Search

Begin New Search Topic Governance Political Geography United States of America

51. Transatlantic Paralysis: The US-EU Trade Policy Stalemate and the European Union’s Democratic Deficit

Author:
Thomas J. Duesterberg
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
What is often labeled the democratic deficit in governance of the European Union (EU) is not a a flaw or bug in its architecture, it is a design feature. From its earliest days in the Second World War’s chaotic aftermath, European integration “was essentially an elite project, pursued at a distance from the daily concerns of the national populations in Western Europe.” Also formed as a response to the economic disintegration following the Depression and World War Two, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was similarly removed from national or populist politics. It too was an elite, top-down initiative designed to embed nations in a system of international rules largely articulated by technical experts, enforced by a form of international courts, and far removed from national and populist politics. Many of the intellectual proponents of both supranational institutions, from the Austrian School of economics, the ordoliberals emerging in early-20th century Germany, to the London School of Economics indeed shared a distrust of American-style democracy, let alone the various parliamentary democracies whose failure led to the disasters of the 1930s and 1940s. Over the last fifty years, the institutions put in place after World War II have been perfected and have, to a certain extent, ossified. Many of the difficulties in achieving greater US-EU economic coordination in the 21st century have their origins in the institutional design and the subsequent early implementation of early European Community rules during the post-war period. A brief overview of the history of European integration, and the political thinking behind it, helps explain the current paralysis in contemporary transatlantic cooperation, including in a joint approach to the challenge of Chinese mercantilism and its growing international reach.
Topic:
Economics, Governance, Democracy, Trade, and Transatlantic Relations
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

52. The Future of the Digital Order

Author:
Jeff Cirillo, Sarah Curtis, Joshua Fitt, Kara Frederick, Coby Goldberg, Ilan Goldenberg, Andrea Kendall-Taylor, Megan Lamberth, Martijn Rasser, and Dania Torres
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
Nations that successfully harness the vast economic, political, and societal power of emerging information and communications technologies will shape the future of the global digital order. This future is not set in stone. A digital order defined by liberal democratic values requires U.S. leadership and the cooperation of trusted like-minded partners. In the absence of democratic leadership, autocratic rivals of the United States can fill that void—exploiting the control of information, surveillance technologies, and standards for technology governance to promote a digital ecosystem that entrenches and expands their authoritarian practices. In exploring how a closed, illiberal order is taking root in strategic regions around the world, this report offers recommendations for how to craft, promote, and preserve a more open and democratic alternative. An assessment of crosscutting trends between China, Russia, and the Middle East across three pillars—information control, surveillance, and technology governance—leads us to the following conclusions: China is the prime mover in shaping the evolving digital order in its favor. Beijing’s use of technologies such as facial recognition software and telecommunications networks allows the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to expand control over its citizens. The CCP’s ability to promote and export this model of digital repression, in turn, gives like-minded, nondemocratic governments a roadmap for how to deploy digital technologies for control and abuse in their own countries. Russia’s model of digital authoritarianism, while technologically less sophisticated than China’s, could prove to be more readily adaptable and enduring for current and aspiring autocrats. Regional powers such as Belarus, Azerbaijan, and some Central Asian states have already incorporated elements of this model. In the Middle East, authoritarian leaders use digital tools to control internal populations by sabotaging and spying on citizens, and this contributes to the construction of an illiberal digital order that is beneficial to America’s peer competitors—China and Russia. These conclusions reveal four key trends with implications for the future of the digital order: Growing China-Russia alignment will generate dangerous digital synergies, such as (1) making digital autocracy accessible for a broader swath of states; (2) accelerating China’s and Russia’s digital innovation; (3) eroding liberal norms in international institutions; and (4) raising the prospects of a “splinternet,” a fragmenting of the internet along nationalistic, political, technological, religious, or ethnic lines. Countries around the world, particularly autocratic regimes and those flirting with illiberalism, will seek to regulate online communications platforms through (1) social media; (2) data localization laws; and (3) instigating company self-censorship, which restricts free speech and increases online control. Illiberal regimes will seek out Chinese technology to help them control social movements and civil protests. U.S. nondemocratic partners, adversaries, and even some democratic partners justify their pursuit of Chinese technology by underscoring ways the adopted technologies will contribute to economic growth, social stability, and efforts to fight crime and terrorism. The practices of illiberal regimes will reduce the efficacy of U.S. mitigation practices. Russia and China’s efforts to promote an illiberal digital order complement one another and could accelerate innovation between the two nations. The United States must craft a policy response that considers these emerging patterns and incorporates more than its usual partners in Europe and the Indo-Pacific. Shoring up the existing coalition of democratic actors to counter these illiberal trends will likely not be sufficient. This report offers recommendations that the United States can implement on three fronts: at home, while engaging with traditional U.S. democratic as well as nondemocratic partners, and when countering U.S. adversaries such as China, Russia, and Iran. The United States must take a leadership role, recognizing that the future digital order is at stake.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Governance, Authoritarianism, Leadership, Surveillance, and Digitalization
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

53. Enabling US Government Participation in Pull Mechanisms for Social Impact Innovation: A Survey of Federal Authorities, Budgetary Barriers, and Potential Solutions

Author:
Steven Kosiak and Rachel Silverman
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
United States government support for scientific and technological research and development (R&D)—across sectors including but not limited to energy, agriculture, and health—has the potential to save lives, reduce global poverty, and help address the most pressing global challenges. Traditionally, the US government has funded most R&D via grants and contracts (“push” funding), directly subsidizing and defraying the up-front R&D costs. An alternative approach—“pull” funding—would use the promise of future sales and/or other revenue to indirectly justify up-front expenditures in R&D, thereby “pulling” innovations to market. Despite several theoretical and practical advantages of “pull” funding, US government use of this approach has thus far been limited, in part due to regulatory and legal barriers. Yet across the entirety of the US government, there are nonetheless creative and interesting approaches to support innovation which include pull elements. To help the US government make broader use of pull approaches, this policy paper surveys the ways in which US government authorities, budgetary rules, and procurement approaches either facilitate or constrain use of pull mechanisms to support R&D. It specifically focused on the budgetary “scoring” issues that can affect, and sometimes hinder, the use of such mechanisms. It concludes with a discussion of potential legislative changes and workarounds to budgetary scoring challenges that might facilitate expanded use of these mechanisms.
Topic:
Governance, Budget, Innovation, and Research and Development
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

54. A Review of the 2X Women’s Initiative: Recommendations for the Biden-Harris Administration

Author:
Megan O'Donnell and Jocilyn Estes
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
Amidst an economic crisis disproportionately impacting women in low- and middle income countries, the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) is well positioned to prioritize the promotion of gender equality through its investment portfolio and in turn contribute to an inclusive recovery. This policy paper reviews the extent to which DFC (and its predecessor, OPIC) have focused on the promotion of women’s economic empowerment and broader gender equality to date, particularly through the 2X Women’s Initiative. Using project data from the DFC project database and mobile application, as well as consultations with the DFC 2X team, we compile all 2X projects and analyze key trends across sector, geography, financial tool and intermediary. The paper also reviews the initiative’s contributions to accelerated momentum in gender lens investing across development finance institutions through the 2X Challenge. After highlighting strengths of DFC’s gender lens investing approach, as well as gaps and areas of opportunity, we make recommendations for how DFC under the Biden-Harris administration can both build on DFC’s early progress to improve gender integration in external lending, technical assistance, advisory services, and its internal policies and practices – as well as increase the ambition of its gender targets and its focus on transparency and results.
Topic:
Governance, Women, Leadership, and Gender
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

55. China’s Influence in Southeastern, Central, and Eastern Europe: Vulnerabilities and Resilience in Four Countries

Author:
Erik Brattberg, Philippe Le Corre, Paul Stronski, and Thomas de Waal
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
China’s presence has brought socioeconomic opportunities to Georgia, Greece, Hungary, and Romania. Yet it has exacerbated governance shortfalls, undermined elements of political and economic stability, and complicated the European Union’s ability to reach consensus on key issues.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Governance, European Union, Political stability, Resilience, and Economic Stability
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Greece, Romania, Hungary, Georgia, and United States of America

56. Does the Biden Administration Have Time for Foreign Policy?

Author:
Basant Samhout
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Cairo Review of Global Affairs
Institution:
School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo
Abstract:
As the United States moves back to a more traditional presidency, the world questions the new administration’s ability, much less willingness, to take a leading role in world politics amid more demanding issues at home
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Governance, Hegemony, Leadership, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

57. Health Data Governance: Lessons Learned from the COVID-19 Pandemic in Europe, China, and the United States

Author:
Clément Tonon and Julie Martinez
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:
The health crisis has triggered a tectonic movement in the recomposition of health data governance and protection models around the world, while accelerating the investment of large digital companies in the field of e-health. The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the shortcomings of pre-existing governance models in every region of the world and the need to move towards a model of public health crisis management "through health data". For Europe and for France in particular, the health crisis has revealed a long "technological innocence". Despite a strategic awakening, questions remain about the ability of Europeans to cooperate effectively and move towards a common digital space in health. In the United States, the pandemic has created tensions around the health data governance model – particularly on the articulation between the federal government and state authorities. Changes are announced by President Joe Biden, which tend towards a model of global regulation of personal data. In China, the pandemic has accelerated the transition to a model of surveillance capitalism which could lead in the short term to a new power struggle between the regime and the Chinese digital giants. Finally, the COVID-19 crisis has accelerated the rise of digital companies, which are now positioning themselves on the entire value chain of health data, from its raw collection via connected objects to its mass processing for insurance purposes. They now have all the levers in hand to economically value this massive data with the help of artificial intelligence.
Topic:
Health, Governance, Geopolitics, Data, COVID-19, and Digital Policy
Political Geography:
China, Europe, and United States of America

58. Starr Forum: The Outlier: The Unfinished Presidency of Jimmy Carter

Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
Jimmy Carter’s one-term presidency is often labeled a failure; indeed, many Americans view Carter as the only ex-president to have used the White House as a stepping-stone to greater achievements. But in retrospect the Carter political odyssey is a rich and human story, marked by both formidable accomplishments and painful political adversity. In this deeply researched, brilliantly written account, Kai Bird expertly unfolds the Carter saga as a tragic tipping point in American history. Drawing on interviews with Carter and members of his administration and recently declassified documents on Israel, the Iranian revolution and the 1980 October Surprise, Bird delivers a profound, clear-eyed evaluation of a leader whose legacy has been deeply misunderstood.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Governance, Leadership, and Conflict
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

59. Coronavirus Relief Fund: Review of Federal Fiscal Assistance and of Innovative County Response Strategies

Author:
Richard Callahan, Lisa Gordon, and Christopher Morrill
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA)
Abstract:
The United States began to experience impact from the global COVID-19 outbreak in late January 2020. States, counties, and localities were almost immediately affected, and faced unprecedented challenges in providing services to meet the urgent needs of their communities. Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2020 in late March, providing over $2 trillion to help cover the needs of affected individuals, families, and businesses. The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) – part of the CARES Act – provided direct assistance to state, local, and tribal governments, and designated $150 billion for counties with populations of more than 500,000. The National Association of Counties (NACo) asked the National Academy of Public Administration (the Academy) to evaluate how well the CRF funding supported counties in addressing the pandemic and to review the effectiveness of the CRF federal aid package and its implementation. Additionally, they asked the Academy to identify and document innovative strategies employed by six specific counties using CRF funds and to highlight their approaches to address social equity. With the guidance of an Expert Advisory Group (EAG) of Academy Fellows, the Academy’s report presents findings and recommendations that can improve both current and future federal-to-local programs such as the CRF. It also highlights how these innovative counties responded to the challenges their residents faced as a result of COVID-19—examples that could be used by other counties in similar circumstances. I deeply appreciate our EAG members who contributed valuable insights and expertise throughout the project and the Academy Study Team that delivered focused research and analysis. The constructive engagement of NACo employees, as well as current and former federal officials and our broader community of Academy Fellows who have special expertise in intergovernmental relations and operations, was equally vital. They provided important knowledge and context that informed this report. We also owe special thanks to the administrators and leaders of the six counties – Cook County, Illinois; Franklin County, Ohio; Hennepin County, Minnesota; Lee County, Florida; New Castle County, Delaware; and Pierce County, Washington – who took time out of their demanding schedules while addressing the ongoing effects of the pandemic to provide information to us about their challenges and initiatives. This report provides information to federal policy makers on how they can better address the lasting effects of the pandemic and enhance relationships between the multiple levels of government in the United States. I trust that this report also will be useful to NACo as it continues to represent and support its constituents and that the county examples herein will be especially helpful to others facing similar challenges.
Topic:
Governance, Local, Pandemic, COVID-19, and Funding
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

60. The Great Illusion: Foreign Policy Advocacy and the Problem of Knowledge

Author:
Claes G. Ryn
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Humanitas
Institution:
The Center for the Study of Statesmanship, Catholic University
Abstract:
An odd-sounding title? Bewildering, no doubt, to foreign-policy scholars and activists used to the nomenclature and intellectual emphases of their fields and subfields. But life defies academic and professional boundaries, as does the subject of this article. The following inter-disciplinary examination of a dubious but common notion of persuasion could not be more germane to the study of foreign policy, and yet the problem in question is not being addressed by those most directly concerned. This article will, after introducing the topic of advocacy—specifically, in an area of foreign affairs—give reasons why a widely shared understanding of knowledge and persuasion needs to be reconsidered. If we use measures of quantity and financial expenditure, a very large and important role is being played in American public life by intellectual activism intended to influence public debate and government policy. The vast array of advocacy organizations in the nation’s capital is merely the tip of an iceberg. Enormous sums are spent in what may be called the persuasion or advocacy business. Funders act on the assumption that target audiences can be affected through position papers, policy studies, public events, op-eds, and similar agitation.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Governance, and Advocacy
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America