from the National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA), Bangkok in 2005. His Bachelor’s degree was in Business Administration and his Master’s was in Business Economics. He was an exchange visitor at the School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA) in fall 2002. His interest is micro-finance and is pursuing a research work on self-organized village level financial institutions.


Paper in PDF


Monday, February 13, 2006




Presented by Dr. Burnell Fischer, Clinical Professor, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, and Affiliated Faculty, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, IUB


Abstract: Arriving at the Workshop in September 2005 after a 15 year career in state government leading a forestry agency causes one to reflect both on the past and to look forward to new roles and opportunities.  My previous academic experience was in applied research and forestry extension/outreach at Land Grant institutions which should serve me well in an institution that recognizes service oriented research and teaching.  Current Central Hardwood Forest issues – ecological and policy oriented will be briefly presented to set a context for discussion.  A focus will be recent experiences in working with private forestlands and community and urban forestry programs in Indiana and nationally.  Measuring successful outputs and outcomes from such broadly based programs are difficult but necessary if these programs are to continue to receive public and private support.  Constituent based organizations that support these programs are briefly reviewed as well as common measures of success. Finally, a brief review of a recent consulting experience with The Nature Conservancy in South America reviewing sustainable forestry projects in three countries will close the presentation. 


BIO: Professor Fischer is a Clinical Professor, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University.  He received his BSF, MS and PhD’s in forestry from Purdue University.  He was a professor of forestry at the University of Massachusetts - Amherst and Purdue University (1974-90) and then the State Forester and Director of the Indiana Division of Forestry from 1990-2005.  Professor Fischer's teaching, service, and research focus is on the practice of forestry, particularly the Central Hardwoods. He also has interests in forest resources policy including state government management. His 15 years of experience as state forester provides a basis for both biological and policy analysis of forestry practices. Professor Fischer's previous research emphasis has been on forest stand dynamics. He served as president of the National Association of State Foresters (2003-04) and worked with Congress, federal agencies, and NGOs on national forestry issues. Previously, he served a three-year term on the 15-person National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Committee, which advised the Secretary of Agriculture. His experiences in urban and community forestry policy and practice provide a strong base for introducing urban forestry to SPEA. Professor Fischer teaches silviculture and urban forestry at SPEA and provides expertise in forest resources policy at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis.


There will not be a formal paper for this session.


Monday, February 20, 2006




Presented by Professor Daniel Cole, R. Bruce Townsend Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law at Indianapolis, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI)


Abstract: Since Madison, jurists of all ideological stripes have more or less casually presumed that constitutional judicial review is absolutely necessary to protect private property rights against over-regulation by political bodies. During the twentieth century, this presumption led directly to the institution of regulatory takings doctrine.


Recently, the economist William Fischel and the legal scholar Neil Komesar have raised important questions about, respectively, the utility and the sufficiency of constitutional judicial review for protecting private property. This article supports their arguments with theoretical and historical evidence that constitutional judicial review (1) is not strictly necessary for protecting private property rights, and (2) may have substantially less marginal social utility than most jurists presume.


The theoretical evidence comes from positive political-economic theories of property rights, according to which political institutions can be expected to substantially protect property rights in order to secure political and military support and generate tax revenues. The historical evidence comes primarily from the United Kingdom, where property rights have never been judicially protected against intentional and uncompensated parliamentary expropriation or regulation, but where Parliament has imposed substantial limits, including compensation requirements, upon itself. Further evidence comes from several American states that have enacted takings statutes.


The evidence presented in this article supports William Fischel's normative conclusion that judicial review is more important for protecting private property against the depredations of local governments than state or federal governments.  It also provides reason to believe that property rights will be protected even if Neil Komesar is right that the courts are institutionally incapable of doing so. Finally, the article carries possible normative implications for regulatory takings doctrine.


BIO: Daniel H. Cole is the R. Bruce Townsend Professor of Law at the Indiana University School of Law at Indianapolis, where he teaches and writes about the law and economics of Property, Natural Resources, and Environmental Protection. He also writes extensively about Poland and Polish law.  Since his arrival at Indiana University in 1991, Professor Cole has received numerous teaching awards, and published five books and more than thirty law review articles and essays.  One of his books – Instituting Environmental Protection: From Red to Green in Poland (Macmillan and St. Martin’s, 1998) – received the prestigious AAASS/Orbis Polish Book Prize in 1999.  Professor Cole’s most recent books are Pollution and Property: Comparing Ownership Institutions for Environmental Protection (Cambridge University Press 2002); The End of Natural Monopoly: Deregulation and Competition in the Electric Power Industry (JAI Press 2003) (with Peter Z. Grossman); and Principles of Law and Economics (Pearson/Prentice-Hall 2005).


Professor Cole is a Life Member of Clare Hall (College for Advanced Study), Cambridge, and he has been a Visiting Scholar in the Faculties of Law and Land Economy at the University of Cambridge.  During the Fall of 2001, Professor Cole was the John S. Lehmann Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law at Washington University in St. Louis. 


Professor Cole received his JD, cum laude, with Certificate in Environmental and Natural Resources Law, from the Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark College, and his JSD from Stanford University.  He is currently at work on a casebook, Natural Resources Law (West, forthcoming 2006) (with Jan Laitos, Sandra Zellmer, and Mary Wood).


Paper: Social Science Research Network


Monday, February 27, 2006




Presented by Dr. Norbert Ross, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology and Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee


Abstract: Native American hunting and fishing rights often trigger resentments up to open conflict with their European American neighbors. These stereotypes emerge despite the common goals and activities. Instead, differences in framework theories and resulting differences in knowledge organization appear to produce or at least foment stereotyping and conflict. Data indicate that meanings matter and that simple accounts based on values (on a scale) are not sufficient to understand the ongoing conflict. Results have implications for models of decision-making as well as conflict resolution.


BIO: Norbert Ross received his MA in Anthropology, University of Freiburg, Germany, 1995; Ph.D. in Anthropology, University of Freiburg, Germany, 1998; and Habilitation in Anthropology, University of Freiburg, Germany, 2002. He was a Postdoctoral Researcher and Research Assistant Professor in Cognitive Science at Northwestern University, Evanston, 1998-2003; and is currently an Assistant Professor in Anthropology, Vanderbilt University.


He has done research among diverse Maya groups in Mexico and Guatemala, as well as among Menominee Native American of north central Wisconsin. The focus of his research deals with the relation of culture, cognition and behavior. How do people (children and adults) acquire knowledge, how does knowledge change (on an individual as well as a group level), how are these processes related to broader cultural processes and to human behavior.


There will not be a formal paper for this session.


Monday, March 6, 2006



(Cambridge University Press, 2005)

For Description of Book, Table of Contents, Excerpt, Index, Copyright, and Front Matter, see:


Presented by Professor Peter Ørebech, University of Tromsø, and Visiting Research Scholar, European Law Research Center, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts

(Coauthors: Fred Bosselman, Chicago-Kent College of Law; Jes Bjarup, Stockholms Universitet; David Callies, University of Hawaii, Manoa; Martin Chanock, La Trobe University, Victoria; Hanne Petersen, University of Copenhagen)


Synopsis: The working hypothesis is that customs elaborated within non-governmental organs – also called “quasi-organs” can sometimes accomplish more comprehensive sustainable systems than does statutory law. This is not self-evident, however, nor is it reflected in all or even many of the theoretical works on common pool self-governing systems. In some instances customary law is however the only ruling alternative. Clearly where states do not function, governmental command and control or market mechanism is dysfunctional. Here custom competes not with ‘law’ or with ‘market’ but with corruption. Then custom contends not with ‘law’ or ‘market,’ but with “bandit economies” and organized kleptocracy with collapsing states. The book questions the conclusions drawn from Garrett Hardin’s famous “tragedy of the commons” metaphor, and the common understanding that privatization or public regulation are the sole possible remedial instruments. We doubt such outcome. A prosperous solution is found in Hardin’s own “subtle signs” –  i.e. underlying traces – of social norm systems in self-governing societies. Such norms may qualify as customary law. We focus on the lawmaking capacity of close-knit and even loose-knit groups of people, so-called “quasi organs” such as Indian Tribes – the “quasi-sovereign political entities.”  The puzzle is whether customary law comes up with solutions as advanced as the ones proposed by private markets or public control and command.


BIO: Professor Ørebech holds a tenure position in legal science at the University of Tromsø, Norway, a visiting position at the Technical University of Norway (since 1997) and University of Namibia (since 2000). He is working on three projects: (1) The Public Trust of Fishing: The fisheries belongs to the peoples, not the states, (2) The “effects doctrine”: A survey into the territorial scope of European Union shipping services acquis – with regard to the free trade in Russian Arctic oil and gas Shipping Services, and (3) The 2004 European Union: A Dysfunctional International Organization to become a Functional Federal State? – Comparing the EU year 2005 with the USA year 1840.


Flowcharts in PDF


There will not be a formal paper for this session.


Monday, March 20, 2006




Presented by Professor Elinor Ostrom, Co-Director, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis; Co-Director, Center for the Study of Institutions, Populations, and Environmental Change; Arthur F. Bentley Professor of Political Science


Summary: Professor Ostrom will give an informal seminar on some of the new research projects that are currently beginning at the Workshop. One will be a special supplement to an issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS). It will be entitled “Beyond Panaceas.” She, Marco Janssen, and Marty Anderies have just submitted a proposal to the McDonnell Foundation for a proposal on “Beyond Panaceas: The Importance of Context in Complex Social-Ecological Systems.” They also will be studying the robustness of institutions for governing diverse water resources in the far west. This is an opportunity to do over-time research that is rarely done. They are delighted that Bill Blomquist, a Workshop Affiliated Faculty Member and faculty of the Indianapolis campus, will join in this and related activities studying the robustness of institutions created to govern and manage common-pool resources around the world. 


There will not be a formal paper for this session.


Monday, March 27, 2006



(Cambridge University Press, 2005)

For Description of Book, Table of Contents, Excerpt, Index, Copyright, and Front Matter, see:


Presented by Professor Bo Rothstein, August Röhss Chair in Political Science, Department of Political Science, Göteborg University, Sweden, and Visiting Professor at the Center for European Studies, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA


Synopsis: Professor Rothstein will be discussing his book, Social Traps and the Problem of Trust.  In particular, he will take up three questions:


    1.  How is social trust produced (chapter 5)?

    2.  How can efficient institutions be established (chapter 6)?

    3.  What is the role of collective memories (chapter 7)?


BIO: Bo Rothstein holds the August Röhss Chair in Political Science at Göteborg University in Sweden. His main research interest concerns the relation between political institutions, policy outcomes and social norms. He has been doing research on labor market policy, the welfare state, neo-corporatism, political economy, social capital and, more recently, the causes and effects of political and bureaucratic corruption. He is the co-founder and co-chair of the recently established Quality of Government Institute at Göteborg University. He has been a visiting scholar at the Russell Sage Foundation, Cornell University, Harvard University, Collegium Budapest Institute for Advanced Study, and at the University of Washington in Seattle. His book Social Traps and the Problem of Trust has just been published by Cambridge University Press. Among his other publications in English are The Social Democratic State (University of Pittsburgh Press 1996); Just Institutions Matters: The Moral and Political Logic of the Universal Welfare State (Cambridge University Press 1998), Restructuring the Welfare State (ed. vol. with Sven Steinmo, Palgrave/Macmillan 2003) and Creating Social Trust in Post-Socialist Societies (ed. vol. together with Janos Kornai and Susan Rose-Ackerman, Palgrave Macmillan 2004). He is a regular contributor in the Swedish public debate on politics and public policy.


Since his book has been published, the chapters will not be added to our website. Hard copies of the following chapters will be available at the Workshop:


     Chapter 5, "How is Social Capital Produced?"

     Chapter 6, "The Problem of Institutional Credibility"

     Chapter 7, "Trust and Collective Memories"


Wednesday, March 29, 2006 (Special Session)




Presented by Professor Clark Gibson, Professor of Political Science and Director of the International Studies Program, University of California, San Diego, and Affiliated Faculty, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, IUB (Coauthor: Barak D. Hoffman, Department of Political Science, University of California, San Diego)


Abstract: Does a government’s source of revenue explain its policies? The predominate view contends that policy variation results from institutional variation. We argue that a government’s source of revenue also strongly affects its expenditures, independent of institutions. Using local government budget data from Tanzania and Zambia, we find that local governments devote a larger share of their budget to public services as local taxes increase. Alternatively, as local governments receive more resources from outside their boundaries - central government transfers and foreign assistance - the share of the budget for employee benefits and administrative costs rises. Because there is no variation in the powers of local governments in Tanzania and Zambia, these results are independent of political institutions. The results suggest that the effectiveness of donor projects to increase local government accountability in part is a consequence of how these programs affect the fiscal link between a local government and its citizens.


BIO: Professor Gibson is Professor of Political Science and Director of the International Studies Program at UC San Diego. He studies the politics of development, democracy, and the environment. He has explored issues related to these topics in Africa, Central and South America, and the United States. The results of this work have appeared in journals such as Comparative Politics, World Development, Annual Review of Political Science, Social Science Quarterly, Human Ecology, Conservation Biology, Ecological Economics, and African Affairs. Professor Gibson's research about the politics of wildlife policy in Africa appears in his book, Politicians and Poachers: The Political Economy of Wildlife Policy in Africa (Cambridge 1999). He has also co-edited two volumes: People and Forests: Communities, Institutions, and Governance (MIT 2000; coeditors E. Ostrom and M. McKean) uses techniques from the natural and social sciences to examines the local governance of forests; Communities and the Environment: Ethnicity, Gender, and the State in Community-Based Conservation (Rutgers 2001; coeditor A. Agrawal) explores the complex and multilayered linkages between members and their natural resources. Professor Gibson’s latest book analyses the political economy of foreign aid and offers suggestions for its improvement (The Samaritan’s Dilemma: The Political Economy of Development Aid, Oxford 2005; co-authors E. Ostrom, K. Andersson, and S. Shivakumar). His current research focuses on the accountability between governments and citizens in Africa.


Paper in PDF


Monday, April 3, 2006




Presented by Dr. David H. Good, Associate Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs, and Dr. Rafael Reuveny, Associate Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington


Abstract: Many scholars point to sub-optimal behavior - a lack of understanding of the natural environment, short sightedness, or lack of institutions - to explain the collapse of historical civilizations.  In this paper, we consider a model of endogenous population growth and renewable resources, and employ components of modern economic growth theory to address their situation.  We consider two social welfare functions in common use today: one using representative individual utility and the other using aggregate utility of society.  We find that even in the presence of complete information, full understanding of the operating forces, infinite foresight, and efficient social institutions, the collapse of these societies may have been inevitable, even socially optimal.  Further, while the equilibrium behavior of the system is not very sensitive to the choice of social welfare functions, the transient behavior changes drastically.


BIOS: Professors Good and Reuveny are Associate Professors at the School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington.


There will not be a formal paper for this session.


Monday, April 10, 2006



(Lexington Books, division of Rowman & Littlefield Publisher, Inc., 2005)

For Description of Book, Table of Contents, and Reviews, see:^DB/CATALOG.db&eqSKUdata=0739110640


Presented by Professor Barbara Allen, Department of Political Science, Carleton College, Northfield, Minnesota, and Visiting Scholar and Affiliated Faculty, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, IUB


Abstract: In Democracy in America (1835-40) Alexis de Tocqueville portrayed European history as a complex set of transformations producing an on-going, “providential” democratic revolution. Democracy, defined as the condition of relative social equality, swept away the old regimes of the West and established a new basis for society in the New World. The resulting political state was not uniformly positive however; profound dilemmas confronted democratic peoples. Tocqueville’s now famous discussions of the democratic tendency toward mediocrity, conformity, and unconscious assent to potentially tyrannical mass opinion along with his discussions of the myopic individualism and excessive materialism that would plague democracies were summed in a single ominous phrase: democratic despotism.  As France faced the specter of despotic regimes, Tocqueville and others who shared these concerns looked to the United States (as the country that had most embraced equality, for better or worse) for ideas and institutions to counter the less salutary features of mass democracy.  In Tocqueville’s study, the American covenant tradition (mores and institutions associated with Reformed Protestant) and federal principles suggested means for “educating democracy” to its true interests.  Throughout such early writings, Tocqueville continued to view “democracy” as an apparently universal human movement toward equality and, possibly, liberty.  Likewise, political culture in the United States seemed to offer evidence that assimilation to democratic norms brought benefits that perhaps outweighed troublesome expressions of conformity; sharing among cultures, especially the social learning from shared political experiences promoted the gradual diffusion of enlightened ideals, including the universal right due moral equals.  In 1835, the questions facing statesmen seemed to concern the institutions and informing habits of thought that would promote self-government as a basis for the political culture associated with democracy’s positive “harmonizing” effects. Tocqueville’s Democracy forecast the continuing swell of this democratic “tide,” and held out the hope that its course might be directed by those who recognized the principles of a “new science of politics.”  A decade later, as a member of the Chamber of Deputies, Tocqueville revisited this optimistic forecast, confronting as well the meaning of European revolutions in international affairs. Were the wellsprings of equality latent in every people, to be swelled by a providential force?  Or was the sea change exogenous, emanating from Europe to contour distant shores?  The metaphor offered both visions with their vastly different implications. By reading Tocqueville’s papers on French colonial policy we gain deeper insight into his conception of democratization and the difficulty of translating principles of institutional design into the actualities of self-governance.  Tocqueville’s activities as Foreign Minister furthermore reveal important associations between European conceptions of the democratic revolution and colonial enterprises.  My examination of these ideas in Tocqueville, Covenant, and the Democratic Revolution: Harmonizing Earth with Heaven sets the stage for questions about twentieth-century institutional development and self-governance that I hope we can discuss.


BIO: Barbara Allen is professor and former chair of the Department of Political Science at Carleton College, where she has also served as the Director of the Women and Gender Studies Program.  She previously held the position of Assistant Professor of Management at the Indiana University Keller Graduate School of Business, specializing in small business entrepreneurship.  For the past 25 years, she has also been affiliated with The Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, an internationally renowned center for the empirical study of institutional design and development.  Her activities at the Workshop have emphasized her main areas of expertise: constitutional development, federalism, and covenantal theory; social voluntarism; civil rights and social movements; and the moral and ethical basis of law and legislative reform.  She also serves on the boards of the Center for the Study of Federalism and the Hubert H. Humphrey Policy Forum.  She has held positions as a contributing editor to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Papers Project (Stanford) and as a grant evaluator for the National Endowment for the Humanities and regularly serves as seminar leader for the Fulbright Summer Institute on the Study of Federalism and Constitutional Development. 


Selected publications in covenant-making, social movements, political participation, political behavior and public opinion, and community development:

“Approaches to Using American Sign Language in Assessing the End-of-Life-Care Educational Needs of Deaf Patients” HEC Forum, September 2000 (with Nancy Meyers, John Sullivan, and Melissa Sullivan)

“Martin Luther King’s Civil Disobedience and the American Covenant Tradition, ” Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 30:4 (fall) 2000, 71-113

“Alexis de Tocqueville on the Covenantal Tradition of American Federal Democracy,” Publius: The Journal of American Federalism, 28:2 (spring) 1998, 1-23

“The Media and the Gulf War: Framing, Priming, and the Spiral of Silence,” (with Paula O’Laughlin, Amy Jasperson, and John L. Sullivan) Polity, 27: 2 (winter) 1994, 255-284

“The Spiral of Silence and Institutional Design: Tocqueville’s analysis of public opinion and democracy.” Polity, 24:2 (winter), 1991, 243-267


Current research projects include:

Involving and Engaging Deaf Citizens in Public Discussions about End-of-Life Care (Minnesota Humanities Commission Grant 2002); Covenantal Thinking in Community Building and Welfare Reform: A study of social activism and voluntarism in rural Minnesota; and The Political Thought of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: Civil Rights, Covenant Theology, and Constitutional Development (awarded a Bush Fellowship 2002-03). Previous grants include: National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowship (1998-99) and Earhart Foundation Fellowship (1998) for work on book manuscript: Harmonizing Earth with Heaven: Tocqueville on Covenant and the Democratic Revolution


Since the chapter for this session (chapter 9, "Servitude or Freedom?: Civic Enlightenment and the New Science of Politics") has been published in her book Tocqueville, Covenant, and the Democratic Revolution: Harmonizing Earth with Heaven, it will not be added to our website.  Hard copies of the chapter will be available at the Workshop.


Monday, April 17, 2006




Presented by Dr. Irene Ramos Vielba, Postdoctoral Visiting Scholar, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, IUB


Abstract: It is an undeniable fact that blogs have turned into a widespread phenomenon of influence, not only in virtual space, but also in the physical world. Beyond the hype surrounding blogs, their role as text-based forms of interactive computer-mediated communication, usually claimed to be interlinked, can imply new and complex opportunities to build online communities, where participants produce, share, exchange, and discuss information or different kinds of knowledge. But do they signify a step forward in participatory democracy online? The main goal of this paper is to contribute to the debate about the possibility that blogs promote mechanisms of electronic democracy, incorporating evidence from political blogs in Portugal and Spain.


BIO: Irene Ramos Vielba received her PhD in Political Science and Sociology from Universidad Complutense de Madrid (Spain) in spring 2003. The core part of her dissertation focused on the use of the Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) for political communication from the Spanish parliament to the Spanish society. She was a Research Fellow at the Real Colegio Complutense, Harvard University in falls 1999 and 2000. Her main research interests center on the application of ICTs to socio-political issues, e-government, e-democracy and political participation. In her second academic year as a Post-doctoral Visiting Scholar at the IU Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis she is working on different projects dealing with blogs: the use of blogs in the education field, political bloggers’ attitudes, or political blogs and their impact on democratic participation.


Paper in PDF


Monday, April 24, 2006




Presented by Professor Thomas Lyon, Dow Chair of Sustainable Science, Technology and Commerce Stephen M. Ross Business School and School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and Affiliated Faculty, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, IUB (Coauthor: John W. Maxwell, Department of Kelley School of Business, and Affiliated Faculty, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, IUB)


Abstract: We develop an economic model of “greenwash,” in which a firm strategically discloses environmental information and a non-governmental organization (NGO) may audit and penalize the firm for failing to fully disclose its environmental impacts. We identify conditions under which NGO punishment of greenwash backfires, inducing the firm to become less rather than more forthcoming about its environmental performance. We show that complementarities with NGO auditing may justify public policies encouraging firms to adopt environmental management systems. Mandatory disclosure rules offer the potential for better performance than NGO auditing, but the necessary penalties may be so large as to be politically unpalatable. If so, a mix of mandatory disclosure rules, NGO auditing and environmental management systems may be needed to induce full environmental disclosure.


BIO: Thomas P. Lyon holds the Dow Chair of Sustainable Science, Technology and Commerce at the Michigan Business School. Professor Lyon earned his bachelor’s degree at Princeton University and his doctorate at Stanford University. He has been a visiting professor at the University of Chicago and at the University of Bonn, and a Fulbright Scholar at the Scuola Sant’Anna in Pisa, Italy. He spent the academic year 2002/2003 as a Gilbert White Fellow at Resources for the Future in Washington, DC, and 2003/2004 as a visiting economist in the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Professor Lyon serves on the editorial board of the Journal of Regulatory Economics, and his research has been published in such journals as the RAND Journal of Economics, the Journal of Law and Economics, the Journal of Public Economics, the Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, and the Journal of Law, Economics and Organization. Professor Lyon’s primary research interest is the interplay between corporate strategy and public policy, which he has pursued in a number of application areas, including corporate environmentalism, electric utility investment practices, natural gas contracting, innovation in the health care sector, and the introduction of competition in regulated industries. His book Corporate Environmentalism and Public Policy, published by Cambridge University Press in October 2004, is the first rigorous economic analysis of this increasingly important topic. Professor Lyon’s teaching experience includes managerial economics, business and government, game theory, business strategy, and the management of innovation.


Paper in PDF


Thursday, April 27, 2006




Presented by Research Professor Roger D. Masters, Nelson A. Rockefeller Professor Emeritus of Government, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire


Abstract: History shows that dominant powers (whether called Hegemons or Empires) confront challenges to their status as circumstances change. Toynbee called it “Challenge and Response.” Some hegemonic powers adapt successfully as did the Roman Republic when geographic expansion led to insufficient military strength and communications to police longer frontiers. Others, like ancient Athens, fail to change strategy and tactics when their expanding power confronted new obstacles. In this case, the result was a loss of Athenian primacy after the city was sacked and Alexander the Great’s Empire established rule over the Eastern Mediterranean. Alexander’s Empire was even more evanescent, however, because his military victories were never followed by effective planning for the inevitable transition from battlefield to administering law and order. Often, as was the case for the U.S., a state rises to primacy through events that were not fully planned by its leaders. This presentation discusses the difference between ancient Athens, which did not modify its strategy or regime in the face of change, and Rome, which did change—to became a lasting Empire—and suggests implications for current U.S. policymaking.


BIO: Roger D. Masters is Research Professor and Nelson A. Rockefeller Professor of Government, Emeritus at Dartmouth College. Since 1998 he has served as president of the Foundation for Neuroscience and Society based in Hanover, New Hampshire. He is an editorial board member of /Social Science Information/Information sur les Sciences Sociales/ and chair of the executive committee for the Gruter Institute for Law and Behavioral Research. He is a founding member of the Biopolitics section of the American Political Science Association and serves on the board of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences. In 1986 he served as Director d'Etudes Associé, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris, France. He has been the recipient of a John Simon Guggenheim Fellowship, a joint Yale University-Social Science Research Council Fellowship, and a Fulbright Fellowship.



Back to index

Back to the Workshop Homepage
Copyright 2005, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis
Last updated: January 20, 2006