Search

Begin New Search Topic Authoritarianism Political Geography United States of America

1. Black Intergenerational Mobility, Libertarian Capitalism, and Authoritarian Government, 1877–1941: A Case Study

Author:
Patrick L. Mason
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), University of Massachusetts Amherst
Abstract:
There are persistent multigenerational Black-white gaps in occupational attainment. These racial differences in intergenerational mobility are not caused by differences in family values and behavior (Mason, 2007). For three decades, I have gathered evidence on my family’s intergenerational transition from enslavement to present social and economic circumstances. Charles and Susan Rollins were 32 and 29 years-old, respectively, as enslavement ended in 1865. During Reconstruction, they accumulated wealth, established a successful dairy and other farming, helped found a church and religious organizations, helped found multiple civic organizations, served on boards affiliated with the local university and high school, were elected to County and State public office, had savings and bank accounts for the entire family, and were leaders among an extensive social network. Jim Crow in the South and anti-black racism in the north stymied upward mobility for the Rollins family for the three generations after Charles and Susan, despite the fact that their descendants obtained greater education than their ancestors, displayed a willingness to relocate 100s of miles away from their home, possessed a culture of achievement (hard work, future orientation, married couple families, etc.), were blessed with exceptional social capital, and, perhaps, the relative advantage of being mulattoes.
Topic:
History, Authoritarianism, Capital, Libertarianism, and Social Mobility
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

2. Episode 01: Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics

Author:
Mark Lamont Hill and Mitchell Plitnick
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Center for Security, Race and Rights (CSRR), Rutgers University School of Law
Abstract:
Scholar Marc Lamont Hill and Israel-Palestine expert Mitchell Plitnick spotlight how holding fast to one-sided and unwaveringly pro-Israel policies reflects the truth-bending grip of authoritarianism on both Israel and the United States. 'Except for Palestine' deftly argues that progressives and liberals who oppose regressive policies on immigration, racial justice, gender equality, LGBTQ rights, and other issues must extend these core principles to the oppression of Palestinians.
Topic:
Human Rights, Politics, Authoritarianism, Inequality, LGBT+, Liberalism, Progressivism, Gender, Palestinians, and Racial Justice
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Palestine, North America, and United States of America

3. Tunisia at the Crossroads: What Role for the United States in a Multipolar World?

Author:
Ghazi Ben Ahmed
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
The United States, in recognizing the limits of its traditional “bloc-building” approach, faces the imperative to adapt to a multipolar reality. Embracing multipolarity as a fundamental principle of its foreign policy could pave the way for more flexible and effective international engagements. In today’s global landscape, the clear-cut divisions of the Cold War era have given way to a complex web of challenges and a multipolar world marked by competitive dynamics. This shift demands a nuanced approach from the United States, a move away from seeking dominance through large-scale coalitions against adversaries like China, since such strategies risk escalating tensions in a world that lacks the bipolar stability of the past. In this global reconfiguration, the role of “swing countries” like Tunisia gains unprecedented importance. In the midst of North Africa's political upheaval, countries like Tunisia stand at a critical crossroads, evaluating the merits of their longstanding alliances with Western nations against the enticing prospects of deepening relations with Eastern powers, particularly Russia and China. Against this backdrop, the United States has yet to articulate a definitive stance on engaging with nations such as Tunisia, where authoritarian tendencies are on the rise and anti-Western sentiments increasingly pronounced. This ambiguity raises important questions about Washington’s strategic approach in a region caught between historical affiliations and the lure of new partnerships.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Authoritarianism, Partnerships, and Multipolarity
Political Geography:
North Africa, North America, Tunisia, and United States of America

4. West and China Compete for Tech Influence in Arab Persian Gulf States

Author:
Sara Nowacka
Publication Date:
05-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Polish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
New technologies are an increasingly important element of the Sino-American rivalry in the Persian Gulf. China has become the preferred partner in this area due to, for example, the dominant role of government (vs. private) investment in the technology sector in both China and the Gulf states. The intensification of cooperation between the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and China in the field of new technologies may increase the influence of authoritarian states in setting technological standards.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Authoritarianism, Investment, Rivalry, and Gulf Cooperation Council
Political Geography:
China, Middle East, United States of America, and Gulf Nations

5. Authoritarian kleptocrats are thriving on the West’s failures. Can they be stopped?

Author:
Francis Shin and Ben Judah
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
A hidden web of power revealed itself to Internet users in early 2022. Following a brutal government crackdown in Kazakhstan in January, anyone using open-source flight-tracking websites could watch kleptocratic elites flee the country on private jets. A little more than a month later, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine brought a new spectacle: social media users were able to track various oligarchs’ superyachts as they jumped from port to port to evade Western sanctions. These feeds captured a national security problem in near real time: In Eurasia and beyond, kleptocratic elites with deep ties to the West were able to move themselves and their assets freely despite a host of speeches by senior officials, sanctions, and structures designed to stop them. Kleptocratic regimes—kleptocracy means “rule by thieves”—have exploited the lax and uneven regulatory environments of the global financial system to hide their ill-gotten gains and interfere in politics abroad, especially in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. They are aided in this task by a large cast of professional enablers within these jurisdictions. The stronger these forces get, the more they erode the principles of democracy and the rule of law. Furthermore, the international sanctions regime imposed on Russia in response to its invasion of Ukraine has little hope of long-term success if the global financial system itself continues to weaken. The West still has a long way to go to rein in the authoritarian kleptocrats who have thrived on the institutional dysfunction, regulatory failure, and bureaucratic weakness of the transatlantic community for far too long. We need to rethink not just how we combat kleptocracy, but also how we define it. Policy makers need to understand that authoritarian regimes that threaten transatlantic security are closely linked to illicit financial systems. As it stands, our thinking about how foreign corruption spreads is too constrained by stereotypes about kleptocratic goals and actions.
Topic:
Corruption, Diplomacy, Intelligence, Politics, Sanctions, Authoritarianism, Reform, European Union, Regulation, Finance, Economy, Rule of Law, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, United Kingdom, Europe, Ukraine, Canada, and United States of America

6. Europe’s Broken Order and the Prospect of a New Cold War

Author:
Kristi Raik and Eero Kristjan Sild
Publication Date:
10-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
International Centre for Defence and Security - ICDS
Abstract:
The Russian and western visions of European security have profoundly different ideational roots: balance of power embedded in realist geopolitics versus liberal rules-based order. Russia is a revisionist power aiming to re-establish a European security order based on the balance of power, including a recognition of its empire and sphere of influence. Russia’s aggressive pursuit of this vision has forced the West to defend the rules-based liberal order in Europe and beyond. This report analyses the main sources and implications of Russia’s discontent with the post-Cold War European security order, which eventually led to the invasion of Ukraine. The disagreements are likely to endure beyond the war in Ukraine, leading to a new Cold War. The paper identifies three scenarios for the future of the European security order, the most likely one being a dual order, with the liberal rules-based order further strengthened and enlarged among western countries including Ukraine, while Russia will hold on to its imperialist ambitions but being forced to accept a much more limited sphere of influence than the former Soviet or tsarist empires. As long as the worldview that underlies Russia’s foreign policy does not change, any new balance of power will be temporary and under threat of renewed aggression once Russia has regained strength. In order to make it more sustainable, the West will need to eliminate grey zones, ensure credible deterrence and defence, and consistently weaken Russia’s ability to rebuild its military might.
Topic:
Security, NATO, Cold War, Authoritarianism, European Union, Democracy, Geopolitics, Deterrence, and Soviet Union
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Europe, Ukraine, North America, and United States of America

7. Enemies Foreign and Domestic: Confronting Kleptocrats at Home and Abroad

Author:
Kelly M. McFarland
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University
Abstract:
As Putin and his kleptocratic regime of oligarchs wage a devastating war in Ukraine, the costs of corruption have never been so starkly visible. Beyond Russia, recent examples of corruption in China, Afghanistan, the Northern Triangle, the Solomon Islands, and elsewhere, prove that rampant corruption poses a significant threat to aspirations for a greener, healthier, more peaceful, and more democratic world. Countries such as Russia and China have elevated their brand of corruption into a distinct and powerful aspect of their foreign policy. They employ this strategic corruption abroad to stunt economic growth; prop-up fellow authoritarian regimes; exacerbate social inequality; erase political trust; accelerate pandemics and degrade healthcare systems; exploit the environment; and propel state oppression. As U.S. policymakers seek to counter this strategic corruption, they must first recognize the extent to which domestic laws and actors within the United States enable this corruption to fester. In the fall of 2021 and spring of 2022, ISD convened a series of New Global Commons working group meetings with participants drawn from academia, think tanks, government, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector. The group crafted workable definitions of corruption, evaluated the unique political and related threats posed by corruption and kleptocracy, assessed Russia and China’s use of strategic corruption, and developed principles and recommendations for government and non-government entities to build a global, sustained, anti-corruption response.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Corruption, Diplomacy, Authoritarianism, and Kleptocracy
Political Geography:
Russia, China, North America, and United States of America

8. The American Invasion and Authoritarianism

Author:
Joseph Sassoon
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Contemporary Arab Studies (CCAS)
Abstract:
Professor Joseph Sassoon discusses the durability of authoritarianism and the decline of American predominance in the years following the Iraq War. The American invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not an isolated episode—as interventions by superpowers, have been a recurring feature in the contemporary history of the Middle East and its authoritarian trajectories. Even so, the American invasion stands out in terms of its scale and the reach of its aftermath. The events of 2003 have influenced Arab regimes and societies far more than other wars or softer forms of global involvement—and in ways that remain more distinct today. The fallout and lingering effects of the American invasion included regional polarizations, securitization, sectarian/ethnic manipulation, transferred counterinsurgency practices, and the expansion of carceral systems. Although Middle Eastern regimes varied in their capacity to translate their learning in the face of social and geopolitical pressures, these fallouts found unique expression in the “rogue states” that were targets of American democratization campaigns and played a key role in autocratic revival and well-being post-2011.
Topic:
Authoritarianism, Iraq War, and Invasion
Political Geography:
Iraq, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

9. Examining U.S. Relations With Authoritarian Countries

Author:
Thomas Carothers and Benjamin Feldman
Publication Date:
12-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
Although U.S. President Joe Biden and his senior advisers have cast their foreign policy in terms of a global struggle between democracies and autocracies, they have pursued close relations with various authoritarian regimes in different parts of the world, including recent efforts to strengthen ties with Saudi Arabia and Vietnam. Many people in U.S. policy circles debate the wisdom of the administration’s trade-offs between its stated interest in supporting democracy globally versus countervailing interests that lead it to maintain close ties with some autocrats. But these debates are often confined to a few high-profile cases and rarely draw from a broader understanding of the overall landscape of U.S. relations with authoritarian regimes and the trajectory of such relations across recent decades. This paper seeks to provide such an understanding. Instead of justifying or vilifying U.S. efforts to get along with many authoritarian countries, this paper aims to anchor these debates in a stronger understanding of the ongoing realities of U.S. relations with these countries. It begins with an overview of U.S. relations with authoritarian countries from the presidency of Jimmy Carter through that of Donald Trump. This overview highlights the long pattern of a U.S. approach that is sharply divided between antagonistic relations with some autocratic regimes and a warm embrace of others, while noting some changes across administrations caused by evolving geopolitical paradigms and presidents’ differing personal predilections. The paper then draws on in-depth case research of U.S. relations with nearly sixty undemocratic countries—including their bilateral security ties, economic relations, and diplomatic contacts—to classify the relationships into four categories: 1) close partnerships, 2) adversarial relationships, 3) cooperative relations, and 4) cold, though not actively adversarial, relations. Through the analysis of these categories, the paper highlights the drivers and factors that shape the relationships in question. The United States funds democracy-related assistance programs directed at most undemocratic countries, and the paper analyzes the overall patterns of this aid. It examines both official U.S. democracy assistance and assistance from the National Endowment for Democracy, focusing on the differing amounts and types of aid directed toward countries in the four different categories. The paper reaches three overarching conclusions. First, Biden’s policy with regard to authoritarian countries represents, on the whole, more continuity with than change from most previous U.S. presidents, reflecting deep structures of interest that have shaped U.S. relations with these countries for decades. While the number of friendly and cooperative ties the United States maintains with undemocratic countries has remained relatively constant in recent years, the number and intensity of adversarial and cold relations are growing, primarily as a result of the heightened geostrategic competition between the United States and its allies on the one hand and China and Russia and their allies on the other. Second, security issues are the dominant driver of U.S. relations with authoritarian countries—for both positive and negative relations—and span a wide range of security concerns, including competition with China and Russia, terrorism, and regional instability. Economic interests—such as energy investments, critical minerals, arms sales, or ensuring U.S. market access—do play a role in spurring positive U.S. relations with some authoritarian states, but overall are far less important than security concerns. Democracy and human rights, or more specifically, problems with democracy and human rights, also shape U.S. relations with authoritarian countries but in complex and highly varied ways; they are a backburner issue in some cases, while they loom large in others. Third, the trends going forward appear to be mixed. With U.S.-China and U.S.-Russia tensions continuing to escalate, the United States will have more reasons to put aside its concerns about democracy and human rights in some authoritarian countries as it tries to convince them to move closer to its camp. It will also be motivated to turn a cold shoulder to other countries that align themselves with its rivals. Certain economic imperatives, such as the push to de-risk global supply chains and ensure access to critical minerals, will also create new incentives for friendlier ties with some authoritarian countries.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Authoritarianism, Democracy, and Strategic Competition
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

10. Supporting Russian Civil Society: A Report of the Transatlantic Forum on Russia

Author:
Andrea Kendall-Taylor and Maria Snegovaya
Publication Date:
12-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
Since Russia re-invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022, repression inside Russia has worsened. The trend toward greater repression predates Moscow’s unprovoked invasion. The Kremlin had already increased its crackdown on all facets of Russian civil society, including targeting journalists and political opposition and tightening the country’s information environment ahead of its parliamentary election in September 2021. Since the invasion, the Kremlin has intensified its repressive efforts to shut down the possibility of dissent and insulate its hold on power from any blowback from the war. Experience from authoritarian regimes like Putin’s Russia suggests that high levels of repression are here to stay as long as Putin remains in power—authoritarian regimes are unlikely to walk back repression for fear that doing so would indicate regime weakness and embolden activists who advocate for political change. Rising repression inside Russia created immediate risks to journalists, activists, and other Russians who support a freer and more democratic Russia (as well as to their families). In the longer term, it also creates a potential barrier to a less confrontational relationship with a post-Putin Russia. As repression has risen, the Kremlin has doubled down on anti–United States and anti-Western rhetoric and shut down opportunities for exchanges between Russian scientists and academics and their Western counterparts. The Kremlin’s propagation of anti-Western messages and the lack of exchange between Russians and the West—exacerbated by a loss of economic ties amid Western sanctions—engender mistrust and misunderstanding, creating a long-term barrier to a less confrontational relationship. Steps to deny Russian tourists visas and other forms of collective punishment, while understandable, have the potential to sour Russian attitudes toward the West, hurting the prospects for any future improvement in relations with a post-Putin Russia. This policy brief identifies how the United States and Europe together can continue to support Russian civil society despite the dismal state of relations with Russia. It outlines the state of play of the Kremlin’s crackdown on Russian civil society, U.S. and European responses to date, shared interests in coordinated support, and recommendations for what the transatlantic community can do to support Russian civil society in this new era of relations with Russia. Given the barriers to supporting activists inside Russia, this memo’s recommendations focus on assistance to those Russians who have left the country.
Topic:
Civil Society, Authoritarianism, Transatlantic Relations, Exile, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Eurasia, and United States of America