Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Global Focus Publication Year within 10 Years

1111. The Razumkov Center Newsletter

Author:
Razumkov Center
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Razumkov Centre
Abstract:
Judging from President’s latest statements on his readiness to capture Ukraine’s stable progress towards EU and NATO membership in the Preamble to the Constitution, we are to expect yet another session of “constitutional vivisection”. Moreover, it is very likely that the parliament and the president will finalise the long-term story of bidding farewell to the constitutional guarantees of parliamentary immunity. Also, one cannot write off a possible attempt to implement the currently semi-fictional idea of transitioning to a parliamentary form of government, again – by introducing corresponding amendments to the Constitution.
Topic:
International Affairs
Political Geography:
Global Focus

1112. The Razumkov Center Newsletter

Author:
Razumkov Center
Publication Date:
03-2018
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Razumkov Centre
Abstract:
In February of this year, Stanislav Shevchuk was elected the new Chairman of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (CCU) at one of its sessions. Position of CCU Chairman has been vacant since 20 March 2017. This is when Yurii Baulin’s term has run out. On several occasions, elections of a new chairman were disrupted. In December 2017, they did not take place due to the lack of candidates. The responsibility of CCU Chairman, besides swearing in the newly elected president, is to organise the regular work of the Constitutional Court. We also expect the pressure on the new chairman to mount after the appointment of two new CCU judges on the president’s quota and the election of two more judges on the Verkhovna Rada’s quota.
Topic:
International Affairs
Political Geography:
Global Focus

1113. The Razumkov Center Newsletter

Author:
Razumkov Center
Publication Date:
02-2018
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Razumkov Centre
Abstract:
On 30 January 2018, in Kyiv, Razumkov Centre together with the Institute for Economic Research and Policy Consulting and CEDOS think tank presented the annual 2017 global top think tanks rating (2017 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report). This report is issued since 2008 by the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program of the Lauder Institute, University of Pennsylvania (USA).
Topic:
International Affairs
Political Geography:
Global Focus

1114. Four reasons why Denmark should speak up about lethal autonomous weapons

Author:
Johannes Lang, Robin May Schott, and Rens van Munster
Publication Date:
03-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Danish Institute for International Studies
Abstract:
Formal UN discussions have begun to address how the international community should regulate the development and use of lethal autonomous weapons – also known as ‘killer robots’. Denmark has so far chosen not to participate in these discussions, but there are good reasons to get involved.
Topic:
International Affairs and Weapons
Political Geography:
Global Focus

1115. Failure to define killer robots means failure to regulate them

Author:
Johannes Lang, Rens van Munster, and Robin May Schott
Publication Date:
02-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Danish Institute for International Studies
Abstract:
Disagreements on how to define “autonomy” are stalling formal UN discussions on the compliance of autonomous weapons with international humanitarian law. A pragmatic approach that focuses on the weapon’s critical functions, such as target selection and firing, can help move discussions forward in the future.
Topic:
International Affairs
Political Geography:
Global Focus

1116. Armed groups are here to stay

Author:
Jairo Munive and Finn Stepputat
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Danish Institute for International Studies
Abstract:
Armed non-state actors are significant players in most conflicts. The international community is often forced to engage with them in order to secure humanitarian aid for civilians or to end armed political conflicts. The question of when and how to engage is being debated. We sug­gest a more pragmatic approach.
Topic:
International Affairs
Political Geography:
Global Focus

1117. explaining globalisation scepticism

Author:
Erik Lundsgaarde
Publication Date:
02-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Danish Institute for International Studies
Abstract:
Critical public attitudes toward economic globalization reflect a response to different facets of globalization and varied consequences of international market integration for individuals. The distribution of benefits and losses related to globalization provides a starting point for numerous studies of attitudes toward economic integration. Individuals perceive globalization’s benefits differently depending on their sector of employment or level of educational attainment, among other factors. In addition to these explanations, attention to the institutions and policies that influence how governments engage with globalization and manage its domestic consequences can also inform the analysis of why scepticism to economic integration varies across national settings.
Topic:
International Affairs
Political Geography:
Global Focus

1118. What Makes Experts Reliable?

Author:
Kyle L Marquardt
Publication Date:
06-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Varieties of Democracy Institute (V-Dem)
Abstract:
Many datasets use experts to code latent quantities of interest. However, scholars have not explored either the factors affecting expert reliability or the degree to which these factors influence estimates of latent concepts. Here we systematically analyze potential correlates of expert reliability using six randomly selected variables from a cross-national panel dataset, V-Dem v8. The V-Dem project includes a diverse group of over 3,000 experts and uses an IRT model to incorporate variation in both expert reliability and scale perception into its data aggregation process. In the process, the IRT model produces an estimate of expert reliability, which affects the relative contribution of an expert to the model. We examine a variety of factors that could correlate with reliability, and find little evidence of theoretically-untenable bias due to expert characteristics. On the other hand, there is evidence that attentive and condent experts who have a basic contextual knowledge of the concept of democracy are more reliable.
Topic:
International Affairs
Political Geography:
Global Focus

1119. How to Make Causal Inferences with Time-Series Cross-Sectional Data under Selection on Observables

Author:
Matthew Blackwell and Adam Glynn
Publication Date:
05-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Varieties of Democracy Institute (V-Dem)
Abstract:
Repeated measurements of the same countries, people, or groups over time are vital to many fields of political science. These measurements, sometimes called time-series cross-sectional (TSCS) data, allow researchers to estimate a broad set of causal quantities, including contemporaneous and lagged treatment effects. Unfortunately, popular methods for TSCS data can only produce valid inferences for lagged effects under very strong assumptions. In this paper, we use potential outcomes to define causal quantities of interest in this settings and clarify how standard models like the autoregressive distributed lag model can produce biased estimates of these quantities due to post-treatment conditioning. We then describe two estimation strategies that avoid these post-treatment biases—inverse probability weighting and structural nested mean models—and show via simulations that they can outperform standard approaches in small sample settings. We illustrate these methods in a study of how welfare spending affects terrorism.
Topic:
International Affairs
Political Geography:
Global Focus

1120. Self-Censorship in Authoritarian States: Response bias in measures of popular support in China

Author:
Daniel Robinson and Marcus Tannenberg
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Varieties of Democracy Institute (V-Dem)
Abstract:
The study of popular support for authoritarian regimes, and the comparative study of political attitudes, has long relied on the assumption that survey respondents provide truthful answers on surveys. However, when measuring regime support in closed political systems there is a distinct risk that individuals are less than forthright due to fear that their opinions may be made known to the public or the authorities. In order to test this assumption, we conducted a novel web-based survey in China in which we included four list experiments of commonly used items in the comparative literature on regime support. We find systematic bias for all four measures as a result of selfcensorship; substantially more individuals state that they support the regime with direct questioning than do when presented with our anonymous, indirect list experiments. The level of self-censorship, which ranges from 16 to 22 percentage points, is considerably higher than previously thought. Selfcensorship is further most prevalent among the wealthy, urban, female and younger respondents. These findings indicate that prior studies that have found high levels of support for the Chinese regime using these particular measures likely overestimate the true level of support. Further, crossnational studies which compare popular support across regime type may be systematically biased if responses are not subject to the same level of falsification across regime types.
Topic:
International Affairs
Political Geography:
Global Focus