Colloquia during Spring 2012

  • 2-24-12: The Age of Sympathy

    Dr. Ryan Hanley, Associate Professor of Political Science, Marquette University; Co-sponsored by the Tocqueville Program and the Workshop; Location - Woodburn Hall 218

Wednesday, January 18, 2012




Presented by Anas Malik, Associate Professor, Political Science/Sociology and Associate Professor, International Studies Program, Xavier University, and Visiting Scholar at the Workshop


Abstract: Can constitutional-level polycentric governance arrangements produce productive orders in fragmented political Islamic contexts? I explore this question through a case study of Pakistan. At the time of its creation, Pakistan was the most populous Muslim country in the world, and was famously called a “laboratory of practical Islam” by Liaquat Ali Khan, a key early leader. The slogan “Islam in Danger” helped mobilize South Asian Muslims in favor of Pakistan’s creation. Pakistan is a valuable case because its political evolution speaks to prospects for polycentric constitutional design in contexts of political Islam. The “Pakistan Resolution” of 1940 suggested multiple autonomous units rather than a unitary state. Yet Pakistan faced severe internal crises over constitutional arrangements regarding communities and jurisdictions. Early in its life, major disturbances broke out over the status of the Ahmaddi community, resulting in a breakdown of the civil administration and the imposition of martial law. Amid controversies over the shape and powers of local and provincial governments, the civil war and secession of Bangladesh dramatically reshaped the country. Official commissions of inquiry produced the well-known Munir Report and the Hamoodur Rehman Commission Report. These documents, other deliberative efforts, and my own interviews in Pakistan point to recurring recognition of the need for viable polycentric governance arrangements. How precisely that constitutional design would be achieved, and what shapes it might take, remain underspecified. While deliberations are contingent upon context and the political calculations ofparticipating actors, certain key lower-bound conditions and constraints can be argued. This project takes inspiration from Vincent Ostrom’s “constitutional level of analysis”, the Institutional Analysis and Design frameworks use of constitutional choices as distinct from collective and operational choices, and from the constitutional political economy tradition.

BIO: Anas Malik, Associate Professor of Political Science at Xavier University in Cincinnati, is the author of Political Survival in Pakistan: Beyond Ideology (Routledge, 2011). His research interests are in political Islam, political economy, and development, with particular attention to South Asia and the Middle East. During Spring 2012, he is a Visiting Scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis at Indiana University (Bloomington).

There will be no paper for this presentation.

Monday, January 23, 2012




Presented by Dr. Daniel H. Cole, Professor of Law and of Public and Environmental Affairs; Affiliated Faculty, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis


Abstract: This is a substantially revised, refocused, and updated version of an earlier draft paper, exploring the significant role Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) plays in facilitating or impeding legislative and regulatory policy decisions. The paper centers around three case studies of CBAs EPA prepared for: (1) Clinton Administration changes to Clean Air Act air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter; (2) President Obama's recent decision to suspend EPA's reconsideration of the Bush Administration's air quality standard for ozone; and (3) the George W. Bush Administration's "Clear Skies" legislative initiative. The first two case studies demonstrate, between them, how well-constructed CBAs can facilitate social welfare-enhancing and impede welfare-reducing rules, even in cases where explicit consideration of costs is legally prohibited. The third case study tells a more complex story of how CBAs can be manipulated either to promote welfare-reducing regulations or impede welfare-enhancing regulations. When that happens, however, the virtuous transparency of CBAs renders those efforts liable to discovery and disclosure, as in the case of the Bush Administration's failed "Clear Skies" initiative. The paper concludes with an assessment of implications of the case studies for our understanding of the role of CBA in political (both legislative and regulatory) processes, and with a call for more qualitative and quantitative empirical research on the use and abuse of CBA as a political tool.

BIO: Daniel H. Cole, an internationally recognized environmental law and economics scholar, joined the Indiana Law faculty in 2011. Most of his writings are at the intersection of the law, economics, and politics of property, natural resources law, land use, and environmental protection. He has also written extensively about Poland and Polish law. Cole is the author of seven books and more than forty articles. His works have published in England, France, Italy, and China, as well as the United States. An award-winning teacher, Cole has taught courses including climate law and policy, environmental law, international environmental law, land use, law and economics, natural resources law, property, and property theory. Cole sits on the Advisory Board of the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, and is a founding member of both the Midwest Law and Economics Association and the Society for Environmental Law and Economics. He is a Life Member of Clare Hall (College for Advanced Study), Cambridge, and has served as a Visiting Scholar in the Faculties of Law and Land Economy at the University of Cambridge. In the fall of 2001, Cole was the John S. Lehmann Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law at Washington University in St. Louis. Before moving to Bloomington, he was the R. Bruce Townsend Professor of Law at the Indiana University School of Law—Indianapolis.


Wednesday, January 25, 2012




Presented by Dr. Lucy Barnes, post doctoral fellow, Nuffield College, University of Oxford


Abstract: What effect does war have on systems of taxation? The role of war in forcing states to improve their revenue raising capacity has long been documented. A more recent literature on inequality and redistribution highlights the role of war in generating support for progressive structures of taxation, and in particular for placing a larger burden on the incomes of the rich, as well as increasing its level. In this paper I argue that in fact the “wars of mass mobilization”' of the early twentieth century had little impact on the progressivity of taxation as such. Instead, belligerent countries’ tax systems continued to be shaped by the outcome of battles over tariff policy at the time when democratization created new potential coalition partners for traditional rivals in the economic policy sphere. 

BIO: Lucy Barnes is currently a Prize Postdoctoral Research Fellow in politics at Nuffield College, Oxford. Her research focuses on the political economy of redistribution, inequality and the welfare state in the advanced industrial democracies, with a particular focus on taxation. She is currently working on a project on the development of progressive taxation over the course of the twentieth century. Lucy received her Ph.D. In Political Economy and Government from Harvard University in November 2010, and her first degree from Oxford University, UK. She has papers forthcoming in Political Studies, and in edited volumes from the Russell Sage Foundation and the Oxford University Press.


Friday, January 27, 2012



Presented by Dr. Jennifer Pitts, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago

Abstract: In European thought, the law governing interactions among states and peoples has always been conceived as both distinctively European and putatively universal. The project of creating an international order has been commingled with that of European consolidation and informed by European exceptionalism. As the law of nations was coming to be identified over the course of the eighteenth century with the ius publicum Europaeum, the Ottoman empire/Turkey played a role of unparalleled importance as a marginal case or perhaps the constitutive outside of the European international order. Turkey’s European possessions and general geographic proximity, the density of commercial ties and long history of treaty relations, and the status of Islam as threat and rival universalism to Christianity conspired to place it repeatedly at the heart of debates about how universal the European legal order could or should be. This paper considers debates over the nature of European legal relations with Turkey in the eighteenth century (stressing such themes as treatment of ambassadors; the nature of treaty relations; despotism; and Islamic jurisprudence in European writings on Turkey). This was a period of remarkable fluidity in conceptions of the law of nations, when the older notion of a unified Christianitas or respublica Christiana predicated on hostility to infidels had in good part lost its hold, and the later divide between civilized and barbarous had not yet become entrenched. 

BIO: Jennifer Pitts is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago. She is author of A Turn to Empire: the rise of imperial liberalism in Britain and France (Princeton 2005) and editor and translator of Alexis de Tocqueville: writings on empire and slavery (Johns Hopkins 2001). Her research interests lie in the fields of modern political and international thought, particularly British and French thought of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; empire; the history of international law; and global justice. She is currently at work on a book, tentatively entitled Boundaries of the International, which explores European debates over legal relations with extra-European societies during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

No paper will be available for this presentation.

Monday, January 30, 2012




Presented by Dr. Yanna Krupnikov, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, IUB (Paper joint project with Adam Seth Levine, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Cornell University)


Abstract: Scholars have long debated whether political science experiments that rely on undergraduate student subjects can produce valid, generalizable results, and speaking more broadly, provide useful answers to the research questions scholars find important. Starting with Sears’ (1986) argument about the problem of “college sophomores in the laboratory,” political science scholarship has retained a “near obsession” with the question of who is studied (McDermott 2002, p.334). While some scholars have suggested that experiments that rely on undergraduate students do not lead to useful findings (Brady 2000), others have argued that in some cases undergraduate students can be an effective subject population (Druckman and Kam 2011). In this research we address this debate using a series of parallel experiments with different subject populations. Specifically, we specify and demonstrate the conditions under which relying on undergraduate student subjects will undermine the validity and generalizability of experimental research in political science. In turn, we also specify and demonstrate the conditions under which relying on undergraduate students will lead to results which are equivalent to those obtained with a national adult sample. Unlike previous research on the topic – which focuses on making broad arguments about the effectiveness of certain populations in political science experiments – our work identifies the specific steps researchers can take to ensure generalizability when relying on undergraduate student populations for experimental research.

BIO: I am an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Indiana University. I received my PhD in Political Science from the University of Michigan. My research focuses on the relationship between political decision-making and political action, as well as on the study of experimental methodology.

Paper will be available soon.

Wednesday, February 1, 2012




Presented by Graham Epstein’s Working Group, Integrating Ecological Perspectives with the Social-Ecological Systems Framework


Abstract: The social-ecological systems (SES) framework is the product of many years of accumulated knowledge that incorporate the efforts of a wide range of scholars that cross disciplinary frontiers. Its aim, which does not lack in ambition, is to provide these interdisciplinary scholars with a common diagnostic research tool for SESs (Ostrom 2007, 2009). Whereas Ostrom (1990) showed that changes to a single variable, namely face-to-face communication could alter outcomes in controlled laboratory environments, the next generation of commons research must address the challenge first issued by Agrawal (2001) that asks how combinations of social and ecological variables jointly affect outcomes in complex settings. The SES framework proposes to provide the architecture that can be used to answer these questions by adopting a nested, partially decomposable structure (Poteete et al. 2010). While the framework appears to provide a strong foundation to study and ultimately explain human decisions in complex SESs; it is unclear whether the framework is equally robust when it comes to ecological explanations of success or failure. This presentation will seek to explore the SES through an ecological lens in an attempt to answer several key questions about the framework including its compatibility with ecological thinking and ability to cope with ecological complexity.


BIO: Working group coordinator Graham Epstein is a student in the joint PhD program in Public Policy at the School of Public and Environmental Affairs and the Department of Political Science. His primary research interest is rule compliance in the commons and the interaction of multiple models of human behavior and contextual variables in complex social-ecological systems. He is interested in applying a multiple method approach to develop an improved understanding of behavior and outcomes in the commons. Graham holds a BSc in Ecology from the University of Waterloo and an MSc in International Rural Planning and Development from the University of Guelph.

There will be no paper for this presentation.

Monday, February 6, 2012




Presented by Professor J. B. Ruhl, David Daniels Allen Distinguished Chair in Law, Vanderbilt University Law School, Nashville, TN


Abstract: The American legal system has proven remarkably enduring over the course of centuries even in the face vast and often tumultuous political, social, economic, and technological change. Yet our system of law is not unlike other complex social, biological, and physical systems in exhibiting fragility in the midst of its robustness. This Article is the first effort in legal scholarship to apply a complex systems model for understanding why this “robust yet fragile” (RYF) dilemma persists in law and what to do about it. Part I outlines five dimensions of robustness in complex social systems, each of which is shown to resonate in legal scholarship on the design and performance of policy institutions and instruments: (1) reliability; (2) efficiency; (3) scalability; (4) modularity, and (5) evolvability. Part II delves into design constraints that impede system legal robustness and outlines the work-around strategies for reducing their effects. With those basic ingredients of the RYF model in place, Part III explores the role of complexity and organization as engines of legal system fragility. The drive to shore up robustness of law and legal institutions adds inexorably to system complexity, which in turn drives us to build highly-organized legal architecture to comprehend and operate the system. This state of organized complexity, while supporting robustness, also exposes the system to fragility. There is no way around this tradeoff, but the balance between the two is something we can hope to influence, particularly with the aim of avoiding large-scale disruption. Part IV applies the RYF model to a concrete legal design context. I argue that cost-benefit analysis contributes to the legal system’s organized complexity, and thus to its robustness, but also exposes the system to large-scale disruptions. Precautionary principles change the protocol for when system sensors go on alert and call for swifter proactive, preventative, and response measures even when cost-benefit analysis would not. Precautionary principles thus can help manage fragility in complex legal systems relying heavily on cost-benefit analysis.

BIO: J.B. Ruhl is an expert in environmental law, land use and property law. Before he joined Vanderbilt’s law faculty as the David Daniels Allen Distinguished Chair in Law in 2011, he was the Matthews & Hawkins Professor of Property at the Florida State University College of Law, where he had taught since 1999. His influential scholarly articles on environmental law relating to climate change, the Endangered Species Act, ecosystems, federal public lands, and other land use and environmental issues have appeared in the California Law Review, the Georgetown Law Review, the Stanford Law Review, the Duke Law Review, the Environmental Law Reporter, the Vanderbilt Law Review and the specialty environment journals at several top law schools, among other journals. His works have been selected among the best law review articles in the field of environmental law six times from 1989 to 2011. He has recently completed work on an empirical assessment of climate change in U.S. courts with coauthor David Markell. During his tenure at Florida State, Professor Ruhl served as the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs for the 2004–05 academic year. Over the course of his career, he has been a visiting professor at Harvard Law School, Vermont Law School, George Washington University Law School, the University of Texas Law School and Lewis & Clark College of Law. He began his academic career at the Southern Illinois University School of Law, where he taught from 1994–99 and earned his Ph.D. in geography. Before entering the academy, he was a partner with Fulbright & Jaworski in Austin, Texas, where he also taught on the adjunct faculty of the University of Texas School of Law.


Optional Background Reading

Wednesday, February 8, 2011




Presented by Ellen Jameson, visiting research associate, Center for Research on Learning and Technology, School of Education, IUB


Abstract: Simulations can be used to facilitate discussion, exploration, and learning of concepts and contexts that may be outside the scope of everyday experience. Educational simulations of social-ecological system elements are not analogous either to the real systems from which they are derived, or to controlled laboratory studies exploring those systems. However, they can provide a platform for researchers to study how participants collect, discuss, and apply information by querying the behavior of the simulation and other players, and how changes in simulation design may subsequently affect learning and simulation outcomes. In this presentation, my main goal is to introduce and receive feedback on work in progress, an educational curriculum and research design, in preparation for a pilot study that is scheduled to begin later this spring. This design uses a multiplayer virtual game environment featuring group and individual educational simulations that deal with human-environment interactions in two national parks. Game scenarios have been developed in consultation with interpretive park rangers and education researchers in order to provide experiences with simulated systems through play that can add to participants' understanding of current and historical human interaction with the local landscape. If time permits, I would also like to discuss two related and potentially complimentary approaches that are currently in development.

BIO: Ellen Jameson is a Visiting Research Associate at the Center for Research on Learning and Technology in the School of Education, Indiana University Bloomington, and Lead Content Designer for One Planet Education Network. She completed her MSES in Applied Ecology at the School of Public and Environmental Affairs (2007), and her BS hon in Biology (2001), at Indiana University Bloomington. Her research interests include investigating the use of games to facilitate education and discussion around issues in environmental science. She hopes to work with games as tools with a useful balance of complexity, contextualization, monitorability, and control, for communities to explore, debate, and refine their own resource management strategies and institutions.

Link to background reading for basis of methodology

Monday, February 13, 2012


Presented by David Bender, graduate student, Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition (CRCC), IUB

Abstract: While many databases contain primarily numerical or other rigidly structured data, others, such as the one created by the International Forestry Resources and Institutions (IFRI) network, also contain large amounts of unstructured data, including many questions with free-form, natural language responses. Answers in this form are often difficult for programs to reason about because they capture information in an idiosyncratic manner, and in these situations, tools from machine learning and natural language processing can be effective in drawing out important concepts from the data. Given large enough corpora, Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) can induce “topics” — clusters of related words found in text — that are potentially central to a document. However, evaluation of topics suggested using LDA is a challenge, and expert input is often needed to validate and tailor results so they can become effective tools for researchers. In this talk I present the results of applying LDA to the unstructured English text found in the IFRI database, and compare the results those obtained from Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA), another well-known NLP technique. I also seek input from researchers familiar with IFRI. Specifically, I am interested in reactions to domain-appropriate strategies for deriving pseudo-documents from the database, and methods for presenting and interacting with topic models, including topic refinement and customization.

BIO: David Bender is a graduate student in Computer Science and Cognitive Science working in the Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition (CRCC) at Indiana University in Bloomington. He received his BS in Computer Science from California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo, California in 1995. His research interests include concepts and concept representation, with emphasis on vector space models and reduced representations.

There will be no paper for this presentation.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012




Presented by Francesco Minora, visiting scholar, Workshop; post-doc researcher, Euricse European Research Institute on Cooperative and Social Enterprises, Trento Italy

Abstract: What’s the role of self-organized communities in producing public goods such as habitability within urban contexts? What’s the role of emergent private neighborhoods in defining new urban governance system? Is there a need for promoting pluralism in housing models and through which institutional solutions? How institutional analysis framework can be used and applied in order to understand the role of social housing not for profit developers in our planned cities of today? In this presentation I’ll discuss some theoretical and methodological problems related to the study of the particular field of housing and it’ll be presented some empirical evidences from literature and from a starting field research. The main aim of the presentation is to discuss and have feedbacks from a methodological point of view in order to define a grid of analysis useful for a field research that will be carried out during 2012.

BIO: Francesco Minora is a short-term visiting scholar at the Workshop on Political Theory. He holds a degree (2003) and a Phd (2009) in Urban and Environmental planning at the Politecnico di Milano – Faculty of Architecture, where he worked for six years in a Laboratory on Social Policies. In 2010 he won a Marie Curie fellowship co-funded by The Province of Trento within “The Trentino programme” for incoming researchers. He’s now a post doc researcher at the Euricse Foundation (European Research Institute on Cooperative and Social Enterprises) placed in Trento. The title of his project is “Production of habitability and effectiveness conditions of Social Housing initiatives”.

A working paper will be available at the end of the visiting period, which is the end of March (paper here).

Monday, February 20, 2012



Presented by Jorge Contreras, Visiting Associate Professor of Law, American University Washington School of Law


Abstract: Traditionally, scientific discoveries, hypotheses and conclusions have been shared broadly within the scientific community through publication in journals. The result has been a common pool of scientific knowledge that has largely been available to all interested parties. This shared pool of scientific knowledge is generally thought to enable three socially-useful functions: incentivizing scientific discovery by rewarding the discloser (in terms of prestige, peer recognition and the like), corroborating (or refuting) scientific findings by subjecting them to the scrutiny of other scientists, and enabling further incremental advances based on disclosed findings. Yet today the ability of scientists to share information has come under increasing pressure as the prices of scientific journals has continued to rise and academic libraries worldwide have been forced to reduce their subscriptions drastically. This effect has been termed the “serials crisis”, and it is thought by many to threaten the overall system of scientific disclosure and thereby negatively impact the social benefits achievable by scientific information sharing. In this paper, I assess a number of different approaches that have been advanced to counter the effects of the serials crisis and to lessen the control of the commercial publishing industry over scientific knowledge dissemination in general. These include (i) proposals to abolish copyright in academic works, (ii) “Green” self–archiving of pre–publication journal articles by individual scientists and institutions, (iii) “Gold” open access journals that are free to read, but which charge authors to publish in them, (iv) bilateral agreements made between large universities and commercial publishers, and (v) mandates imposed by governmental and charitable funding sources requiring that funded work be released to the public. I conclude that none of these approaches offers a truly viable long-term solution to the market dysfunction evidenced by the serials crisis. I next consider this issue from the perspective of commons formation. In previous work I have analyzed the rate of growth of intangible common pool resources, including scientific knowledge, and developed an analytical tool termed “latency analysis” used to evaluate and compare such growth rates. In the context of scientific publishing, the “latency” of knowledge entering the commons would be represented by any period of exclusivity during which the publisher strictly controlled access to that information. In the current paper, I examine the latency periods established through negotiation among competing stakeholders (publishers, on one hand, and scientists, institutions, libraries and public advocates, on the other) in a variety of negotiation contexts (bilateral negotiation, unilateral action, agency rulemaking and legislation). This analysis reveals a general convergence of latency periods around 6-12 months, which is in stark contrast to the default copyright period of protection, which can easily exceed 100 years. This convergence suggests that within the field of scholarly publishing, this latency range may represent an “equilibrium” at which the interests of differing stakeholder groups are appropriately balanced. That is, an exclusivity period of 6–12 months may enable publishers to charge subscription rates sufficient to recoup their costs plus a reasonable profit, and may also allow for the dissemination of scientific information at a rate that is acceptable to scientists, institutions and public advocates. By the same token, exclusivity periods in excess of the equilibrium rate would enable publishers to charge excessive rents and thereby generate deadweight loss and diminish net social benefit. Accordingly, I propose a private ordering solution in which academic institutions, with the support of major funding agencies, adopt a new model of publication agreement that grants the publisher an exclusive right to publish for 6–12 months, and a non–exclusive right thereafter, thus balancing the interests of the stakeholders in line with observed latency equilibrium values and seeking to preserve the net social gains attendant to a broadly accessible common pool of scientific knowledge.

BIO: Jorge L. Contreras is a professor of law at American University in Washington, DC. His research focuses on the effects of intellectual property structures on the dissemination of scientific and technological innovation and information. Prior to joining American University he served as a Senior Lecturer in Law and Acting Director of the Intellectual Property Program at Washington University in St. Louis. Professor Contreras serves as Co-Chair of the National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists (NCLS) and Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Science & Technology Law Committee on Technical Standardization. He recently completed a four-year term on the Council of the National Human Genome Research Institute at NIH. Professor Contreras is the editor of theTechnical Standards Patent Policy Manual (ABA Publishing: Chicago, 2007) and has published numerous articles and chapters relating to intellectual property, scientific research and standards development. Prior to entering academia, Professor Contreras was a partner at the international law firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, where he advised organizations on intellectual property, technology transfer and standards-related issues. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School (JD) and Rice University (BA, BSEE).


Wednesday, February 22, 2012




Presented by Lauren MacLean, Asst. Professor, Dept. of Political Science, IUB and Jennifer Brass, Asst. Professor, SPEA, IUB; Co-authors are Sanya Carley, assistant professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs, IUB, and Liz Baldwin, PhD candidate in the Maurer School of Law and the School of Public and Environmental Affairs, IUB


Abstract: This presentation presents the initial results and proposed research design for a new study on the political economy of decentralized energy policy in the developing world. Approximately 20% of the world’s population lack access to electricity – a situation associated with a host of negative externalities affecting the environment and hindering development. While central governments and donors work on one level to expand national electricity grids to alleviate these problems, at another level an array of actors implement decentralized, small-scale energy systems. Ranging from solar lanterns and single wind turbines to village-wide micro-hydro or solar-voltaic mini-grids, these “distributed generation” (DG) systems provide electricity at the localized level. While DG programs have proliferated, scholarship on them has focused on single-case study experiences. This leaves unknown the generalizable conditions for DG success, not only in terms of increased electricity output, but also broader development outcomes. To address this gap in knowledge, we conducted the first systematic assessment of conditions for successful outcomes, synthesizing 200 case studies using quasi-meta analysis. In so doing, we have generated hypotheses for rigorous field testing, drawing particular attention to the varied institutions for financing and for collaborative governance in these programs. In advance of a preliminary fieldwork trip in June 2012, we seek feedback on the logic of a multi-level research design that compares the process and outcomes of DG projects in several districts in Kenya.


BIOS: Jennifer N. Brass is an Assistant Professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University, and an adjunct or affiliated faculty member of the Department of Political Science, the African Studies Program, the Center on Philanthropy, and the Workshop on Political Theory & Policy Analysis. Professor Brass is currently working on a book manuscript, Allies or Adversaries? NGOs and the State in Development, that examines the role that nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) play in service provision and state development in Kenya; a project on the role of collaborative governance in the provision of small–scale, distributed energy services in developing countries; and a project assessing the impact of NGOs on political, economic and health outcomes in poor communities in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. To date, she has published work on NGOs, governance, the “resource curse,” livestock policy, and economic development in the Horn of Africa. Her articles appear in Governance, World Development, Development and Change, and the Journal of Modern African Studies. She has conducted extensive in–country field research in Senegal, Djibouti and Kenya. Professor Brass holds a PhD (2010) in Political Science from the University of California, Berkeley.

Lauren M. MacLean is an Associate Professor of political science at Indiana University. MacLean’s research interests focus on the politics of state formation, social welfare and citizenship in Africa and in American Indian/Alaska Native communities in the U.S. She earned her Ph.D. in 2002 from the Department of Political Science at the University of California at Berkeley and then completed a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Scholars in Health Policy post-doctoral fellowship at the University of Michigan (2002–2004). She has a book entitled Informal Institutions and Citizenship in Rural Africa: Risk and Reciprocity in Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire (Cambridge University Press, 2010) and several articles published and forthcoming in Comparative Political StudiesComparative Studies in Society and History, the International Journal of Public Administration, the Journal of Modern African Studies, Studies in Comparative International Development and World Development. MacLean is currently co-authoring a book, Field Research in Political Science, with Diana Kapiszewski and Ben Read (under contract with Cambridge University Press) and co-editing a volume, The Politics of Non–State Social Welfare Provision in the Global South, with Melani Cammett. MacLean has completed fieldwork and is drafting a book entitledConstructing Democracy in America: Tribal Consultation and the Representation of American Indians in Health Policy. MacLean is also developing a new project with Jennifer Brass and Sanya Carley (IU-SPEA) on the politics of collaborative governance in local–level, renewable energy projects in Africa.

There will be no paper for this presentation.

Friday, February 24, 2012




Presented by Dr. Ryan Hanley, Associate Professor of Political Science, Marquette University


Abstract: Sympathy was a remarkably ubiquitous concept in the Enlightenment, shaping debates in moral and political theory, economics, literary theory, and the visual and performing arts. But what explains this ubiquity? This lecture will address the ways in which Enlightenment theorists from Spinoza to Kant employed the concept of sympathy, focusing on the advantages of and challenges posed by their efforts to portray sympathy as a secular substitute for what came to be seen as an increasingly outmoded theological conception of charity.

BIO: Ryan Hanley is Associate Professor of Political Science at Marquette University. He received his B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania, his M.Phil. from Cambridge University, and his Ph.D. from the Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago. Prior to coming to Marquette he was a Mellon Postdoctoral Fellow at Yale University's Whitney Humanities Center. His research in the history of political philosophy focuses on the Scottish Enlightenment. He is the author of Adam Smith and the Character of Virtue(Cambridge, 2009), and co-editor, with Darrin M. McMahon, of The Enlightenment: Critical Concepts in History, 5 vols. (Routledge, 2010). In addition, Professor Hanley is the editor of the Penguin Classics edition of Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments (Penguin, 2010), editor of the forthcoming Princeton Guide to Adam Smith, and current President of the International Adam Smith Society. His recent articles have appeared or are forthcoming in American Political Science ReviewAmerican Journal of Political SciencePolitical TheoryReview of PoliticsHistory of Political Thought, European Journal of Political Theory, and Journal of the History of Philosophy, among others. He is also the recipient of Fellowships from the Mellon Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Arête Initiative, and is currently at work on a study of love and wisdom in Enlightenment moral and political philosophy.


Co-sponsored by the Tocqueville Program and the Workshop; Location - Woodburn Hall 218

Monday, February 27, 2012




Presented by Dr. Shahzeen Attari, Assistant Professor, SPEA


Abstract: Understanding the relationship between human behavior and energy use is vital to decrease per capita energy consumption. In this presentation, I summarize my recent study where participants reported their perceptions of energy consumption for a variety of household activities. When asked for the single most effective strategy they could implement to conserve energy, most participants mentioned curtailment (e.g., turning off lights) rather than efficiency improvements (e.g., installing more efficient light bulbs), in contrast to experts’ recommendations. Participants had small overestimates for low-energy activities and large underestimates for high-energy activities. Current research that stems from this work includes (1) self-other biases in recommending energy conservation strategies; where individuals want to incorporate easier non-effective behaviors for themselves and expect others to implement harder more-effective behaviors, and (2) a further look at what motivates and demotivates action in social dilemmas, where private interests are at odds with collective interests.


BIO: Shahzeen’s research focuses on interactions between natural and social systems, particularly human behavior and climate change. Her work aims to identify factors that promote energy conservation. Her paper entitled “Public perceptions of energy consumption and savings” published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences has been summarized in a variety of venues, including The Economist, New York Times, CNN, and BBC. She is currently an assistant professor at the School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA) and is an adjunct professor in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences as well as the Cognitive Science Program at Indiana University. Previously, she was a postdoctoral fellow at the Earth Institute and the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED) at Columbia University. She holds a Ph.D. in Civil and Environmental Engineering & Engineering and Public Policy from Carnegie Mellon University, and a Bachelors of Science in Engineering Physics from University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.


Wednesday, February 29, 2012




Presented by Binka Le Breton, writer and lecturer on environmental and human rights, Iracambi (Brazil)


Abstract: Fifteen years ago Rosário da Limeira was an isolated settlement forty five kilometers up precarious mountain roads from the nearest town. During the rainy season it was cut off for days on end: the bus couldn’t make it, the teachers couldn’t make it, the nurse couldn’’t make it. Farmers couldn’t get their crops to market, the one telephone refused to function, and most people never thought that things could be otherwise. But they were of resilient stock and some dreamed of better opportunities for their children. So they petitioned the state governor for funds to set up a new county, with access to health, education, roads, and markets, and, most importantly, the chance to shape their own future. Somewhat to their surprise their petition was accepted, and the hard work began. Meetings were held in the village bar, in farm kitchens and country chapels to ponder the priorities – a mobile dental clinic, a soccer pitch, a new bridge? Who would run for elective office? And in the context of a fragile young democracy, what were the rights and duties of citizens and of the state? The timing was right – the country was emerging from decades of high inflation, and genuine attempts were being made to introduce a measure of participatory government. What the new county lacked in terms of social capital it made up for with an abundance of enthusiasm. Resisting the blandishments of the old style politicians with their offers of tee shirts and bags of cement, they elected a mayor who was honest and hard–working and subsequent administrations have been popular and successful. Of course mistakes have been made, money has been wasted, old scores have been settled. Development has brought rapid change as young people exchange horses for motorbikes and soccer games for sessions at the internet café. But Rosário da Limeira today is a flourishing little town: its children are in school, its families are healthy, and its people have realized that, with a little bit of luck and a lot of hard work, they can break the cycle of poverty and dependence and that, yes, life can be better than it was before.

BIO: Award–winning author, environmentalist and activist Binka Le Breton lives in Brazil’s Atlantic Forest where she co–directs the Iracambi Research Center, working with the local community to protect the rainforest and improve rural livelihoods. Iracambi focuses on research and education, GIS, public policy, sustainability, and water and forest monitoring – all in the context of climate change. In an isolated rural area where, fifteen years ago, there were no good schools, no health care, no roads, no communications and very little hope, Iracambi was a catalyst for mobilizing community action to petition the state governor to set up a new county. Today the community enjoys access to schools, universities, a family health service, improved roads, telephones and internet access. Most importantly, the people of the area have a new understanding of citizenship and the concept of “Yes, we can.” An experienced speaker and broadcaster, Binka spends part of every year on the lecture circuit sharing her passion for the rainforest and questions of environmental and human rights. Her books include Voices from the Amazon (Kumarian Press 1993), A Land to Die For (Clarity Press, 1997,) Trapped: Modern-day Slavery in the Brazilian Amazon (Kumarian Press, 2003,) and The Greatest Gift, The Courageous Life and Martyrdom of Sister Dorothy Stang (Doubleday, 2008.) Her most recent book, Where the Road Ends, was published in 2010 by St Anthony’s Press, New York and tells story of how Binka and her husband decided to exchange the international development circuit for life in the Brazilian rainforest where they founded first a forest farm, then a non–profit, and finally a rainforest research center. Binka is currently working on a book about of the families of those who continue to be forcibly “disappeared” in Colombia. As president of Brazilian non–profit Amigos de Iracambi, Binka’s role is to facilitate its work in saving forests and changing lives in Brazil and beyond, as dozens of foreign students come every year to the Iracambi Research Center to learn first–hand about the challenges and rewards of life on the front line of sustainable development. As a writer, Binka’s goals are to give a voice to the voiceless, and her travels take her by bus, river boat, dirt bike and horseback from remote villages in the depths of the forest to the marble halls of the United Nations in Geneva.

There will be no paper for this presentation.

Monday, March 5, 2012




Presented by Andreas Thiel, visiting scholar, Workshop; assistant professor at the Division of Resource Economics, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany


Abstract: This presentation will consist of two parts. First, a co-evolutionary conceptual approach for explaining the scalar reorganization of social-ecological systems governance will be suggested. It combines theories of institutional change with theories of multi-level governance. Specifically, theories of institutional change point towards factors that change actors’ preferred options for natural resource governance. For the analysis of how these changes in individual’s perceptions and preferences translate into changes in formal governance, reliance on action arenas and multi-level games is suggested. The framework will be illustrated for cases of scalar reorganization of water governance in Germany, Spain (paper available) and Portugal (paper available). It is suggested that the approach contributes to our understanding of these processes by adding a conceptualization that addresses the long-term dynamics that underlie governance reform. If time allows, the second part of the presentation is essentially exploratory in nature. The underlying question will be if and to what extent scalar reorganization of natural resource governance (coordination of interdependent uses of SES) is informed by cost effectiveness considerations. In order to examine this question a set of hypotheses will be developed concerning what aspects and characteristics of social-ecological transactions make the cost effectiveness of governance scale dependent. In an exemplary fashion hypotheses will be tested for cases of scalar reorganization of marine and water governance in Europe.


BIO: Andreas Thiel is an assistant professor at the Division of Resource Economics, Humboldt–Universität zu Berlin, Germany. His research interests are the social sciences and institutional economics of social–ecological systems with substantive work focussing on water and marine governance in Europe. Throughout his stay at the Workshop, he intends to work on the analysis and write-up of data he gathered on “re–scaling” of resource governance (marine and water management) in the European Union, and on a nature-related transactions focus and its relation to the SES.

Link to first paperRe-scaling of resource governance as institutional change: the case of water governance in Portugal

Second paper (draft)

Wednesday, March 7, 2012



Presented by Gustavo Garcia Lopez, doctoral student, SPEA, IUB


Abstract: Cross–scale governance has been posited as a requisite for sustainable resource management. However, recent work has emphasized that aside from the “'functionalities” or benefits of cross–scale governance, there are also “dysfunctionalities”' or failures (Benjamin et al. 2011). These failures often relate to the capture of these governance arrangements and their benefits by some groups at the expense of others, and to the ensuing conflicts related to these captures (see e.g. Adger et al., 2006). This paper, part of a dissertation project on cross-scale governance in community forestry, analyzes elite capture and conflict in two bottom-up (community-created) and two top-down (externally-created) cross-scale systems in community forestry in Durango, Mexico, focusing on how a combination of local institutions, power inequalities and political-economic and historical factors produce different forms of capture and resistance to it. Mexico, with a “model”' system of community forestry co-existing with a long history of authoritarian and clientelist forms of governance, provides an ideal setting to study these issues.

BIO: Gustavo A. Garcia-Lopez is a PhD candidate in Public Policy and Political Science with concentrations in Environmental Policy and Political Theory & Methods. He received his Masters in Environmental Policy from Cambridge University and his Bachelor of Science in Environmental Science and Geography from the University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras. Gustavo’s main research interests are in the areas of community-based natural resource management, participatory governance, grassroots development, environmental justice/environmental movements, sustainability science, and environmental policy and politics. His geographic area of focus is Latin America and Caribbean, with special interest in Puerto Rico, Mexico, and Brazil. His dissertation analyzes the impact that secondary (inter-community) forest associations have in community forestry in the state of Durango, Mexico, and how the performance of these associations is affected by internal factors and public policies. The study entailed a one-year comparative case study of four associations using archival research, interviews, focus group discussions, and participant observation. This was done with the financial support from the Inter-American Foundation (IAF) “Grassroots Development” Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship. This academic year, Gustavo will be spending time both at the Workshop and the University of Puerto Rico’s Institute of Social Sciences to write his dissertation. After completing his degree, Gustavo hopes to pursue a career in teaching, research, and consulting work for community organizations, through which he hopes to foster a better understanding of central problems of sustainable grassroots development in Latin America, and contribute to designing policies that adequately address them.


Monday, March 12, 2012




Wednesday, March 14, 2012




Monday, March 19, 2012




Presented by Johan Brosché, doctoral student, Dept. of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala Universitet, and visiting scholar at the Center on International Cooperation at New York University


Abstract: This article addresses the puzzle of why Darfur has been devastated by communal conflicts whilst Eastern Sudan has not, despite sharing several structural characteristics with Darfur. Thus, the article seeks to answer the research question: Why do conflictual relationships between different communities turn into violent communal conflicts in some regions of a country but not in others? At the heart of the communal conflicts in Sudan is land, a common-pool resource sought by different pastoral and agricultural groups. The article addresses this puzzle by applying an actor-centred elite interaction perspective on theories about common-pool resources focusing on the two situational variables of; quality of institutional design and strength of conflict-resolution mechanisms. In essence, violent communal conflicts are more prevalent in Darfur than in Eastern Sudan, because the government is less partisan in Eastern Sudan. Government partiality increases the risk for violent communal conflicts by turning the interaction between elites in a negative direction. Thereby the quality of the institutional design of the common-pool resources decreases and the strength of conflict-resolution mechanisms weakens.

BIO: Johan Brosché is a PhD-candidate at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University and during the spring a visiting scholar at the Center on International Cooperation at New York University. Mr. Brosché’s research center on Sudan and since 2005 he has done research, carried out numerous field-trips, as well as published on the conflicts in the country. He is the author of Darfur – Dimensions and Dilemmas of a Complex Situation (Uppsala University, 2008) and Sharing Power – Enabling Peace? Evaluating Sudan’s Comprehensive Peace Agreement (Uppsala University & United Nations, 2009), as well as the co-author (together with Professor Daniel Rothbart at George Mason University) of Violent Conflict and Peacebuilding – Darfur the Continuing Crisis (Routledge 2012, forthcoming). In addition, Mr. Brosché was part of an academic task force dealing with peace processes in Sudan at Uppsala University. This group was set up in order to support the work of Visiting Professor Jan Eliasson, Ph.D. hc and the UNSG Special Envoy on Darfur.


Wednesday, March 21, 2012




Presented by Michael Cox, Research Associate at the Workshop


Abstract: I will discuss several projects that have developed, or taken advantage of the development of, a social-ecological systems framework. This framework offers potential for the integration of social and ecological variables in order to better understand how the interactions among such variables affect important outcomes. The projects discussed in this presentation will be (1) the use of such a framework as a basis for a relational database to facilitate the meta-analysis of large-scale environmental governance; (2) the further incorporation of ecological variables into this framework; and (3) a special issue of the journal Ecology and Society, the articles of which discuss both empirical (through case studies) and theoretical developments of the framework.

BIO: Michael Cox studies social-ecological systems. In his dissertation, he explored the robustness and vulnerabilities of community-based irrigation systems in New Mexico known as acequias. This analysis included an examination of the acequias’ responses to historical droughts, and to more novel disturbances of economic development and state-level intervention. He is currently working to develop a more diagnostic approach to environmental policy and management. This approach involves a framework with multiple levels of analysis arranged in order of increasing specificity. This arrangement may facilitate the construction of meaningful theories without overgeneralizing to institutional blueprints that have had negative results when implemented to manage natural resources.

There will be no paper for this presentation.

Monday, March 26, 2012; (Governance in Muslim Societies mini-series)




Presented by Ahmed Khanani, graduate student, Department of Political Science


Abstract: In their most euphoric moments, activists who collectively constituted the “Arab Spring” anticipated the rise of true democracy in the region. Just a year removed, a broad sense of disillusionment amongst reformists set in on the heels of “failed” efforts to democratize across the region. Simultaneously, other pro-democracy activists across the region celebrated “genuine reforms” in spite of seemingly stalled democratization. What should we, Western analysts, make of these contradictory responses?

This paper explores the possibility that democratic activists in the Middle East and North Africa mobilize different conceptions of democracy than those that we, as Western analysts, typically encounter. Rather than assume continuity across linguistic, religious, and political contexts, I suggest we study how people positioned at the peripheries of the democratic world apprehend and embody democracy. In examining how “democracy” affords marginal actors a foil to situate their actions and politics, we also identify the limits of—and tensions buried in—Western articulations of democracy.

As such, this paper takes a set of Moroccan islamiyun—alternatively referred to as “Islamists,” “radicals,” or “fundamentalists”—as its primary interlocutors and asks, what does “democracy” mean? What actions does this group of Moroccan islamiyun associate with democracy? Do they consistently connect it to any concepts or traditions (e.g. human rights, Islam)? How do articulations of democracy by Moroccan islamiyun encounter and challenge the hegemony of liberal conceptions?

BIO: Ahmed Khanani is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Political Science here at Indiana University, Bloomington. Ahmed comes to Bloomington by way of Tallahassee, Florida, where he completed an MS in Political Science, and Boulder, Colorado, where he graduated cum laude with a degree in International Affairs. Ahmed's dissertation mobilizes two years of fieldwork in Morocco–primarily in Fes and Rabat–where he interviewed over 80 islamiyun in the hopes of understanding what islamiyun mean when they invoke the concept “democracy.” While in Morocco, Ahmed also conducted research for his next project, which involves tracing the language of “Human Rights” in the practice and discourse of islamiyun. Ahmed was able to undertake his fieldwork thanks to the generous support of a nine-month FLAS award to study Moroccan Colloquial Arabic (in Fes) and a Fulbright (I.I.E) year-long research award. After completing his degree, Ahmed hopes to pursue his vocational passions–teaching and researching–in the North American academy.

Extended Abstract


Wednesday, March 28, 2012




Presented by David Krantz, Professor, Department of Psychology, Columbia University, NY NY


Abstract: Ethical standards are perhaps most easily observed through outbreaks of indignation when they are breached. Examples abound. Nonetheless, it is remarkable how often such standards are maintained. We argue that widespread adherence to ethical standards is essential to the success of human societies. We analyze ethical standards in the framework of a multiple-goal theory of decision making (Krantz & Kunreuther, 2007). In that framework, adherence to a standard can be viewed either as a goal (thus subject to tradeoff with other goals) or as a constraint (that rules some plans out of consideration). We discuss how ethical standards originate from affiliations, social goals, and self-identity, and suggest that negative and positive reciprocity (an eye for an eye, a kiss for a kiss) generate many social goals. People breach an ethical standard for three different reasons. First, some individuals assign low value (or none) to the goal of adhering to it. Second, adherence to an important standard may be sacrificed in a tradeoff with other important goals. Third, because people usually have a vast number of group affiliations, with role-derived obligations for each such affiliation, they confront multiple standards, and these sometimes favor mutually contradictory decisions. On the other hand, some of the multiple standards may be synergistic: people can sometimes satisfy multiple ethical goals by a well-designed action plan. What role do ethical standards play in the behavior of groups? We focus here on business and environmental standards as they affect the behavior of a small business, owned and managed by one decision maker, or the behavior of a large corporation, owned by many shareholders and with multiple roles assigned to different managers. The single owner/manager has a large suite of goals, financial, emotional, and social. In many cases, corporation shareholders have one main goal, return on their financial investments. Corporate managers, however, have large suites of goals not unlike those of single proprietors. This is often viewed as a principal-agent dilemma, solved by offering suitable incentives to managers to consider only the returns to shareholders; and under this view, laws and regulations are needed in order to force corporate compliance with other standards. Alternatively, shareholders must be convinced that adherence to ethical standards is good for “the bottom line.” We argue that the function of laws and regulations needs to be understood in light of shareholders’ and managers’ multiple goals, and that corporations, while not persons, should be structured to be much more similar to individuals. We suggest explicit adoption of multiple goals, endorsed by shareholders and corporate directors, and rotation of management roles, including financial planning, customer relations, community relations, human resources, environmental impacts, and occupational health and safety.

BIO: David H. Krantz graduated from Yale University (mathematics) and received his Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania (1964, Psychology). He taught at the University of Michigan, 1964-80, eventually leading their program in Experimental Psychology. In 1970-71 he held a Guggenheim Fellowship and was Fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences. He was a Member of the Technical Staff of Bell Laboratories, 1980-85, and for a time led their Human Information Processing Research Department. He joined the Columbia faculty in 1985, where he helped to rebuild the Statistics Department, 1990-1998. He is currently Professor of Psychology and Statistics. He has been active in a number of roles in the Earth institute at Columbia over the past 15 years. He is a founding Director of Columbia's Center for the Decision Sciences and the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED). Krantz has worked in several different research fields, including measurement theory, color perception and the use of statistical concepts in everyday reasoning. His current research focuses on problem solving, especially decision making, multiple goals, risky and inter-temporal choice, and especially on social goals. Recent publications include “Goals and plans in decision-making” (with Howard Kunreuther) in Judgment and Decision Making, and “Individual Values and Social Goals in Environmental Decision Making” (with several CRED co-authors), in Decision Modeling and Behavior in Uncertain and Complex Environments.

There will be no paper for this presentation.

Monday, April 2, 2012; (Governance in Muslim Societies mini-series)




Presented by Dr. Anas Malik, Associate Professor, Political Science/Sociology, Associate Professor, International Studies Program, Xavier University; and visiting scholar, Workshop


Abstract: This presentation is part of a book project titled “Polycentricity and Political Islam: Constitutional Challenges in Pakistan”. Drawing on the constitutional level of analysis in the “Bloomington School” tradition, I examine how a metanorm rooted in religious tradition may support constitutional accommodation of diverse collective choice arrangements in a low-capacity state. An Islamic Minarchist Polycentric (IMP) metanorm, while heavily contested and evolving, has influenced constitutional arrangements in Pakistan, making it an appropriate case. I extend the Hooghe-Marks (2003) Type I/Type II typology of jurisdictions to add a Type III: unrecognized collective choice units. These influence the evolution of constitutional rules-in-use, which can reinforce or degrade particular metanorms. The viability of an IMP metanorm depends on actor interactions, political survival conditions, and other considerations from an ideas/identities/attitudes/institutions categorization of the literature. As in Vincent Ostrom’s analysis of vulnerabilities in democratic political order, NewSpeak in the Muslim context remains a challenge to public choice.

BIO: Anas Malik is Associate Professor of Political Science at Xavier University, Visiting Scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis during Spring 2012, and author of Political Survival in Pakistan (Routledge, 2011). His research interests are in political economy, political Islam, and development.

Chapter 1 excerpt from Anas Malik's manuscript, “Polycentricity and Political Islam: Constitutional Challenges in Pakistan

Wednesday, April 4, 2012




Presented by Saba SiddikiAssistant Professor, SPEA, IUPUI


Abstract: In this paper, the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework is applied to organize an inquiry of regulatory compliance motivations. Compliance motivations are examined using questionnaire and interview data collected among members of the aquaculture community in Florida State. The findings indicate that regulatees are more likely to comply with regulations (1) when they perceive enforcement personnel as being knowledgeable; (2) when they have a desire to maintain a good reputation with their peers; and (3) when they possess a strong sense of guilt associated with non-compliance. This paper contributes to an understanding of compliance motivations in two ways; first, by examining the relative influence of motivations emerging from regulatory, community, and individual contexts, and second, by applying an institutional framework that supports the complementary analysis of motivations associated with each of these different realms.

BIO: Saba Siddiki recently joined the faculty of the School of Public and Environmental Affairs, IUPUI. Her research focuses on institutional analysis, policy process, environmental policy, and sustainability. She has published and presented on the topics of water infrastructure, aquaculture, policy design, and the institutional grammar. In her dissertation, Saba applied the Institutional Analysis and Development framework to examine regulatory compliance motivations in the context of U.S. aquaculture. Saba has a Ph.D. from the School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver, M.A. in international development from the University of Denver, and a B.A. in international political economy from the University of Puget Sound.


Monday, April 9, 2012; (Governance in Muslim Societies mini-series)




Presented by Dr. Nazif Shahrani, PVisiting Scholar at the Workshop on Political Theory and Policy Analysis (academic year 2011-2012) & Professor Depts. of Anthropology, CEUS & NELC-Indiana University-Bloomington


Abstract: This presentation, part of a book manuscript projects, explores two closely related questions: why modern nation-state building efforts in Afghanistan which started in earnest in the 1880s began to falter in early 1970s and eventually failed during the 1980s and 1990s? And more significantly, why the United States and NATO efforts since 2001 to rebuild a stable government and secure Afghanistan from Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists has also failed despite their promises to the contrary?

Afghanistan was formed as a buffer nation-state during the late nineteenth century “Great Games” in Central Asia played out by British-Indian and tsarist Russian empires. Becoming one of the few independent countries in Asia at the end of WWI, Afghanistan launched a program of modernization and centralization of power which failed miserably by 1929 and resulted in dynastic shift and autocratic rule for the next three decades. Incremental changes in education and communication instigated by the Cold War competitions in the country led to the overthrow of the Afghan monarchy by the Soviet backed Communist parties (1978). The Soviet Red Army intervention (Christmas eve of 1979) plunged the country into proxy wars of the 1980s and 1990s culminating in state collapse, and the rise of Taliban (1994-95) which ultimately led to Al Qaeda attacks against the US (9-11-2001). US-NATO coalition military intervention removed the Taliban from power but has failed, so far, to secure and stabilize Afghanistan or win the “War on Terrorism”. In this paper, I examine how and why Afghanistan’s political culture is rendered dysfunctional and could be one of the important causes for the failures to establish an appropriate and effective governance system.

Examination of critical elements of any socio-cultural systems pertaining to the management of power in public affairs within a society—i.e, political culture—is an important research concern. In this paper, I make use of the Institutional Analysis and Development (IDA) and Social Ecological Systems (SES) frameworks developed by Indiana University’s Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis to the study of political culture in a specific context. The SES framework helps identify the relevant elements of social and cultural environments for researching specific questions regarding the management of public affairs. Once such critical elements are identified the researcher can then systematically examine possible causal/co-relational links among some of those elements to build specific theories about the nature of power dynamics within that society and if need be can then proceed to building models for testing to see if the theory will indeed help further our understanding of the social-ecological dynamics within particular societies and cultures. It is important to note that SES does not claim to find/offer universally applicable panacea for comprehensive understanding of all social systems as such. Rather the emphasis is on application of the framework in particular social/political ecological contexts.

My focus here in using the SES framework is not only to identify key elements of Afghanistan's national political culture but also to examine how and why their use/abuse by the rulers have rendered them dysfunctional for building an appropriate governance system thus contributing to the current failing efforts by the international community in stabilizing the country. I discuss the causal consequences of four key elements of Afghanistan political culture, each with several layers of sub-elements, affecting the historical and contemporary trajectory Afghanistan’s failed state-building efforts from1880s to the present. The major elements of Afghanistan’s political culture discussed in this paper are the institutions of kingship, kinship, Islam, and the political economy of states dependence on foreign/external patronage. I try to unpack how the use/abuse of these four key social institutions by the rulers of Afghanistan have historically shaped the dynamics of state-society relations and how in turn these social institutions have been shaped by the ruling elites in the history of Afghanistan, the region and beyond.

BIO: Nazif Shahrani is a visiting scholar at the Workshop on Political Theory and Policy Analysis (academic year 2011-2012) & Professor Depts. of Anthropology, CEUS & NELC-Indiana University-Bloomington


Wednesday, April 11, 2012




Presented by Marco Janssen, Associate Professor in the School of Human Evolution and Social Change and the Director of the Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity


Abstract: The aim for global sustainable of natural resources confronts our society to a collective action problem at an unprecedented scale. Past research has provided insights in the attributes of local social–ecological systems that enable effective self–governance. In this paper we discuss possible mechanisms to scale up those community level insights to a larger scale. We do this by combining insights from social–psychology on the role of information feedback with the increasing availability of information technology. By making use of tailored social feedback to individuals in social networks we may be able to scale up the strengths of self-governance at the community level to address global sustainability challenges from the bottom up.

BIO: Dr. Marco Janssen is an Associate Professor in the School of Human Evolution and Social Change, and Director of the Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity, both at Arizona State University. He teaches agent-based modeling, experimental methods, and collective action and the commons. His research focuses on collective action and the commons, especially irrigation systems, using controlled experiments and agent-based models. He also started an initiative to perform large scale experiments on collective action using mobile devices and websites.


Monday, April 16, 2012




Presented by Professor Bernice Pescosolido, Distinguished Professor, Department of Sociology; and Director, Indiana Consortium for Mental Health Services Research, Schuessler Institute for Sociology Research, IUB


Abstract: The 21st century ushered in a new paradigm to understand the distribution and determinants of human health and development. This new transdisciplinary orientation arose, in part, from the completion of the Human Genome Project and the continued etiological puzzle posed by chronic disease. It challenged science to consider how complex forces across many levels interact to shape health, disease, and health care outcomes. While public health has long recognized the importance of multiple levels of influence, the Institute of Medicine identified a fundamental barrier yet to be overcome. Specifically, with no shortage of diagrammatic representations of “helix to health,” “neurons to neighborhoods,” or “cells to society,” most approaches offer no way to organize mechanisms and pare down the innumerable potential influences. A “genes-to-global cultures” frame with a common language based in Network and Complex Systems (N&CS) science is offered to facilitate transdisciplinary team formation and collaboration on study designs and analytic tools to mount rigorous, feasible, and comprehensive studies with adequate human protections. The Social Symbiome Framework (SSF) begins with the interactive, contextual, and dynamic assumptions underlying N&CS science, draws from classic and recent synergies on the influence of interconnections, and offers theoretical, methodological, analytic, and ethical guidelines for multi-level research key to continued scientific progress, translation to clinical practice, and improved population health.

BIO: Bernice A. Pescosolido is Distinguished and Chancellor’s Professor of Sociology at Indiana University and Director of the Indiana Consortium for Mental Health Services Research. Pescosolido’s research agenda on health, illness and healing addresses how social networks connect individuals to their communities and to institutional structures, providing the “wires” through which social structure and culture shape individuals’ life chances. This broad agenda has primarily targeted three issues: health care services, stigma, and suicide research. In the early 1990s, Pescosolido developed the Network-Episode Model which was designed to focus on how individuals come to recognize, respond to the onset of health problems, and use health care services. It has provided new insights to understanding the patterns and pathways to care, adherence to treatment and the outcomes of health care.

There will be no paper for this presentation.

Wednesday, April 18, 2012




Presented by Dan DeCaro, postdoctoral researcher and visiting scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis and the assistant director for Indiana University’s Interdisciplinary Experimental Laboratory (co-author Michael K. Stokes, Biology, Western Kentucky University)

Abstract: The concept of institutional fit as introduced by Oran Young and others (e.g., Elinor Ostrom) has helped scientists appreciate the complexity inherent in the human and biophysical systems that support society. By highlighting the linkages among institutions, environmental outcomes, and factors of place such as local ecosystem characteristics and cultural context, the concept of fit has also drawn much-needed attention to the importance of using well-tailored solutions to achieve sustainable social-ecological systems. However, analysts have voiced a number of concerns with applying the concept of fit to understand institutional outcomes in the environmental sector. Their concerns range from problems with defining what constitutes a good fit and measuring extent of fit to understanding the role that human freewill and public participation plays in the emergence and long-term maintenance of well-fitted institutions. In this talk, I develop an interdisciplinary framework that uses principles of human agency and institutional analysis from social psychology to help scientists think about fit in terms of human freewill. My goal in doing so is to introduce a measurable indicator of social fit that 1) provides important information about the social etiology of well-fitted institutions and 2) can then be used to determine which type of public participation, if any, is needed to achieve the kinds of comprehensively fitted solutions that Young and others seek.

BIO: Daniel, PhD Social Cognition, is a postdoctoral researcher and visiting scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory & Policy Analysis. He is also the assistant director for Indiana University’s Interdisciplinary Experimental Laboratory. His research focuses on motivation and decision-making processes in individuals and groups, with an applied interest in public policy and sustainability science.

There will be no paper with this presentation.

Monday, April 23, 2012




Presented by Dr. Maria Carmen Lemos, associate professor, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (with co-authors Arun Agrawal, Hallie Eakin, Don Nelson, Nate Engle, and Owen Johns)


Abstract: This paper focuses on the relevance of adaptive capacity in the context of the increasing certainty that climate change impacts will affect human populations and different social groups substantially and differentially. In consider two scales of scales of response. At the national level, the paper highlights how future development policies and interventions are likely to require greater attention to risk reduction to secure the objective of greater welfare because more frequent, intense, and widespread climate threats may otherwise undermine development gains. In this context we advance the idea of adaptive development, which focuses on development in increasingly risky contexts compared to earlier variants of development that focused on growth, equity, and/or sustainability. At the household/community level, we argue that developing and building adaptive capacity requires a combination of interventions that address not only climate-related risks (specific capacities) but also the structural deficits (lack of income, education, health, political power, etc.—generic capacities) that shape vulnerability. We examine the relationship between generic and specific capacities taking into consideration that they are not always positively related. We propose a conceptual model describing positive and negative feedbacks between capacities and identify how to enhance the potentially synergistic relationship between specific and generic adaptive capacity.

BIO: Maria Carmen Lemos is an Associate Professor of Natural Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor and Senior Policy Scholar at the Udall Center for the Study of Public Policy at the University of Arizona. She has MSc and PhD degrees in Political Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT. During 2006-2007 she was a James Martin 21st Century School Fellow at the Environmental Change Institute at Oxford University. Her research focuses on environmental public policymaking in Latin America and the U.S., especially related to the human dimensions of climate change, the co-production of science and policy, and the role of technoscientific knowledge and environmental governance in building adaptive capacity to climate variability and change response. She is a co-founder of Icarus (Initiative on Climate Adaptation Research and Understanding through the Social Sciences), which seeks foster collaboration and exchange between scholars focusing on vulnerability and adaptation to climate change. She is a lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and a contributor to the US Climate Change Science Program Synthesis Reports. She has served in a number of the US National Research Council of the National Academies of Sciences committees including Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change (2009), America Climate Choice Science Panel (2010) and the Board on Environmental Change and Society (2008-present).

There will be no paper with this presentation.

Wednesday, April 25, 2012




Presented by Francisco Kennedy Souza, PhD Candidate with SPEA and associate student with the Anthropological Center for Training and Research on Global Environmental Change (ACT)


Abstract: The Brazilian Amazon is not only one of the most biodiversity-rich biomes in the world, but is also home to thousands of community institutional settings. Land use strategies and conservation outcomes vary within and across communities and no unique land tenure policy may protect local forests. These are critical aspects in the ongoing debate of the future of conservation in the region. This presentation examines the linkages between forest conservation and land use strategies in three different land tenure arrangements. The first is extractive reserves (ER), which are federal lands collectively managed by rubber-tappers under concession regimes. Concession holders combine brazil-nut harvesting with the extraction of rubber, oils, seeds, and herbs to support their livelihoods. Logging is prohibited in ERs, and crops and cattle are limited to family subsistence. The second tenure arrangement is agroextractive reserves (AER), which are lands under a common property regime and governed by a local association. While timber management is allowed in these areas, inhabitants also include non-timber forest products, crops and livestock in their land uses. The third includes agrarian colonization settlements (ACS), which are privately-owned lands. Cattle and crops are the main activities practiced by inhabitants of these areas. However, as deforestation has increased, residents of ACSs have attempted to expand the economic importance of forest-based products as way to conserve their remaining forests. Results from satellite remote sensing analysis based on 35 Landsat imageries and household survey demonstrate how land use strategies and forest cover have varied within and across communities over a twenty-year period (1990-2010). These findings are part of a dissertation project.

BIO: Francisco Kennedy Souza is a Fulbright Scholar and a PhD Candidate in Environmental Science, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University Bloomington and an affiliated with the Anthropological Center for Training and Research on Global Environmental Change. He is a senior researcher with the Federal University of Acre (Brazil) with 15+ years of experience in the Amazon region addressing a number of aspects linked to resource economics, agricultural development, resource management, conservation policy and environmental change. His particular interests lie on themes related to Institutional adaptation to environmental change, resource economics, and conservation policies. In celebrating the International Year of Forest, in August 2011, the Rainforest Alliance recognized his work and nominated him the “steward of western Amazonia”.

There will be no paper with this presentation.