WP Projects

Sub-Project 1: Preventive War and Human Rights (Buchanan and Keohane)

 This sub-project is complete. Professors Buchanan and Keohane published the results “The Preventive Use of Force:  A Cosmopolitan Institutional Proposal,” in Ethics and International Affairs, vol. 18, no. 1 (January 2004): 1-22.  The Carnegie Council for International Affairs held a special seminar at which they presented the paper, January 29, 2004.  They gave talks on this theme at a number of law schools, including Columbia, Duke, University of San Diego, University of Southern California, University of Sydney, UCLA, and at the Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton, and the Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke.  Op-eds based on their work have appeared in the Financial Times (London) March 31, 2003, and Newsday, March 30, 2004.

Professors Buchanan and Keohane continue to work on how cosmopolitan institutions for accountability could be created in world politics, and intend to publish further articles, or perhaps a book, on this subject.

Sub-Project 2: Casualties and Public Support for Military Operations (Feaver, Gelpi, and Reifler)

At the start of this project (summer 2003) the principal investigators developed a survey instrument designed to probe public attitudes to the human costs of war.  They hired the Parker Group to administer a large national telephone survey (N=1203) of public opinion on casualties and military operations in October 2003. Based on policymakers’ responses to their findings, they decided that they needed to collect more data focused directly on how the American public defines and measures “success” in Iraq.  To that end they conducted a series of polls so that they could see how these results moved in response to unfolding events in Iraq.   Knowledge Networks conducted additional waves of polling on their behalf from the beginning of February to the end of April 2004.  Professors Feaver and Gelpi continued to collect public opinion data through the end of the original grant period, culminating in a major survey coterminous with the 2004 election and serving as a “book-end” to their October 2003 survey.

Professors Feaver and Gelpi were highly successful in their efforts to disseminate their findings and analysis to the policy community. In November 2003, they briefed key senior policy audiences at the White House, the Department of Defense, and the State Department, on preliminary findings of our survey.  A story on this project ran in the Washington Post on November 16, 2003. They were quoted extensively in subsequent news accounts.  During the course of 2004, they averaged several hours of media availabilities per week, chiefly with print reporters but also numerous live or taped radio and TV interviews, including National Public Radio and the Lehrer News Hour. They continued to brief senior Administration officials on their survey findings in the second year of the project, and, in keeping with their non-partisan intent, had repeated interactions with both the Bush and Kerry campaigns; in toto, they gave nearly 20 separate briefings to policymakers and policy advisors in Washington, DC. in 2004.

They also have given well over a dozen academic talks based on this research.  They also published an op-ed (“Iraq Messages Need Honing,” Newsday, 23 September 2004), and have lost count (roughly 100) of the interviews given to news media about the research.  The Casualties Conference (see above) further disseminated their ideas within the academic community and should promote new collaborative research.

Together with Jason Reifler, they have completed a a book-length manuscript that will be published by Princeton Press in 2008:  Paying the Human Costs of War: Casualties and Public Support for Military Operations. An article version of one of the chapters was published in  International Security (Winter 2005/06).  A separate article looking at the link between casualties and the 2004 electoral outcome was published in Political Behavior in Summer 207. Already their research has sparked considerable debate, featured in Foreign Affairs, a 2006 issue of International Security, and with other similar exchanges under consideration at other journals. The book produced by this grant will be one of the definitive statements on U.S. public opinion on U.S. combat casualties, but it opens up many new questions about the intersection between their findings and new work in these parallel and intersecting areas. Moreover, as previously noted, Feaver’s role in the White House has led some to see direct linkages between the research and Bush Administration policy, particularly the President’s emphasis on the importance and probability of seeing the Iraq conflict through to a successful outcome.

 Sub Project 3: International Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy (Holsti)

                         

During the summer and fall of 2003, Ole Holsti reviewed and analyzed the extensive body of polling data on global attitudes towards American foreign policy.  The first report on this research was a 104-page manuscript that was then revised in light of the useful comments and suggestions received at the February 2004 project workshop.   Revisions included added data from several international surveys that have been undertaken since the workshop.  A brief overview of some findings was published as an op-ed article in the Durham [NC] Herald Sun on February 22, 2004.  The next draft of the manuscript was presented at the American Political Science Association annual conference in September 2004.

An expanded version of the findings has been incorporated into a manuscript. The book focuses not only on survey data, which at present indicate increasingly critical views of the U.S. abroad, but also on the policy implications of the findings. It is under contract at University of Michigan Press. The project was temporarily halted during academic year 2005-6 due to medical illness and death in Professor Holsti’s immediate family. However, Holsti has subsequently finished the d manuscript.  The book, To See Ourselves as Others See Us: How Publics Abroad View the U.S., is under contract at Michigan Press.

Sub-Project 4: Economic Liberalization and Ethnic Conflict (Wilkinson)

 

During the summer and fall of 2003, Professor Wilkinson conducted an extensive review of the literature on liberalization and social conflict.  He identified and collected the key international data sources on economic liberalization and growth, democratization, institutional capacity, social welfare and conflict and identified new questions. Thereafter he finalized his collection of data, traveled overseas to conduct interviews, identified future sources for fieldwork, and prepared his initial fieldwork. Professor Wilkinson continued to refine and improve this data base over the course of the next two years and it is now nearly complete. This data base constitutes one of the most significant contributions to this project. It is based on several thousand hours of coding colonial reports, articles and books in several languages and represents the first comprehensive effort to measure the colonial impact on development and ethnic conflict.  In contrast to existing databases that only measure such limited items as whether one colonial power or another was in charge of a state (and often collected for only a subset of states), this database contains over thirty different measures of political and administrative development as well as the level of a state’s “ethnic imbalance.”  The database covers 248 countries/units, including 185 colonies and former colonies and will be the definitive database on this topic for years to come.

Over the course of the last few years, Professor Wilkinson has presented his work in a variety of academic settings.  In the last 14 months alone he has given well-received talks at Stanford, Harvard, Columbia, MIT, OSU and Chicago and he has been invited to give talks next year at Illinois and UCLA. In connection with the broader research that lies behind this project, he also participated in a December 2003 State Department conference co-sponsored by Carnegie and designed to serve as a briefing for the new US ambassador to India.  In May 2004, he attended a similar workshop co-sponsored by Pew and the State Dept’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research.

In addition to the database (nearly complete as of June 2006) the other chief product from this sub-project will be a major academic book. As an early stage of his research, Professor Wilkinson identified two factors that were clearly relevant to understanding where and when ethnic conflicts broke out but that had not received adequate treatment in the existing political science or economics data: 1) the role of colonial institutional inheritances from colonial rule, and 2) the role of specific conflict management institutions.  His book will focus on how the interaction of economic liberalization, institutional inheritances and conflict management institutions helps explain cross-national variations in conflict.  Cambridge University Press’ Comparative Politics Series (probably regarded as the best comparative politics series in the discipline at the moment) has indicated that they want to publish it. It will make an important contribution to a topic which is understudied and more relevant than ever before.

Sub-Project 5: Findings of the Findings (Jentleson)

 

Responding to CCNY’s initiation of its own internal group addressing policy relevance and other questions related to impact and assessment, Jentleson prepared an Initial Report, “Findings of the Findings: Policy Relevance of  The Carnegie Corporation’s International Peace and Security ‘Self-Determination’ Grants Program” in October 2003. This was closely coordinated with Steve Del Rosso. It was based in part on grantee reports shared with Jentleson on a confidential basis, and also grantee responses to a Jentleson-Del Rosso letter (June 2003)  posing questions about their self-assessments of the policy relevance of their projects as well as their broader views of how CCNY can optimize its efforts to foster policy relevance. Prior to the October report Jentleson presented a redacted version for discussion by the Duke Carnegie project working group. In February 2004 he made another presentation to the Foundation Impact Assessment Project being directed by Professor Joel Fleishman and casting an even wider net in advancing research on foundation impact.

Sub-Project 5: Force and Diplomacy

 

During academic year 2005-06, Jentleson’s work on force and diplomacy was facilitated by the Carnegie grant. This has resulted in an article, “Who ‘Won’ Libya: The Force-Diplomacy Debate and Its Implications for Theory and Policy,” co-authored with Christopher A. Whytock (Duke Political Science Ph. D. student) and published in International Security, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Winter 2005-06). This article analyzes three phases of American coercive diplomacy against Libya. It makes an important contribution both to theoretical work on force and diplomacy and to crucial policy issues about WMD proliferation and “rogue states” more broadly. It has been very well received in academic circles and in the policy community. It took on added significance when in May 2006 the United States and Libya normalized diplomatic relations. The Carnegie grant also made an important contribution to Jentleson’s forthcoming book, Force and Diplomacy: Striking a Balance (anticipated completion 2006-07)

Jentleson will be on sabbatical next year (January-June 2007) at Oxford University and the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). At Oxford he will be affiliated with the Center for International Studies and its Changing Character of War project as well as St. Antony’s College, with opportunities both to contribute to the project and gain from other colleagues. At IISS he likely will write an Adelphi Paper on some aspect of the larger force and diplomacy work.

 See Appendix A (No-Cost Extension Report), p. 2 A.

See Appendix A (No-Cost Extension Report), p. 3, C.

See Appendix A (No-Cost Extension Report), p. 4, D.

See Appendix A (No-Cost Extension Report), p. 4, D.

See Appendix A (No-Cost Extension Report), p. 5, E.