Search

Begin New Search Topic Transparency Political Geography United States of America

11. The Fall of Chile

Author:
Axel Kaiser
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Cato Journal
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
Following the failed Marxist experiment of Chilean President Salvador Allende, a free‐​market revolution led by the so‐​called Chicago Boys in the 1970s and 1980s created the conditions necessary for the country to experience an “economic miracle” that captured worldwide attention.1 As Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker (1997) put it, Chile became “an economic role model for the whole underdeveloped world.” This performance, said Becker, “became still more impressive when the government was transformed into a democracy.” Along the same lines, Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman argued that the reforms introduced by the Chicago Boys “proved highly successful and were preserved intact when Chile finally returned to democracy in 1989” (Krugman 2008: 31). Indeed, from 1990 to 2010 a left‐​wing coalition called “Concertación” came to power. Despite having been comprised of opponents to the military dictatorship and by many former members of Salvador Allende’s government, Concertación kept in place the foundations of the free‐​market system. A pragmatic view prevailed, leading to the recognition and adoption of the economic legacy of the Pinochet years.
Topic:
Economics, Reform, Neoliberalism, Ideology, Crisis Management, Transparency, and Free Market
Political Geography:
South America, Chile, and United States of America

12. Looking Back, Moving Forward: Public Diplomacy at 20

Author:
Wes Jeffers and Katherine Tarr
Publication Date:
09-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Ambassadors Review
Institution:
Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:
October 1, 2019, marks the 20th anniversary of the consolidation of the United States Information Agency (USIA) into the U.S. Department of State. USIA, formerly known as the United States Information Service (USIS) overseas, previously oversaw all public diplomacy functions for the U.S. Government from 1953 to 1999. We all know the story after that: USIA was folded into the U.S. Department of State, creating the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (R) and making public diplomacy one of the five cones of the Foreign Service. Opinions remain divided about this decision, but the core objective of U.S. public diplomacy has remained the same: Public diplomacy “seeks to promote the national interest and national security of the United States through understanding, informing, and influencing foreign publics and broadening dialogue between American citizens and institutions and their counterparts abroad.” However, in the Foreign Service of today, we are still facing some significant challenges to the landscape of public diplomacy—some old and some new. There’s been no full-time R for 17 months and counting, and educational and cultural programming budgets are annually at risk. The Office of Policy, Planning, and Resources for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (R/PPR) is undertaking a massive effort to overhaul public diplomacy portfolios around the world and, thus, to overhaul the very structure of Public Affairs Sections overseas. The new Bureau of Global Public Affairs combines the skills of the former Bureau of International Information Programs and Bureau of Public Affairs to modernize the way we communicate to domestic and foreign audiences. Despite all of this change, one fact remains constant: if we want foreign policy to be effective, we (the U.S. Department of State) must effectively communicate with a variety of audiences through programs and media, as well as continue to invest in future global leaders. This means public diplomacy must be seamlessly integrated into foreign policy formation and implementation. All Foreign Service officers must have the same basic understanding of public diplomacy as they have of writing cables. This also means that public diplomacy must be both championed and defended by a strong leader who can easily communicate with colleagues in the Department of State, the Secretary of State, Congress and the White House. After 20 years, we have indeed come a long way. Where are we now? Where do we want to be in the next 20 years?
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Communications, and Transparency
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

13. Defense Transparency Index 2019

Author:
IGCC
Publication Date:
12-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC)
Abstract:
In an increasingly volatile world, mutual trust and confidence among defense establishments is critical. Growing arms competition and security anxiety in Northeast Asia, one of the most strategically important but politically volatile regions of the world, is increasing the demand for defense information, not only from governments and militaries but also from businesses, the media, and concerned citizens. The Defense Transparency Index (DTI), a project of the University of California’s Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, ranks six countries on their efforts to promote transparency in defense and national security. Included in the Index are the People’s Republic of China, Japan, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), and the Republic of Korea, along with the external major powers most involved in the region—the United States and Russia. What constitutes “defense transparency” is contested, and there is a lack of agreed-upon definitions and standardized means of measurement. The DTI addresses this gap by providing a framework for defining and measuring defense transparency. We rank countries across eight indicators to come up with overall rankings and for each country, providing a rigorous measurement of this essential but contested concept. Countries score well for budgetary disclosures, issuance of defense white papers, and being transparent on their military capabilities. The DTI is presented at the annual Northeast Asia Cooperation Dialogue (NEACD), a multilateral forum for track-two diplomacy. NEACD, which was founded by Susan Shirk, seeks to reduce the risk of military conflict in the region and to lay the groundwork for an official multilateral process in Northeast Asia by providing a regular channel of informal communication among the six governments.
Topic:
Defense Policy, International Cooperation, and Transparency
Political Geography:
Russia, Japan, China, South Korea, North Korea, and United States of America

14. Human Cost of the Post-9/11 Wars: Lethality and the Need for Transparency

Author:
Neta C. Crawford
Publication Date:
11-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University
Abstract:
All told, between 480,000 and 507,000 people have been killed in the United States’ post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. This tally of the counts and estimates of direct deaths caused by war violence does not include the more than 500,000 deaths from the war in Syria, raging since 2011, which the US joined in August 2014.
Topic:
War, Conflict, 9/11, War on Terror, Statistics, Transparency, and Iraq War
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, South Asia, Central Asia, Middle East, and United States of America

15. The Costs of War: Obstacles to Public Understanding

Author:
Steven Aftergood
Publication Date:
11-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University
Abstract:
Public access to information about government spending is presumed – and required – by the US Constitution, which directs that “a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time” (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7). It is remarkable that, among all of the many categories of government information, budget information is singled out for publication in this way. The ability of the public to “follow the money” expended by its government is understood to be an essential prerequisite to self-rule. Budget data that are secret, unreliable, or otherwise unavailable are incompatible with constitutional democracy. In practice, however, public access to budget information is imperfect and incomplete. In the crucial area of national defense, the scale of spending alone makes it hard to grasp. Public understanding of the costs of war is further limited by secrecy, faulty accounting, and the deferral of current costs.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Government, National Security, Military Spending, and Transparency
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

16. 2013-14 IGCC White Paper on Defense Transparency in Northeast Asia

Author:
Tai Ming Cheung and Jordan Wilson
Publication Date:
11-2014
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC)
Abstract:
The 2013‒2014 Northeast Asia Defense Transparency Index (DTI) measures transparency in de-fense activities in one of the most strategically important but politically volatile regions of the world. In the fifth year of this Index, its central goal remains to provide a rigorous, quantitative-based measurement of this essential but contested concept. Improving trust, confidence, and credibility in Northeast Asia’s security environment is becoming ever more pressing as arms competition intensifies among major regional powers and security interests become increasingly entangled. In this climate of growing security anxiety, the demand for timely and relevant defense information has grown, not only from governments and their mil-itaries but also from many other quarters, including the general public, media, and business com-munity. But while the case has been made by policy and academic experts that increased transpar-ency could potentially meet some of these demands and strengthen mutual trust between states, defense transparency lacks agreed-upon definitions and standardized means of measurement. The Institute on Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC) has sought to address this analytical gap to provide a general framework for defining and measuring defense transparency, specifically for the six states covered in the DTI: the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), Japan, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the Republic of Korea (ROK), the Russian Federation (Russia), and the United States.The brief begins by presenting the methodology used by IGCC to initially develop the DTI, then highlights changes made to improve the process in this latest edition. This is followed by the final scores achieved by states in the 2013–2014 DTI, which are compared with previous years. The Analysis section examines what brought about scoring changes for these states from the previous editions of the index. Finally, the Country Assessments and Recommendations section summarizes trends for each of the six countries. By taking a comprehensive approach to defense transparency and continuing to refine our meth-odology, we want to ensure that the DTI will remain an informative, relevant and adaptive tool for measuring defense transparency going forward, enabling comparison both across states and over time.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Budget, Cybersecurity, Media, and Transparency
Political Geography:
Russia, Japan, China, Korea, and United States of America

17. Counter A2/AD in Japan – U.S. Defense Cooperation: Toward ‘Allied Air-Sea Battle’

Author:
Sugio Takahashi
Publication Date:
04-2012
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Project 2049 Institute
Abstract:
The balance of power in the Asia – Pacific is rapidly shifting. The U.S. and Japan share concerns over China’s increasing military spending and lack of military transparency. This report analyzes the implications of Japan’s National Defense Policy Guidelines 2010 for Japan’s role in the Pacific and for the future of U.S. – Japan defense cooperation.
Topic:
Defense Policy, International Cooperation, Military Spending, and Transparency
Political Geography:
Japan, Asia, North America, and United States of America