Search

Begin New Search Topic Polarization Political Geography Global Focus

1. The Climate Policy Crisis: Governing Disinformation in the Digital Age

Author:
Andrew Heffernan
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI)
Abstract:
Climate change is the quintessential global challenge, while also perhaps the issue that has experienced the most polarization in recent years. Therefore, understanding the way broader global politics manifest through tools such as social media and consequently impact policy making, becomes integral to effectively fighting the climate crisis. While climate change must be countered through effective mitigation and adaptation approaches at the local, national and global levels, implementing effective policies to do so can only be accomplished through buy-in by a critical mass of citizens. Disinformation campaigns have, however, increasingly been targeted at issues that fall along partisan lines and climate change has been a particularly polarizing issue. Research presented in this paper demonstrates ways in which efforts to misinform and disinform the public are becoming both increasingly prevalent as well as effective. The polarization that is being stoked by misinformation campaigns on social media is the most serious threat to fighting climate change. New policies and approaches for policy development and implementation will be required to match the alacrity of the proliferating online flows of misinformation and disinformation.
Topic:
Climate Change, Governance, Disinformation, and Polarization
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2. Overcoming digital threats to democracy

Author:
Lydia Khalil
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Lowy Institute for International Policy
Abstract:
The internet was once considered an open door to democracy and liberty. Today, it is seen as an agent of democratic erosion. Digital challenges to democracy include the scale and spread of disinformation and misinformation, the increase in polarisation and extremism that are facilitated and escalated online, and inadequate regulation. Digital platforms are increasingly perceived by the public as serving the needs and interests of the powerful rather than the public good. Average users have few means to influence key decisions and debates about how digital technologies are used and developed. The rules of the digital sphere — whether made by tech companies, regulators, or politicians — often lack public legitimacy. Applying deliberative democracy principles — where small but representative groups of people make decisions after deliberating on issues in depth — can help address the challenges of legitimacy and generate broadly acceptable solutions to the problems that bedevil online spaces and challenge democracy.
Topic:
Democracy, Disinformation, Polarization, and Digital Technologies
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3. From Rhetoric to Reality: Uncovering Strategic Division and the Linkages Between Polarization and Inequality

Author:
Raquel Jesse
Publication Date:
07-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on International Cooperation (CIC)
Abstract:
Amid the economic, climate, and health crises, in addition to deteriorating socio-economic conditions and escalating conflicts in many contexts around the world, societies are facing a new major threat: fragmentation. That is, many societies are experiencing a mixture of increased divisions at various levels of society characterized by worsening polarization, not merely along partisan lines, but across various groups. In addition, the prevalence of hate speech and violence, intermixed with a heightened sense of discord, the resurgence of marginalization for some communities, and widespread insecurity, distrust, and hardship, has resulted in a fracturing both at the political and community level. In a time when we need to work together more than ever, the era of soundbites, disinformation, and reactionary rhetoric makes thoughtful debate and dialogue, consensus-building, and coalition formation increasingly difficult. This paper aims to disentangle the threads of escalating global fragmentation, the dynamics fueling it, and emerging solutions to counteract its adverse effects. This work stems from listening to the recurring concerns and challenges from policymakers and civil society about navigating the emerging backlash, division, and disinformation when pursuing inclusive policy agendas. Whether it is to recognize Indigenous communities in legal documents, plans to implement a transformative climate agenda, policies to advance gender equality, increase public investments, or provide safe passage and resources to people on the move—divisive narratives are derailing these efforts. This report attempts to understand why and how different communities, actors, and policy agendas are being undermined in similar ways. Although these are difficult times, numerous solutions, actionable strategies, and dedicated communities are addressing these challenges—if we know where to look. We aim to highlight successful examples of tackling disinformation, bridging divides, and driving the desperately needed change. The report is organized as such: Navigating the Twin Storms of Inequality and Polarization Unveiling Strategic Division: The Power Play Behind Societal Divides Mapping Vulnerabilities: Factors Fueling Susceptibility to Strategic Division Tackling Division at its Core: Comprehensive Policy Interventions While the mechanisms and solutions to societal fragmentation are complex, there is comfort in the understanding that this challenge is not unique to any single nation or community but is shared. By shedding light on these issues, we can pave the way for solutions—together. As demonstrated in this report and the dialogues that preceded it, numerous individuals, communities, and initiatives are dedicated to innovating and meeting the challenges of our time, bridging divides with the conviction that our strength is amplified when we stand together. We hope this paper can contribute in some small way to these efforts.
Topic:
Inequality, Polarization, Fragmentation, and Rhetoric
Political Geography:
Global Focus

4. Global income polarization: Relative and absolute perspectives

Author:
Vanesa Jorda, Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, Laurence Roope, and Finn Tarp
Publication Date:
12-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
United Nations University
Abstract:
This paper presents the first global and regional estimates of polarization and bipolarization spanning the period 1960–2020. The study relies on group data to implement a flexible parametric model to obtain the global income distribution and polarization estimates. The study introduces a battery of sensitivity tests to assess the reliability of polarization estimates under various assumptions, with particular emphasis on the impact of survey under-coverage of top incomes on global polarization levels and trends. Overall, we find that relative bipolarization has consistently decreased since 1980, while in absolute terms it has increased since 1960. The more general measure of relative polarization has also exhibited a steady decline since 1980; however, the trend in its absolute counterpart depends on the size of a sensitivity parameter, which reflects whether individuals cluster with peers of similar income or are segregated from different income groups. Consequently, absolute polarization declined over time for lower values of this parameter but increased for higher values.
Topic:
Economic Inequality, Polarization, and Income Distribution
Political Geography:
Global Focus

5. Reducing Pernicious Polarization: A Comparative Historical Analysis of Depolarization

Author:
Jennifer McCoy, Benjamin Press, Murat Somer, and Ozlem Tuncel
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
The global rise of political polarization has fueled concerns about its detrimental impact on politics and society. From an increase in political violence to a decrease in the quality of democracy and governance, the threats posed by pernicious polarization—the division of society into two mutually antagonistic political camps—are diverse and acute. Determining how to reduce these tensions is therefore an urgent challenge. Using data on political polarization from the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) data set, this working paper assesses various instances of depolarization around the globe since 1900 and analyzes their long-term sustainability. Polarization is increasing worldwide. When broken down by region, V-Dem data suggest that every region except Oceania has seen polarization levels rise since 2005. Africa has had the smallest increase during this period, although it has long had high levels of polarization. Rising polarization in Europe is being driven by deepening political divisions in Eastern and Central Europe, Southern Europe, and the Balkans. In the Western Hemisphere, the largest democracies—Brazil, Mexico, and the United States—are all experiencing extreme levels of polarization. East Asia’s polarization levels have traditionally been low, though increasing political tensions in places like South Korea and Taiwan are driving up the region’s score. And in South Asia, India’s polarization has skyrocketed since 2014. Jennifer McCoy Jennifer McCoy is a nonresident scholar in the Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program, where she focuses on political polarization and democratic resilience in the U.S. and around the world. To better understand the various paths by which polarized societies might overcome or reduce their political divisions, this working paper examines perniciously polarized countries that have successfully depolarized, at least for a time. Through a quantitative analysis of the V-Dem data set, this study identifies 105 episodes from 1900 to 2020 where countries were able to reduce polarization from pernicious levels for at least five years. These 105 episodes represent roughly half of the total episodes of pernicious polarization during the time period, thus indicating a fairly robust capacity of countries to depolarize. If considered in terms of country experiences rather than episodes (because many countries have experienced multiple episodes in a cycle of polarization and depolarization), then the data indicate that two-thirds of the 178 countries for which V-Dem provides polarization data have experienced one or more episodes of pernicious polarization, but only thirty-five countries (20 percent) have failed to experience any depolarization to below-pernicious levels. Given this apparent capacity among the majority of the world’s countries to depolarize from pernicious levels at least some of the time, this analysis seeks to identify the contexts and sustainability of those experiences and to encourage further research into their causal mechanisms and outcomes for democracies. The analysis offers a preliminary discussion of the potential meaning and normative implications of depolarization as a concept and policy goal. It then uses qualitative analysis to identify patterns in the contexts of various depolarization cases and gauge the sustainability of these trends. Most of these depolarization episodes were associated with dramatic changes in a country’s political life. An analysis of contextual factors showed that almost three-quarters of the cases came after major systemic shocks: a foreign intervention, independence struggle, violent conflict, or regime change (primarily in a democratizing direction). In the remainder of cases, countries depolarized within a given regime structure, whether democratic or autocratic. Tellingly, the authors identified no cases of depolarization from pernicious levels among liberal democracies. This is because very few countries classified as full liberal democracies have ever reached pernicious levels; the United States stands out today as the only wealthy Western democracy with persistent levels of pernicious polarization. Just under half of all depolarizing cases were able to sustain depolarization for a decade or longer. In a second sizeable group of cases, countries managed polarization to some degree, either living with chronic near-pernicious levels after depolarizing, or else repolarizing to near-pernicious levels within ten years. Finally, 15 percent of the cases returned to pernicious levels within the first decade. Troublingly, when the authors analyzed the entire time period from 1900 to 2020, nearly half of the countries that had sustained depolarization or managed polarization for at least a decade later returned to pernicious levels of polarization. These outcomes illustrate the difficulty of sustaining low levels of polarization, and they indicate that a cyclical pattern of polarization, depolarization, and repolarization may be a characteristic feature of political life in many places. Only a fraction (14 percent) of cases resulted in sustained depolarization over the long term.The mechanisms and strategies that enable such sustained depolarization in democracies will be the subject of future research. But given the small number of democracies (eleven) able to accomplish this feat amid the larger pattern of cyclical polarization and depolarization, it will be crucial to also understand strategies of managing polarization at moderately high levels while avoiding democratic erosion, government dysfunction, or returns to pernicious polarization and potential violence.
Topic:
Politics, History, Polarization, and Society
Political Geography:
Global Focus

6. Conformity: The Power of Social Influences, Cass R. Sunstein

Author:
Frank J. Gonzalez
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Political Science Quarterly
Institution:
Academy of Political Science
Abstract:
In the polarized, post-truth, tribal era of politics that we find ourselves in, a book on conformity—how to understand it and take concrete steps toward diminishing it—should (rightfully) be expected to be of great interest to many. In Conformity: The Power of Social Influences, the prolific Cass R. Sunstein delivers exactly this. This book stands out from Sunstein’s other books in its focus on the broad societal implications of social influence. Sunstein grounds his argument in the principles underlying American democracy, and in doing so, he makes it difficult not to become depressed at how distant our current state of affairs seems from that ideal. However, Sunstein offers optimism in the form of a framework for actionable solutions. Sunstein begins with a model of the two major features of human psychology that he says reinforce conformity: (1) the tendency to believe something is true if others believe it is true (especially “confident” others) and (2) the desire for positive social standing and reputation. In Chapter 1, he explains how conformity is frequently harmful because it encourages individuals to suppress their “private signals” (that is, expressions of what they individually think is right or wrong), which decreases the diversity of ideas in a group and ultimately leads to undesirable outcomes. In Chapter 2, Sunstein advances beyond the framework he has traditionally worked within by considering cascades, or the spread of ideas and practices through conformity pressures, which ultimately give rise to social movements. He acknowledges that cascades are not necessarily “bad”—they are likely what led to the rise of the #MeToo movement—but they were also likely crucial to the propagation of genocide during the Holocaust.
Topic:
Book Review, Psychology, Political Science, and Polarization
Political Geography:
Global Focus

7. Polarization versus Democracy

Author:
Milan W. Svolik
Publication Date:
07-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Democracy
Institution:
National Endowment for Democracy
Abstract:
When can we realistically expect ordinary people to check the authoritarian ambitions of elected politicians? An answer to this question is key to understanding the most prominent development in the dynamic of democratic survival since the end of the Cold War: the subversion of democracy by elected incumbents and its emergence as the most common form of democratic breakdown. This article proposes an explanation according to which political polarization undermines the public’s ability to serve as a democratic check: In polarized electorates, voters are willing to trade off democratic principles for partisan interests. The article presents evidence that supports this claim; raises questions about the real-world relevance of conventional measures of support for democracy; and highlights the importance of understanding the role that ordinary people play in democratic backsliding.
Topic:
Authoritarianism, Elections, Democracy, and Polarization
Political Geography:
Global Focus