Colloquia during Spring 2014

January 13, 2014 (Monday) [archive stream]

 

"Science, Values and Decision-Making for Sustainability"

 

Professor Thomas Dietz, Department of Sociology, Michigan State University

 

Abstract: Decision-making for sustainability requires an integration of facts and values. Science has evolved mechanisms that lead to respected understandings of facts. Methods such as risk analysis help to take account of scientific uncertainty in decision making. Processes for linking scientific analysis with public deliberation are often used as part of the policy process. However, much less progress has been made in finding appropriate ways to integrate values with facts. In order to develop better approaches to deal with both facts and values, we need to acknowledge multiple forms of expertise about both facts and values, explore sources of uncertainty about values, and consider tools for handling not only value differences but also value uncertainty.

Bio: Thomas Dietz is Professor of Environmental Science and Policy, Sociology and Animal Studies at Michigan State University. He is also Codirector of the Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessment Center (glisa.msu.edu). He holds a PhD in Ecology from the University of California, Davis, and a Bachelor of General Studies from Kent State University. At MSU, he was Founding Director of the Environmental Science and Policy Program and served as Associate Dean in the Colleges of Social Science, Agriculture and Natural Resources and Natural Science and Assistant Vice President for Environmental Research. Dr. Dietz is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and has been awarded the Sustainability Science Award of the Ecological Society of America, the Distinguished Contribution Award of the American Sociological Association Section on Environment, Technology and Society, and the Outstanding Publication Award, also from the American Sociological Association Section on Environment, Technology and Society and the Gerald R. Young Book Award from the Society for Human Ecology. He has served as chair of the US National Research Council Committee on Human Dimensions of Global Change and Vice Chair of the Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change. His publications include 13 books and more than 125 peer-reviewed papers and book chapters.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.

Background Reading: 
Please see his PNAS article "Bringing Values and Deliberation to Science Communication" at www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1212740110.


January 24, 2014 (Friday)

 

Lecture Series on "Capitalism, Its Defenders and Critics"

Cosponsored by the College Arts and Humanities Institute (CAHI), Tocqueville Program, Charles Koch Foundation, The VERITUS Fund, SPEA, and Ostrom Workshop

"Inequality and American Capitalism"

 

Mr. James Piereson, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, New York; and President, William E. Simon Foundation, New York; and Professor Leslie Lenkowsky, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, IUB

 

Abstract: Inequality in income (and wealth) has been growing in the United States since the early 1980s. A disproportionate share of national income gains over this period has gone to the top 10 percent, and even to the top 1 percent, of the income distribution, while wages and salaries for the middle class have grown more slowly, if at all. This is a worrying development for those who believe that gains in income and wealth should be distributed more broadly for reasons of fairness, economic growth, and political stability. The difficulty is that the skewed distribution of incomes is rooted in broad social and economic developments that will not be easy to alter by the kinds of policies currently under discussion. For that reason, we are likely to see a continuation of the trends now in place. But there is a real possibility that Americans will "solve" this problem over the next decade or so, albeit by means that few of us will welcome.

Response from Professor Leslie Lenkowsky:

Professor Lenkowsky will talk about Capitalism and Philanthropy. He will address the question of whether or not philanthropy is a means of reducing inequalities or perpetuating and expanding them.

Moderator: Aurelian Craiutu, Director, Tocqueville Program, and Professor, Department of Political Science, IUB

BIOS

James Piereson is president of the William E. Simon Foundation, a private grant-making foundation located in New York City. The foundation has broad charitable interests in the fields of education, religion, and problems of youth. Piereson is also a senior fellow at The Manhattan Institute in New York where he is Chairman of the Selection Committee for The Veritas Fund which allocates grants to programs on college and university campuses.

Mr. Piereson was executive director and trustee of the John M. Olin Foundation from 1985 through 2005 when, following longstanding plans, the foundation disbursed its remaining assets and closed its doors. The John M. Olin Foundation maintained program interests in public affairs and public policy, and awarded grants in these areas to support research, fellowships, books and journals, and television documentaries. Most of its funds were allocated each year to major universities and private research institutions.

Prior to joining the J. M. Olin Foundation, he served on the Political Science faculties of several prominent universities, including Iowa State University (1974), Indiana University (1975), and the University of Pennsylvania (1976-82), where he taught courses in the fields of United States government and political thought.

Mr. Piereson is also trustee of the William E. Simon Foundation. He serves on the boards of several other tax exempt institutions, including The Pinkerton Foundation, the Thomas W. Smith Foundation, The Center for Individual Rights, The Philanthropy Roundtable, the Foundation for Cultural Review (Chairman), the American Spectator Foundation, The Hoover Institution at Stanford University, Donors Trust, the William F. Buckley Program at Yale University, and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. He is a past member of the Board of Trustees of The Manhattan Institute.

He is a member of the selection committee for the Clare Boothe Luce Program for Women in the Sciences, Medicine, and Engineering administered by the Henry Luce Foundation of New York City. He is a member of the selection committee for the Hayek Book Prize. He is also a member of the Grant Advisory Committee of the Searle Freedom Trust. He is a member of the publication committees of City Journal and National Affairs. He is a member of the Executive Advisory Committee of the Graduate School of Business at the University of Rochester, of the Board of Visitors of the School of Public Policy at Pepperdine University, and of the Advisory Council of the Henry Salvatori Center for the Study of Individual Freedom at Claremont McKenna College. Mr. Piereson is the author of Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism (Encounter Books, 2007).

He is also the author (with J. Sullivan and G. Marcus) of Political Tolerance and American Democracy (University of Chicago Press, 1982). He is the editor of The Pursuit of Liberty: Can the Ideals That Made America Great Provide a Model for the World (Encounter Books, 2008).

He has also published articles and reviews in numerous journals, including CommentaryThe New CriterionThe American Political Science ReviewThe Public InterestPhilanthropyThe American SpectatorThe Wall Street JournalThe Weekly StandardNational Review, and The Washington Post.

Leslie Lenkowsky is Professor of Practice in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University and a member of the Philanthropic Studies faculty of the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. He teaches courses on philanthropy, nonprofit organizations, social entrepreneurship, civil society around the world, and public policy.

Dr. Lenkowsky returned to the university in January 2004 after stepping down as chief executive officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service, a position to which he was appointed by President George W. Bush in October 2001.

Before joining the Bush Administration, Dr. Lenkowsky was professor of philanthropic studies and public policy at Indiana University/Purdue University at Indianapolis. From1990 to 1997, he served as president of the Hudson Institute, an internationally renowned public policy research institute. Dr. Lenkowsky has also served as president of the Institute for Educational Affairs, deputy director of the United States Information Agency, research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and research director at the Smith Richardson Foundation.

A graduate of Franklin and Marshall College, Dr. Lenkowsky received his doctorate from Harvard University. His writing has appeared in such publications as CommentaryThe Weekly StandardThe Wall Street Journal, and The Chronicle of Philanthropy. He has spoken frequently to educational and philanthropic groups throughout the United States and internationally.

Dr. Lenkowsky and his wife currently live in Bloomington, Indiana.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


January 27, 2014 (Monday) [archive stream]

 

"Preemptive Deforestation and Land Occupation: Responsibility and Social Process Drivers of Deforestation in the Eastern Amazon"

 

Professor Stephen Aldrich, Department of Earth & Environmental Systems, Indiana State University

 

Abstract: Since Brazil's redemocratization in the 1980s social movements have been exploiting the ambiguity in constitutional law regarding private property rights to force the Brazilian state to act on the longstanding promise of agrarian reform. The result has been mixed, with success on the part of social movements and their constituents but also a strong backlash by powerful capitalized interests. In the Amazon, uncertain property rights, a weak rule of law, and other factors have led to human suffering in the form of violence as well gross environmental change. The social process which leads to conflict over land, and the resolution of these conflicts, has a significant impact on deforestation. Indeed, in the particularly contentious Eastern Amazon deforestation occurs in many instances in anticipation of land conflict (particularly land occupation), and the presence of forest appears to increase the likelihood that a specific landholding will be targeted in the ongoing conflict over land resources. These results suggest that resolving the underlying drivers of land conflict may have important environmental effects, particularly in the context of global land tenure conflicts.

Bio: Steve Aldrich, PhD is an Assistant Professor of Geography at Indiana State University and has been working in the Brazilian Amazon since 2003. As much of the Amazon is effectively (at least in practice) a commons Steve continues to be interested in how social interactions between environmental actors shape the landscapes there. His current research continues on these themes in the Eastern Amazon, and also involves landscape genetics in the Brazilian Savannah (Cerrado) landscapes.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.

Background Readings: 
Aldrich, S. P., R. T. Walker, C. S. Simmons, M. M. Caldas and S. G. Perz (2012). "Contentious Land Change in the Amazon's Arc of Deforestation." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 102(1): 103-128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2011.620501.

Simmons, C. S., R. T. Walker, E. Y. Arima, S. P. Aldrich and M. M. Caldas (2007). "Amazon Land War in the South of Pará." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 97(3): 567-592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2007.00564.x.


February 3, 2014 (Monday) [archive stream]

Cosponsored by the Ostrom Workshop and School of Public and Environmental Affairs

"Will the Environment Survive a Renewed Middle East Peace Process? A Blueprint for Progress"

 

Professor Alon Tal, Visiting Professor, Department of Biology, Stanford University

 

Abstract: Because of its modest size, Israel's environmental problems are largely transboundary. Without cooperation with its neighbors, progress in areas from stream restoration to species repatriation will be modest at best. The potential exists for coordinated regulatory strategies to control air and water pollution, peace parks to trump territorial disputes and ecological restoration projects. This lecture reviews over twenty years of "below the radar" environmental cooperation in the region and considers the present peace process and how it might be leveraged to ensure an ecological dividend for the region.

Bio: Professor Tal's career has been a balance between academia and public interest advocacy. He is presently a visiting professor in the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford University and is on the faculty at Ben Gurion University where he is completing a book on Israeli demographic policy. From 2010 until 2013, he was co-chairman of Israel's green party — "the Green Movement." Dr. Tal was the founding director of Adam Teva V'din, the Israel Union for Environmental Defense from 1990-1997, a leading public interest law group and was chairman of Life and Environment, an umbrella group for eighty environmental organizations in Israel from 1998-2003. He currently is a founding member of the international board of Friends of the Earth — Middle East — a Jordanian, Israeli, Palestinian advocacy organization. In 1996, Dr. Tal established the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies, a graduate studies center in which Israeli, Jordanian, and Palestinian students join environmentalists from around the world in an advanced interdisciplinary research program.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.

Cosponsored by the Ostrom Workshop and SPEA


February 5, 2014 (Wednesday)

 

"The Effects of Endowment Size, Heterogeneity and History in a Binary-Choice Experiment with Positive Spillovers"

 

Andrea Lockhart, PhD Candidate, Department of Economics, IUB

 

Abstract: This study examines individual and group behavior in a finitely repeated binary-choice game setting with positive externalities, designed to mimic the flu vaccination decision environment. Subjects make decisions in two, theoretically identical sequences, differing in initial endowment levels only. Each decision involves a choice between an option with a certain payoff and an option with a payoff that is decreasing in the number of individuals that choose it. The results indicate that groups are able to reach both the Nash equilibrium outcome as well as the Social Optimum, however groups are not able to maintain socially optimal behavior for more than one round. Additionally, in sequences with lower endowment levels, in early rounds subjects chose the certain payoff option significantly less often than they did in sequences with higher endowment levels, but this difference disappears by the fourth round of each sequence.

Bio: Andrea Lockhart is a PhD candidate in IU's Department of Economics. Her research concerns both experimental and theoretical investigations of individual decision-making in the presence of externalities. She is particularly interested in using the controlled environment of the laboratory to supplement empirical research in public economics and health economics.

Paper


February 7, 2014 (Friday)

 

Lecture Series on "Capitalism, Its Defenders and Critics"

Cosponsored by the College Arts and Humanities Institute (CAHI), Tocqueville Program, Charles Koch Foundation, The VERITUS Fund, Department of Political Science, and Ostrom Workshop

"Free Market Fairness"

 

Professor John Tomasi, Department of Political Science, Brown University; and Dr. Vasabjit Banerjee, Postdoctoral Fellow and Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of International Studies, IUB

 

Abstract: Can libertarians care about social justice? In Free Market Fairness, John Tomasi argues that they can and should. Drawing simultaneously on moral insights from defenders of economic liberty such as F.A. Hayek and advocates of social justice such as John Rawls, Tomasi presents a new theory of liberal justice. This theory, free market fairness, is committed to both limited government and the material betterment of the poor.

Unlike traditional libertarians, Tomasi argues that property rights are best defended not in terms of self-ownership or economic efficiency but as requirements of democratic legitimacy. At the same time, he encourages egalitarians concerned about social justice to listen more sympathetically to the claims ordinary citizens make about the importance of private economic liberty in their daily lives. In place of the familiar social democratic interpretations of social justice, Tomasi offers a "market democratic" conception of social justice: free market fairness. Tomasi argues that free market fairness, with its twin commitment to economic liberty and a fair distribution of goods and opportunities, is a morally superior account of liberal justice. Free market fairness is also a distinctively American ideal. It extends the notion, prominent in America's founding period, that protection of property and promotion of real opportunity are indivisible goals. Indeed, according to Tomasi, free market fairness is social justice, American style.

Provocative and vigorously argued, Free Market Fairness offers a bold new way of thinking about politics, economics, and justice — one that will challenge readers on both the left and right.

Response from Dr. Vasabjit Banerjee:

Dr. Banerjee will talk about the concepts of "spontaneous order" and "social justice." He will address the question of whether redistributive measures within capitalist economies benefit or harm democracy.

Moderator: Aurelian Craiutu, Director, Tocqueville Program, and Professor, Department of Political Science, IUB

BIOS

John Tomasi John Tomasi did his graduate work in political philosophy at the University of Arizona (M.A.) and Oxford University (B.Phil., D.Phil.). He has held positions at Princeton, Stanford, and Harvard. Tomasi was recently named Romeo Elton Professor of Natural Theology, and is a Professor of Political Science and Philosophy at Brown University where he is the founding director of The Political Theory Project. He also holds an appointment at the University of Arizona's Freedom Center. In addition to numerous scholarly articles, Tomasi is the author of Liberalism Beyond Justice (Princeton) and Free Market Fairness (Princeton).

Vasabjit Banerjee Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Department of International Studies. His research in political science focuses on social movements, regime formation, and domestic sources of foreign policy.

The papers for this session have been published ("Introduction" and chapter 5 "Social Justicitis") in Tomasi's book Free Market Fairness, so they will not be placed on our website. Copies available upon request.


February 10, 2014 (Monday) [archive stream]

 

"Future Earth and the Evolution of Global Environmental Change Research Programs"

 

Professor Eduardo Brondizio, Department of Anthropology, IUB

 

Abstract: Since the 1980s, the establishment of international global environmental change (GEC) programs represented a major catalyst for the development of an international research community studying global environmental change. Under the auspices of the International Council for Science (ICSU) and/or the International Social Sciences Council (ISSC) the International Geosphere Biosphere Program (IGBP), the International Human Dimensions Program (IHDP), DIVERSITAS, and the World Climate Research Program (WRCP) have served as the point of reference for research, training and interdisciplinary collaborations and contributed directly to international efforts such as the IPCC, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and several other international initiatives. During the last three years, the Science and Technology Alliance for Global Sustainability (ICSU, ISSC, UNESCO, UNEP, UNU, the Belmont Forum, and WMO) has established the new Future Earth program, a 10-year international research initiative bringing together the four GEC programs into a new phase of research on global sustainability. This presentation overviews the history of GEC and the structure and goals of the new Future Earth Program, and its implications for research on global environmental change and sustainability.

Bio: Eduardo S. Brondizio is Professor of Anthropology, Adjunct Professor of Environmental Sciences and Geography, and Faculty Associate with the Anthropological Center for Training and Research on Global Environmental Change (ACT) and the Ostrom Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis at Indiana University Bloomington. Eduardo has been a member of the Science Committee of IGBP and a close collaborator of IHDP and Diversitas. He is a member of the inaugural Science Committee of Future Earth.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.

Background Reading: 
Future Earth (2013) "Future Earth Initial Design: Report of the Transition Team." Paris: International Council for Science (ICSU). http://www.icsu.org/news-centre/future-earth/media-centre/relevant_publications/future-earth-initial-design-report.


February 12, 2014 (Wednesday)

 

"Community Management of Urban Electricity in the UK"

 

Emilia Melville, Research Engineer, Sustainability and Physics, Buro Happold Ltd., UK

 

Abstract: How can communities manage their electricity usage and generation? What kinds of institutional arrangements work best? How does this fit in to the wider UK electricity system? What are the impacts on sustainability? What are the social impacts? What skills are required by professionals supporting the development of new decentralised institutions?

Emilia will discuss both theoretical questions around the concept of electricity and commons, and practical development of community energy organisations in the UK, based both on experience of a renewable electricity cooperative, and ideas for the development of neighbourhood electricity demand management. This includes a proposal for a pilot project and action research methodology.

As this is early stage work, critical feedback on the conceptual development and methodology will be welcome. Insight into electricity cooperatives and the electricity system in the USA would also be very welcome.

Bio: Emilia is coming to the end of her first year of a four year Engineering Doctorate (EngD) at Buro Happold (a multidisciplinary engineering consultancy) and the University of Surrey. She is working in the field of sustainability, with a background in engineering. In her EngD, Emilia draws on her experience in developing community owned electricity social enterprise, in working as a sustainability consultant, and in being involved in work on climate change from a number of different perspectives.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


February 17, 2014 (Monday) [archive stream]

 

"The Status Quo and Perceptions of Fairness: How Income Inequality Influences Public Opinion"

 

Dr. Kris-Stella Trump, Department of Government, Harvard University

 

Abstract: This paper argues that public opinion regarding the acceptability and desirability of income differences is influenced by actual income inequality. When income differences are (perceived to be) high, the public thinks of larger inequalities of income as fair. This phenomenon exists because of two psychological processes that advantage existing social arrangements: status quo bias and the motivation to believe in a just world. The phenomenon is demonstrated in three experiments, which show that personal experiences of inequality as well as information regarding national-level income inequality can affect perceptions of fairness in income gaps. A fourth experiment shows that at least part of this effect is due to the motivation to believe in a just world. The results can help us explain the empirical puzzle of why higher income inequality across time and space does not systematically result in higher demands for redistribution.

Bio: Kris-Stella Trump is a College Fellow in political science at the Government Department at Harvard University. Her main research interests are political psychology, comparative political behavior, and the functioning of democratic systems. She is particularly interested in social cognition and the application of social psychology to questions in political science. She earned a Ph.D. in political science from Harvard University in 2013 with a dissertation on the consequences of income inequality for public opinion regarding fairness and income differences. Her dissertation won the departmental Edward M. Chase dissertation prize. She also holds an M.Phil in European Politics from Oxford University and a B.A. in Social and Political Sciences from Cambridge University.

Paper


February 24, 2014 (Monday) [archive stream]

 

"Natural Gas Shale Plays as Common-Pool Resources: Conceptualization and Implications"

 

Dr. Gwen Arnold, Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California, Davis

 

Abstract: The United States is experiencing a boom in a form of natural gas drilling, called hydraulic fracturing, that targets subterranean shale plays. Holahan and Arnold (2013) argued that shale plays, like the reserves of oil and gas traditionally targeted by drilling, are common-pool resources (CPRs). However, a closer examination of the geology of shale plays, coupled with scrutiny of the logic underlying Ostrom and Ostrom's (1977) typology of goods, raises questions about the validity of this argument. In this presentation, we compare and contrast two theoretical conceptualizations: shale plays as CPRs and shale plays as private goods. We do not draw firm conclusions, but rather anticipate learning from discussion among Workshop participants. Importantly, whether shale plays can be understood as common-pool resources is not just an academic quibble. More than 30 U.S. states have been targeted by the fracking industry, and a number are considering whether their existing oil and gas regulations apply to fracking or how these regulations should be revised. Understanding the nature of the good being regulated is fundamental to ensuring that new policies minimize environmental impacts and economic wastes.

Bio: Gwen Arnold is an assistant professor at University of California, Davis, in the Department of Environmental Science and Policy. She is also an affiliated faculty member at the Vincent and Elinor Ostrom Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. She is a 2012 graduate of Indiana University's joint public policy PhD program. Gwen's theoretical interests include the street-level bureaucracy; policy adoption, diffusion, and implementation; and local government decision-making. Substantively, most of her current work focuses on hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking."

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


February 26, 2014 (Wednesday)

 

"Surviving Conflict: How Foreign Intervention Affects Displacement Patterns"

 

Justin Schon, PhD student, Department of Political Science, IUB

 

Abstract: What causes forced displacement flows, defined as refugee or internally displaced person (IDP) flows, to vary over time within conflict? While scholars, analysts, and policy makers increasingly recognize the importance of forced displacement during conflict, little is known about what actually causes forced displacement to vary during a conflict and when that variation is likely to occur. This paper explores the role of different types of foreign intervention on displacement patterns. Using daily displacement data from UNHCR and ACLED's violent events data, I find that the strength and discipline of foreign actors combine to play a critical role in displacement patterns. This builds upon previous work on the effects of foreign intervention on civilian well-being. I also contend that for civilians, contrary to its standard negative portrayal, displacement is better understood positively as a coping mechanism during conflict.

Bio: Justin is a second year PhD student in the Department of Political Science. In 2011, he received his BA from the University of Michigan. He has studied abroad in South Africa and worked on development issues in Kenya and Malawi. His research interests are in political violence and forced displacement.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


February 28, 2014 (Friday)

 

Lecture Series on "Capitalism, Its Defenders and Critics"

Cosponsored by the College Arts and Humanities Institute (CAHI), Tocqueville Program, Charles Koch Foundation, The VERITUS Fund, Institute of European Studies, Department of Political Science, and Ostrom Workshop

"From Open Secrets to Secret Voting"

 

Professor Isabela Mares, Department of Political Science, Columbia University

 

Abstract: This talk examines an under-explored dimension of the process of democratization, namely the adoption of electoral reforms that reduce opportunities for electoral intimidation and vote-buying. It explores the economic and political factors that affect the incentives of politicians to support the adoption of legislation which provides a better protection of electoral secrecy, and the consequences of these reforms for the development of political parties.

Bio: Isabela Mares, Professor of Political Science at Columbia University in New York City, is a current member of the editorial board of Comparative Politics. Her research has covered a wide range of topics in comparative social policy and comparative political economy, including the development of social insurance institutions, the effects of wage bargaining institutions on economic outcomes and social policy reform in developing countries. Her third book, From Open Secrets to Secret Ballots, is currently under review, with a comparative extension of the project, entitled Democratization after Democratization: How Europe Ended Electoral Fraud, in progress.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


February 28, 2014 (Friday)

 

SPEA Governance & Management Research Speaker Series

This session of the Speaker Series cosponsored by SPEA-IUB PhD Programs and Ostrom Workshop

"Gone With the Wind: The Strategic Placement of Air Polluters"

 

Dr. David M. Konisky, Georgetown Public Policy Institute, Georgetown University

 

Abstract: Interjurisdictional pollution spillovers are a critical issue in U.S. environmental policy. When policy responsibility is decentralized to state governmental agencies, they have incentives to promote these externalities in order to capture the benefits of economic activity within their borders while compelling neighbors to shoulder the resultant environmental costs. One way that states could pursue this outcome is to encourage the siting of U.S. air polluters near downwind borders. To test this hypothesis, we model the location in latitude and longitude of stationary air pollution sources within a given state, using a spatial point pattern analysis. A point pattern analysis treats the location of an observation as the outcome variable itself, asking whether the location of these polluters is random or if it responds to particular covariates. This methodology is frequently used in fields such as epidemiology to model the coordinate-based location of events, but is novel to political science. Our results indicate that (1) air polluting facilities are significantly more likely to be located near a state's downwind border than a control group of other industrial facilities, and (2) this effect is particularly pronounced for facilities with highly toxic air emissions. Collectively, these results suggest that air polluting facilities are strategically located in places that export the environmental and health consequences of pollution to states' downwind neighbors.

Bio: David Konisky joined the Georgetown Public Policy Institute in 2010. David's research focuses on American politics and public policy, with particular emphasis on regulation, environmental politics and policy, state politics, and public opinion. His research has been published in various journals, including the American Journal of Political Science, the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, the Journal of Politics, the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Public Opinion Quarterly, and State Politics and Policy Quarterly. He is also co-author of the book Superfund's Future: What Will it Cost? (RFF Press). David is currently working on projects examining state regulatory enforcement of federal pollution control laws, environmental equity in government activities, and public attitudes toward energy and environmental issues.

Prior to coming to Georgetown, David was on the faculty of the Harry S Truman School of Public Affairs at the University of Missouri. He also previously was a Research Associate at Resources for the Future.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


March 3, 2014 (Monday) [archive stream]

 

"Climate Change Perception and Adaptation in the Context of Multiple Stressors: A Case Study of Smallholder Farmers in Northwest China"

 

Dr. Zhao Ma, Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University

 

Abstract: Previous research examining climate impacts on smallholder farmers has mostly relied on regional climate data and economic and crop models. This approach tends to attribute smallholder risks and vulnerabilities to biophysical causes and overemphasize the role of economic measures in building smallholder adaptive capacity and resilience. This approach also overlooks that smallholders have long adjusted their agricultural practices to mitigate climate impacts, masks localized effects of climate change which may not be captured in regional assessments, and disregards how climate change interacts with current social-ecological conditions to exacerbate livelihood vulnerability. By analyzing data from 122 interviews and a survey of 483 smallholder households across three counties in three northwestern provinces in China, this study: 1) examined how smallholders perceive climate change and other livelihood stressors and their associated risks; 2) identified what adaptive strategies smallholders have made/plan to make in response to climate change and other livelihood stressors and why; and, 3) assessed how smallholders prioritize responses to climate change within the larger framework of livelihood decision making. The results show that smallholders have perceived increased drought frequency and intensity, increased summer and winter temperatures, and reduced rainfall and increased rainfall intensity during the growing season over the last 30 years. However, they perceived less risk in climate change than they did in other livelihood stressors, particularly the lack of profitability in agriculture and market uncertainty and inaccessibility. Commonly reported agricultural adaptations were those that have low fixed costs, do not require significant time investment, and require little cooperation with other villagers, such as plastic mulching. Commonly reported livelihood adaptations were seeking local wage-labor and out-migration opportunities. These results suggest that future adaptation research should avoid only identifying and listing autonomous adaptations implemented by smallholders and assuming they are responses to climate change. Instead, researchers need to determine why some adaptations have been adopted and others have not, as this provides important information about the range of stressors, limitations, and incentives that smallholders face and respond to. Future policies and large-scale planned projects need to take into account multiple stressors, paying attention to how perceptions of climate change and the associated risks interact with other factors influencing livelihood decision making, in order to address the predicted outcomes of climate change, as well as the more immediate risks facing smallholders and the structural causes of vulnerability.

Bio: Zhao Ma is an Assistant Professor of Sustainable Natural Resources Social Sciences in the Department of Forestry and Natural Resources at Purdue University. She holds a Ph.D. in Natural Resources Science and Management from the University of Minnesota and a M.A. in Sustainable International Development from Brandeis University. Zhao's research focuses on understanding how individuals and institutions make decisions with respect to environmental and natural resource management and conservation within the context of social-ecological systems. Her current projects include a study of smallholder farmer perception of and adaptation to climate change in semi-arid and arid regions of China, an assessment of perception, adaptation, and communication regarding forest resilience and climate change within the National Forest System, a study of institutional adaptive water management decision making in the Wasatch Front Metropolitan Area, an assessment of the dynamics of coupled human and large carnivore systems in the western U.S., and studies of non-industrial private forest landowner decision making with a focus on invasive species and absentee landownership issues in Indiana. Zhao teaches the Introduction to Environmental Policy course and the Human Dimensions of Natural Resource Management course in her department.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


March 5, 2014 (Wednesday)

 

"Urban Green Commons for Social Transformation: The Case of Community Gardens in Madrid, Spain"

 

Irene Iniesta Arandia, PhD student, Department of Ecology, Autonomous University of Madrid; Workshop Visiting Scholar

 

Abstract: Over the last decade, but especially since the start of the economic crisis in Spain by 2008, urban community gardens have emerged in the municipality of Madrid driven by neighborhood organizations and several social movements. Most of the existing community gardens in Madrid are integrated in a network — the Network of Urban Community Gardens of Madrid — which currently gathers more than 30 gardens. Urban community gardens have been also called urban green commons because they are dependent on collective organization and management. They can substantially contribute to enhance the quality of life in cities through the generation of different ecosystem services such as air purification, noise reduction or maintaining local knowledge. In this study we ask what influence these gardens have on people's well-being, provided that they offer a case study for examining ecosystem services and community management and governance practices. For this aim we collected data from 20 community gardens and 162 informants during 2012 and 2013. Results reveal that cultural ecosystem services — gardens' contributions to the experiences and capabilities of people — were very high valued. These results are intimately related to the management practices developed in the gardens including direct democracy and agroecological management practices. The study highlights the ecological and social values of the gardens currently omitted in urban green areas management and planning and also points to further research directions.

Bio: Irene Iniesta-Arandia is a PhD candidate in Ecology and Environmental Sciences at the Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain and a visiting scholar at the Ostrom Workshop. She is working in the field of Sustainability Sciences with special emphasis on social-ecological systems, ecosystem services, and governance. She has mainly conducted research in long-term successful irrigation systems in southeastern Spain and she is also interested in the emergence of green urban commons.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


March 10, 2014 (Monday) [archive stream]

 

"Social-Ecological Transitions and Vulnerability in an African Pastoralist System"

 

Dr. Elizabeth King, Odum School of Ecology, University of Georgia

 

Abstract: Drylands cover 40% of the continent of Africa, and are the basis for traditional pastoralist social-ecological systems, in which societies have adapted to rely heavily or entirely on livestock production for their livelihoods in harsh and variable environments. Modernity has brought drastic political, social and land use changes, as well as unprecedented population growth, land degradation and more frequent droughts that decimate herds. As fewer pastoralists are meeting their livelihood needs through livestock, many are seeking novel avenues for livelihood diversification, including dryland agriculture Such transformations can have profound effects on ecological functioning of landscapes, on household- and collective-level risk exposure, and on the evolution of institutions to govern emerging land use systems. We take a complex adaptive systems approach to study a pastoralist social-ecological system in north-central Kenya, to investigate whether the transformations underway are likely to alleviate or exacerbate social and ecological vulnerability.

Bio: Lizzie King is a restoration ecologist by training, and has spent much of the last 18 years working or living in the drylands of north-central Kenya. She received her PhD in Population Biology from the University of California, Davis, studying the potential for using native aloe shrubs in the restoration of degraded rangelands. She was a postdoctoral associate then lecturer at Princeton University from 2006 to 2012. She was a core member of Princeton's interdisciplinary Water, Savannas, and Society Initiative, which bridged hydrology, ecology, anthropology, and political science in the study of pastoralist system dynamics. In 2012, she joined the faculty at the University of Georgia, with joint appointments in the Odum School of Ecology and the Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources. She is also core faculty and Executive Committee member of UGA's Center for Integrative Conservation Research. In addition to her primary research focus on linked social-ecological dynamics in rangelands, she has recently launched a research program in Georgia's coastal marshes, where she is investigating how the ecosystems self-organize and re-organize in response to restoration activities and predicted sea level rise.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


March 12, 2014 (Wednesday)

 

"Does It Help to See a National AIDS Commissions as a Commons?"

 

Professor Peter Heywood, Menzies Centre for Health Policy, University of Sydney; Workshop Visiting Scholar

 

Abstract: Many countries have responded to the epidemic of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) by establishing a National AIDS Commission (NAC). Although the circumstances, including the main drivers of the epidemic, vary across countries, there are also similarities, many of which derive from the initial international emphasis on the need for an inter-sectoral response. Thus, an important aspect of the establishment of NACs was involvement of a range of sectors which usually included health, home affairs, justice, police, finance/treasury. In more populous countries this structure was replicated at sub-national levels such as state, province and district. The role of non-government organizations varied from minimal to major. Funding was usually a mix from government and donor sources with the importance of government funds often increasing over time. In this presentation I argue that a NAC is a common-pool-resource, that it can profitably be assessed using the Institutional Assessment and Development framework, and report on use of the framework to assess functioning of the NAC in Indonesia.

Bio: Peter Heywood is Honorary Professor of International Health at the Menzies Centre for Health Policy, University of Sydney, Australia. With training in epidemiology, policy analysis, economics, nutrition and agriculture, he has a strong background and experience in health policy and health sector reform in low income countries with particular emphasis on South and Southeast Asia and the Pacific. Before retiring in 2006 he was a Lead Health Sector Specialist with the World Bank, leading that institution's dialogue in the health sector and developing and supervising large portfolios of health sector investments in the public and private sectors in India (1998-2004) and Indonesia (2004-2006).

Before joining the World Bank in 1994 Peter was Lecturer in Nutrition at the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, University of Sydney (1974-1977); Deputy Director of the Papua New Guinea Institute of Medical Research (1977-1988); and Professor of Nutrition and Director of the Nutrition Program at the University of Queensland (1988-1994).

Peter's recent research activities include (1) an assessment of the effect of decentralization of the health sector in Indonesia on health service delivery, health sector funding and health outcomes funded by the Ford Foundation; (2) a systematic review of the effect of public and private funding of ambulatory care in low-income countries on quality of care; and (3) an institutional assessment of the HIV/AIDS control program in Indonesia.

Paper


March 24, 2014 (Monday) [archive stream]

 

"Participation and Spatial Coordination in Conservation Incentive Schemes: Role of Transaction Costs and Localized Communication"

 

Dr. Simanti Banerjee, Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Oberlin College

 

Abstract: An Agglomeration Bonus (AB) is used in some environmental conservation incentive schemes to reward private landowners to spatially coordinate their land use decisions and enhance the supply of environmental benefits — ranging from habitat and species protection, water pollution and flood control, and pollination services. The AB creates a coordination game with multiple Pareto ranked Nash equilibria corresponding to different spatially coordinated land use patterns. We experimentally analyze the levels of participation and performance when landowners have to incur a transaction cost prior to participating in the scheme. The experimental design varies (within-session) the transaction costs at two levels, which affects the risks and payoffs of coordinating on the different equilibria. We also implement a treatment involving non-binding pre-play communication between subjects. To study spatial coordination, all subjects are arranged on a circular local network with every individual having two strategic neighbors. The results indicate that communication substantially improves participation rates and coordination on the Pareto efficient Nash equilibrium under both transaction costs conditions. Without communication, participation in the scheme is greater with lower transaction costs. Yet, conditional on participation subjects more frequently choose the efficient strategy under the higher transaction costs situation. Subjects overall succeed in coordinating on the efficient outcome more often in the low transactions costs treatment, and a history of successful coordination raises subsequent coordination in either treatment.

Bio: Simanti Banerjee is a Visiting Assistant Professor at Oberlin College, Ohio and will be joining the Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln as an Assistant Professor in Fall 2014. She received her PhD from Penn State University in 2010 and uses experimental methods to study human behavior and performance of economic policies dealing with ecosystem services conservation on privately owned agricultural landscapes. She is also interested in the role of social networks & norms in natural resources management and energy efficiency behaviors in both developed and developing countries.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


March 26, 2014 (Wednesday)[archive stream]

 

"Institutional Analysis of Policy Designs: Methods, Theories, and Illustrations"

 

Dr. Christopher Weible and David Carter, PhD student; School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver; and Dr. Saba Siddiki, School of Public & Environmental Affairs, IU-Purdue University Indianapolis

 

Abstract: Every public policy has a design that reflects the politics of policymaking and provides the initial instructions for implementation. Through studying policy designs, the goal is to better understand and explain aspects of politics and governance of a society and, hopefully, offer recommendations for improvements. This presentation provides an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the institutional grammar, originally created by Crawford and Ostrom (1995) as well as recent efforts to integrate the institutional grammar with other concepts central to the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework, including the rule typology, action situations, and levels of decision making. Combining this integrated approach to the institutional analysis of policy designs is discussed in conjunction with existing theories of public policy and illustrated through examples of changes in smoking regulations in Colorado, a comparative analysis of 20 city charters in the United States, an analysis of a law and corresponding regulation in organic farming in the United States, and an analysis of policy change in a disclosure rule in hydraulic fracturing in Colorado. The presentation concludes by recommending a research agenda for advancing the institutional analysis of policy designs.

BIOS 

Christopher Weible received his Ph.D. in Ecology with an emphasis in Environmental Policy Analysis from the University of California Davis. He earned a Master in Public Administration and a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics and Statistics from the University of Washington. Chris is the editor for the Policy Studies Journal and currently conducts research on the politics and governance of hydraulic fracturing, organic farming, and low carbon cities in India and China.

David Carter is a doctoral student at the School of Public Affairs (SPA) at UCD, and a graduate of the SPA's Accelerated Masters of Public Administration program. He serves as the managing editor of the Policy Studies Journal. His dissertation research focuses on the characteristics and roles of governmental and not governmental regulatory agents involved in the administration of the National Organic Program, under the advisement of Chris Weible (as part of a project funded by the National Science Foundation).

Saba Siddiki is an Assistant Professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis. In her research, Dr. Siddiki conducts institutional analyses as a basis to study policy design, implementation, and compliance.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


March 27, 2014 (Thursday) [archive stream]

 

"Rationality for Mortals"

 

Professor Gerd Gigerenzer, Center for Adaptive Behaviour and Cognition, Max Planck Institute for Human Development

 

Recommended Readings: Homo Heuristicus: Why Biased Minds Make Better Inferences and Heuristic Decision Making

Bio: Gerd Gigerenzer is a world leader in research on decision making. He has studied topics ranging from the history of probability theory in psychology to simple strategies for fast and frugal choices to better communication of risks by doctors. He is the Director of the Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development and Director of the Harding Center for Risk Literacy in Berlin. Professor Gigerenzer's work has had a strong influence on how individuals and researchers think about making choices in health care, public policy, law, and business.

In his work, Gigerenzer takes a historical perspective, informing his cutting-edge research with a deep appreciation and understanding of the centuries-long threads that tie it back to the thinking of earlier scholars, from Aristotle to Pascal to Darwin. Early on he began developing his own probabilistic models of human decision making, exploring how people are able to make good decisions despite being bounded by uncertainty. This work put him directly at odds with the reigning view in judgment and decision-making research at the time, the "heuristics and biases" view of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, which held that people are all too often biased and irrational in their decisions. Gigerenzer argued that simple heuristics — shortcuts or rules of thumb — can often do a very good job of dealing with uncertainty, steering people toward good decisions when used in appropriate settings.

At the Max Planck Institute, Gigerenzer has brought together researchers from a variety of fields, including psychology, cognitive science, philosophy, computer science, economics, and biology, to pursue the common goal of uncovering what simple heuristic decision strategies people use effectively, and when they work well or fail. In doing so, he started the systematic study of ecological rationality — the science of how the structure of the mind's mechanisms fits with, and exploits, the structure of information in the environment. More recently, he has begun to explore how individuals make moral decisions with the use of simple principles that lead to quick judgments. Gigerenzer has also branched out into a variety of new applied directions. He has trained U.S. federal judges, German physicians, educators, and top business managers to make better and faster decisions, and to more clearly understand risks and uncertainties.

His academic books include Rationality for Mortals: How People Cope with Uncertainty (Oxford 2008), Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart (with Peter Todd and the ABC Research Group; Oxford 1999), Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox (with Reinhard Selten, a Nobel Laureate in economics; MIT 2001), and Better Doctors, Better Patients, Better Decisions (with Sir Muir Gray; MIT 2011). His award-winning popular books Calculated Risks: How to Know When Numbers Deceive You (Simon & Schuster 2002), Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious (Viking 2007), and Risk Savvy: How to Make Good Decisions (Viking 2014) have been translated into 18 languages. In addition, he has published many scientific papers in leading journals, including Psychological ReviewScienceBritish Medical Journal, and Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

Gigerenzer is a Fellow of the Cognitive Science Society and the American Psychological Society. He was awarded the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Prize for Behavioral Research in 1992, the Communicator Award of the DFG (German Research Foundation) in 2001, and the German Psychology Society's 2011 prize for distinguished research.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


March 31, 2014 (Monday) [archive stream]

 

"Building Cyberinfrastructure Capacity for the Social Sciences"

 

Professor Emilio Moran, Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability, Michigan State University

 

Abstract: The United States and the world are changing rapidly. These new conditions challenge the ability of the social, behavioral and economic sciences to understand what is happening at a national scale and in people's daily local lives. Forces such as globalization, the shifting composition of the economy, and the revolution in information brought about by the internet and social media are just a few of the forces that are changing Americans' lives. Not only has the world changed since data collection methods currently used were developed, but the ways now available to link information and new data sources have radically changed. Expert panels have called for increasing the cyber-infrastructure capability of the social, behavioral, and economic (SBE) sciences so that our tools and research infrastructure keep pace with these changing social and informational landscapes.

Needed is a new national framework, or platform, for social, behavioral and economic research that is both scalable and flexible; that permits new questions to be addressed; that allows for rapid response and adaptation to local shocks (such as extreme weather events or natural resource windfalls); and that facilitates understanding local manifestations of national phenomena such as economic downturns. To advance a national data collection and analysis infrastructure, the approach we propose — building a network of social observatories — is a way to have a sensitive instrument to measure how local communities respond to a range of natural and social conditions over time. This new scientific infrastructure will enable the SBE sciences to contribute to societal needs at multiple levels and will facilitate collaboration with other sciences in addressing questions of critical importance.

Bio: Emilio F. Moran is Distinguished Professor and the James H. Rudy Professor of Anthropology Emeritus at Indiana University. He was Director of the Anthropological Center for Training and Research on Global Environmental Change (ACT) at Indiana University from 1992-2012. He was co-founding Director with Elinor Ostrom of the NSF-funded Center for the Study of Institutions, Population and Environmental Change from 1996 to 2008. Dr. Moran is the author of ten books, fifteen edited volumes and more than 180 journal articles and book chapters. He is formally trained in anthropology, tropical ecology, tropical soil science, and remote sensing. His research has been supported by NSF, NIH, NOAA and NASA for the past two decades. His three latest books, Environmental Social Science(Wiley/Blackwell 2010), People and Nature (Blackwell 2006) and Human Adaptability, 3rd edition (Westview 2007) address broader issues of human interaction with the environment under conditions of environmental change. He is a past Guggenheim Fellow, Fellow of the Linnean Society of London, Fellow of the American Anthropological Association and the Society for Applied Anthropology, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and was elected a Member of the National Academy of Sciences in 2010.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


April 2, 2014 (Wednesday)

 

"Understanding the Missing Tool in the Development Toolbox: An Assessment of the Dilemmas Facing Co-operative Business Ownership Typologies"

 

Dr. Keith Taylor, Workshop Visiting Scholar

 

Abstract: The US co-operative business sector plays a significant role across the American economy and millions of individuals rely on co-operatives for their daily needs. Yet limited empirical research exists on this business model and policymakers are relatively unaware of potential usefulness on the model within a development toolbox. Of the existing empirical work, the literature tends to focus on one of the many ownership models (agricultural producer co-ops), and is slanted toward one scholarly discipline (economics) which has the effect of limiting general understanding and application of the co-operative business model.

Should co-operative businesses be a part of a policy development toolbox, and if so, why? The need exists to understand co-operative businesses generally, and from the standpoint of the ownership model. This requires an understanding of the mental models employed by co-operative business agents, the governance dilemmas unique to the ownership model and industrial sector, and the impacts co-operatives have on their communities and member-owners.

The purpose of this presentation is to provide a framework that organizes a series of common questions in which future studies may reference for the next wave of co-operative business research in order to optimize the returns to the firm's ownership. This is done by laying out the ownership typologies of co-operative businesses, identifying a number of propositions linked to ownership that researchers should consider. We utilize Bloomington School institutional theory to hypothesize the potential social dilemmas which arise from the governance and operation of the co-operative firm, and the Institutional Analysis and Development and Socio-Ecological System frameworks to identify key variables.

Bio: Keith Taylor has a PhD in Human and Community Development, and is interested in better understanding the co-operative business model. Specifically, Keith's interests pertain to governance, institutional design, market fit, and the externalized impact upon the host community (questions of development and experiential learning). Keith's dissertation explored the effect that wind energy ownership models have on local-level communities, and how communities might harness such projects for enhancing development outcomes. Keith's efforts at the Ostrom Workshop are focused on plying Bloomington School thinking toward the creation of a coordinated research agenda on the US co-operative sector.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


April 7, 2014 (Monday) [archive stream]

 

"Regulating Big Data Pools"

 

Professor Michael Mattioli, Indiana University Maurer School of Law, IUB

 

Abstract: This Article examines the government's influence on "big data pools" — a new type of collective rights organization (CRO) swiftly taking form in the field of healthcare. The government has long influenced the formation of private IP-sharing regimes, such as patent pools, research consortia, and copyright licensing collectives. Antitrust authorities, for instance, discourage patent pools from adopting institutional designs harmful to competition. Conversely, a patchwork of government policies encourages socially desirable cooperation among IP rights holders. These conflicting forces reflect the risks and the possibilities of traditional intellectual property CROs.

How these existing policies will influence the formation and design of big data pools is a pressing question upon which the future of medical innovation may hinge. Through a set of ethnographic case studies, this Article explores the structure of these new institutions and identifies a set of policy "gaps" that require prompt attention. This Article further proposes a set of solutions to these gaps designed to promote innovation and competition. This study suggests that the regulation of big data pools is a subject that requires the prompt attention of policymakers, medical device companies, pharmaceutical companies, insurance providers, and patients.

Bio: Michael Mattioli is an Associate Professor of Law at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law in Bloomington. There, he teaches courses in Intellectual Property, and Contracts. Mattioli's research examines how new forms of knowledge-sharing and collective licensing influence patenting, industrial organization, and the process of innovation itself. Mattioli's most recent work explores the nexus between these themes and big data. A list of his recent and forthcoming publications can be found at michaelmattioli.org.

Before coming to Maurer Law in 2012, Mattioli was the 2011-12 Microsoft Research Fellow at the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology at UC Berkeley School of Law and the 2010-11 Postdoctoral Fellow in Law, Economics, and Technology at the University of Michigan Law School.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


April 9, 2014 (Wednesday)

 

"Understanding the Commons: The Reception of Elinor Ostrom's Work in Italian Scholarship, Law, and Jurisprudence"

 

Maria Beatrice Vanni, PhD Candidate, Administrative Law, University of Milan; Workshop Visiting Scholar

 

Abstract: Over the last ten years, the work of Elinor Ostrom has been the object of increasing attention in the Italian legal world. However, an analysis of the instances where reference to her work appear, reveals a frequent misreading and misrepresentation of her vocabulary, her research, and her claims. The reason for this misreading and misrepresentation may be found in the existence of long-standing concurring concepts attached to the expression "common goods," which nevertheless does not account for the whole phenomenon. Motivated by increasing environmental issues and a strong opposition to privatization in principle, Italian scholars and policymakers have turned to Ostrom's work, but without adequate knowledge and in-depth analysis: this reflects the status of Italian culture, law and politics, trapped in a patch of short-sightedness and individualism. The effect of this confusion is the risk of dispersing the meaning and actual utility that Elinor Ostrom's work may yield for the Italian system.

Bio: Maria Beatrice Vanni is a PhD candidate in Administrative Law at the Università degli Studi di Milano. She holds a BA in Cultural Heritage - Archaeology, and a MA in Law from the same institution. Her doctoral thesis deals with the analysis of phenomena of communal ownership in a legal comparative and historical perspective, with the reception of the scholarship on the commons in the Italian legal culture and legislation, and with the possible reframing of a reform meant to introduce the commons among the Italian legal categories of goods.

The paper for this session is under publication review, so it has been removed from our website. Publication information will be available at a later date.


April 11, 2014 (Friday)

Cosponsored by the School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Department of Political Science, and Ostrom Workshop

"Critical Junctures: Independence Movements and Democracy in Africa"

 

Professor Léonard Wantchékon, Department of Politics, Princeton University

 

Abstract: We show that current levels of democracy in Africa are linked to the nature of its independence movements. Using different measures of political regimes and historical data on anti-colonial movements, we find that countries that experienced rural insurgencies tend to have autocratic regimes, while those that faced urban protests tend to have more democratic institutions. We provide evidence for causality in this relationship by using rough terrain as an instrument for rural insurgency, and by performing a sensitivity analysis. Finally, the evidence suggests that the adoption of rural insurgency perpetuated the use of violence as a form of conflict resolution.

Bio: Léonard Wantchékon is a Professor in the Politics department and associated faculty in the Economics department at Princeton University. His research is broadly focused on political and economic development, particularly in Africa. His specific interests include democratization, clientelism and redistributive politics, the resource curse, and the long-term social impact of historical events. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the founder the Africa School of Economics (ASE) set to open in Benin in September 2014.

Paper


April 14, 2014 (Monday) [archive stream]

 

"The Possible Unraveling of Elite Utopian Dreaming: Rumblings In and Outside Post-Genocide Rwanda As An African Home Grown Democracy"

 

Professor John Stanfield, Professor of African American and African Diaspora Studies; Adjunct Professor of African Studies, Lilly Family School for Philanthropy, and Sociology Director of the Research Project on Transcultural and Intercultural Studies, IUB; and Designated Visiting Distinguished Professor and Founding Director of the Festus Mogae International Development and Governance Research Institute Botswana International University for Science and Technology

 

Abstract: This presentation is based on the final chapter of a book I have completed and submitted for publication. The book's focus is on the historical, sociological, and political groundings of pre-colonial, colonial, and Nazis inspired apartheid old regime phases of pre-1994 Genocide Rwanda. This rare comprehensive examination of pre-1994 Genocide Rwanda serves as an imperative backdrop for exploring post-1994 Genocide Rwandan national government and civil society leadership efforts, largely composed of a transplanted utopian dreaming Ugandan Rwandan elite, to establish an African home grown democracy. The last chapter as the basis of this presentation discusses critical internal and external pressure points, dilemmas, paradoxes, and contradictions which threaten to unravel the Ugandan Rwandan elite utopian dream of a home grown African democracy. The data base of my book is based on autoethnographic, ethnographic, oral historical, and secondary historical sources collected in Rwanda and in the United States.

Bio: John H. Stanfield, II, an ethnographically and oral history oriented cross-national historical sociologist and public minister, has written extensively on human rights and multicultural restorative justice issues in Africa and in countries outside the continent of Africa with significant African descent populations such as Brazil, Great Britain, India, and the United States. During 2011-2012 he was appointed by Rwandan government leaders as an informal and as an official international strategic advisor to national agencies to evaluate home grown democracy initiatives, especially those involving efforts to encourage post-genocide reconciliation between Hutus and Tutsis and citizenship participation in local and national politics and in civil society institutions such as indigenous NGOs, faith communities, and museums.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


April 17, 2014 (Thursday) HORIZONS OF KNOWLEDGE LECTURE

 

"Afghanistan: A Turbulent State in Transition"

 

Dr. Amin Saikal, ANU-IU Pan Asia Institute Distinguished Scholar

The Inaugural Lecture of the Workshop on "Afghanistan: Assessing the Impact of 35 Years of Wars and Violence on Social Institutions," April 18-20

 

Bio: Professor Saikal is ANU-IU Pan Asia Institute Distinguished Scholar at IUB (April-May 2014) and has been a visiting fellow at Princeton University, Cambridge University, and the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex, as well as a Rockefeller Foundation Fellow in International Relations (1983-1988). He was awarded the Order of Australia (AM) in January 2006 for his services to international community and education as well as an advisor and author, and was elected as a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia (ASSA) in 2013. He is the author of numerous works on the Middle East, Central Asia, and political Islam. His latest books include: Zone of Crisis: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq (2014); Democracy and Reform in the Middle East and Asia(2014) (co-editor); American Democracy Promotion in a Changing Middle East: from Bush to Obama (2012) (co-editor); Modern Afghanistan: A History of Struggle and Survival (2012); The Rise and Fall of the Shah: Iran from Autocracy to Religious Rule; and Islam and the West: Conflict or Cooperation? (2003).

Cosponsored by: Cosponsored by COAS Ostrom Faculty Grant Program, College Arts and Humanities Institute (CAHI), Office of the VP for International Affairs, Horizons of Knowledge, Center for the Study of the Middle East, Russian and East European Institute, Islamic Studies Program, Inner Asian and Uralic National Resource Center, Center on American and Global Security, Pan Asia Institute, Departments of Anthropology, Central Eurasian Studies, and Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, and the Ostrom Workshop

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


April 18, 2014 (Friday)

 

Lecture Series on "Capitalism, Its Defenders and Critics"

Cosponsored by the College Arts and Humanities Institute (CAHI), Tocqueville Program, Charles Koch Foundation, The VERITUS Fund, Institute of European Studies, Department of Political Science, and Ostrom Workshop

Panel Title: "The Relevance of the Bloomington School"

 

Professor Peter Boettke, Mercatus Center; Department of Economics, George Mason University

Roundtable Panelists: Peter Boettke; Daniel Cole, Maurer School of Law, IUB; Michael McGinnis, Political Science, IUB; Filippo Sabetti, Political Science, McGill University

Boettke Title: "Understanding Capitalisms from an Institutional Diversity Perspective" 

Recommended Readings: What Should Classical Liberal Political Economists Do?The Past, Present and Future of Virginia Political Economy; Fearing Freedom: The Intellectual and Spiritual Challenge to Liberalism (The Independent Review, 18(3)(Winter 2014), pp 343-358).

 

Abstract: A strict dichotomization has characterized the debate over capitalism from the beginning. But markets do not operate within a vacuum. They exist and are shaped, instead, by the institutional context (both formal and informal) within which they operate. Once this simple point is accepted — a point stressed through the work of Vincent and Elinor Ostrom — then the debate over capitalism shifts to a discussion of "constitutional craftsmanship" and entrepreneurial action in the private and public sector rather than behavioral assumptions, categories of market structures, and end-state assessments.

Bio: Peter Boettke is a University Professor of Economics and Philosophy at George Mason University; the BB&T Professor for the Study of Capitalism, Vice President for Research, and Director of the F.A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at the Mercatus Center at GMU.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


April 21, 2014 (Monday) [archive stream]

 

"Does Giving 'Nature' a History Redefine the Commons in India?"

 

Professor Kathleen Morrison, Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago

 

Abstract: In this talk I ask: what happens to the idea of the commons in South Asia when we take an historical approach, specifically an historical ecology which incorporates the histories of both 'nature' and 'culture' in the constitution of land use categories and physical landscapes? Using the categories of 'waste' and 'forest' as defined under British colonial rule in India, I consider how these categories emerged as apparently self-evident terms describing 'cultural' and 'natural' landscapes, respectively. When the material records of Indian landscapes are considered, however, these separations become blurred; both archaeological and paleoenvironmental evidence suggest not only a need to reconsider the integrity of both categories but also potentially to reimagine the contributions of contemporary stakeholders in light of these histories.

Bio: Kathleen D. Morrison is the Neukom Family Professor in Anthropology and the College at the University of Chicago and the director of the South Asia Language and Area Center. Her research focuses on the historical ecology of Southern Asia, especially changes in agriculture, land use, and environment in southern India. Professor Morrison is author of Fields of Victory: Vijayanagara and the Course of IntensificationDaroji Valley: Landscape, Place, and the Making of a Dryland Reservoir System; and Environmental History Reimagined: Nature and Culture in South Asia (in preparation). She is co-author of The Vijayanagara Metropolitan Survey and co-editor of The Social Lives of Forests: Past, Present, and Future of Woodland Expansion, Forager-Traders in South and Southeast Asia; andEmpires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History. She received her PhD from the University of California, Berkeley in 1992.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


April 25, 2014 (Friday)

 

Lecture Series on "Capitalism, Its Defenders and Critics"

Cosponsored by the College Arts and Humanities Institute (CAHI), Tocqueville Program, Charles Koch Foundation, The VERITAS Fund, Department of Political Science, and Ostrom Workshop

"Liberalism and the Morality of Commercial Society"

 

Professor Jeremy Jennings, King's College, University of London

 

Abstract: This lecture looks at debates within the liberal tradition about the moral benefits and foundations of commercial society. It does so by looking primarily at material drawn from French and British liberalism from the eighteenth century onwards and concludes with references to the classical liberalism associated with the Austrian School and the writings of John Rawls. It shows that, among liberal thinkers, there has never been a settled point of view on the morality of commercial society and that religious and secular perspectives have strongly influenced liberal thinkers on the merits or otherwise of a free market economy and the creation of greater material wealth.

Bio: Jeremy Jennings is Professor of Political Theory at King's College, London, having previously held positions at Queen Mary University of London and the University of Birmingham. He has written extensively on the history of political thought in France. In 2009 (with Aurelian Craiutu) he published Tocqueville on America after 1840: Letters and other Writings; in 2011, Revolution and the Republic (Winner of the Franco-British Association's Enid McLeod book prize) and an edition of Destutt de Tracy's A Treatise on Political Economy. He is presently writing Travels with Tocqueville (forthcoming with Harvard UP) and hopes at some point to begin work on a history of liberty (for Yale UP). In addition, Jeremy Jennings writes regularly for the monthly magazine Standpoint (for which he also serves as an executive director).

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


April 28, 2014 (Monday) [archive stream]

 

"Buying Time: The Private Governance Response to Climate Change"

 

Professor Michael P. Vandenbergh, David Daniels Allen Distinguished Chair of Law; Co-Director, Energy, Environment and Land Use Program; Director, Climate Change Research Network; Vanderbilt University Law School

 

Abstract: Much of energy policy is driven by concerns about climate change. Views about the importance of carbon emissions affect debates on topics ranging from the regulation of electricity generation and transmission to the need for incentives to develop emerging technologies. Government efforts to fund and communicate climate science have been extraordinary, but recent polling suggests that roughly half of the American population is unsure or does not believe that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. Among some populations, belief in climate change is declining even as the climate science becomes more certain. Much of the doubt occurs among individuals who support free markets, and the doubt is fueled by the argument that governments and government-funded climate scientists are not accounting for information that is inconsistent with the climate consensus. This Article explores a private governance response: the creation of a prediction market to assess and communicate the implications of climate science. Markets not only allow the buying and selling of goods; they can also provide information about the likelihood of future events. Research suggests that markets are often able to account for information that is outside of the conventional wisdom. In addition, individuals who are likely to doubt climate science may find markets to be credible sources of information. A climate market could take the form of an academic initiative along the lines of the Iowa presidential prediction market or could operate as a more traditional options market. Trading could occur over the types of predictions that matter for global climate change, such as the global average temperature or sea level in 2020 or 2100, with the current market value of the prediction signaling the likelihood of the outcome. The market will be subject to manipulation concerns, but experience with other prediction markets suggests that a climate prediction market could provide an accurate, credible, and widely disseminated signal about the status of the climate science.

Bio: Michael Vandenbergh is a leading scholar in environmental and energy law whose research explores the relationship between formal legal regulation and informal social regulation. His work with Vanderbilt's Climate Change Research Network involves interdisciplinary teams that focus on energy use and carbon emissions from the household sector. His corporate work explores the influence of social norms on firm behavior and private environmental governance. His articles have appeared in leading law journals, including the Columbia Law Review, the Cornell Law Review, the Harvard Environmental Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, and the New York University Law Review, and in science journals such as The Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesNature Climate Change, andEnergy Policy. Before joining Vanderbilt's law faculty, Professor Vandenbergh was a partner at Latham & Watkins in Washington, D.C. He served as Chief of Staff of the Environmental Protection Agency from 1993-95, and as a law clerk to Judge Edward R. Becker of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1987-88. A winner of the Hall-Hartman teaching award, he teaches courses in environmental law, energy, and property. Professor Vandenbergh has been a Visiting Professor at the University of Chicago Law School and at Harvard Law School.

*Cover note to colloquium participants regarding 4/28/14 presentation
Paper: Energy and Climate Change: A Climate Prediction Market [Forthcoming publication in 61 UCLA L. Rev. (forthcoming 2014)].