Back on Top

Chavez hails Venezuela poll win

[Granted, my attempts to create some revolutionary blog while in Norway was a flop--I'm a terrible journalist, which is apparently true also of blogging.  Notwithstanding, this is a great place for me to keep notes as I work on my dissertation.  To that end, I'm going to bite the bullet and turn the page...]

This last week I reread two seminal books in the literature on democratization, and another important work which applies some of their insights to explaining authoritarian longevity.  This post serves to summarize and contrast them before adding more material to the story:

Acemoglu and Robinson (2005) present a formal model to explain why some countries are democratic while others are not.  Their model is based on three "building blocks":
1) individual economic incentives determine political attitudes, such that people act strategically to optimize their welfare;
2) different groups have opposing interests in society, which provides a source of conflict; 
3) political institutions solve commitment problems by affecting the future distribution of dejure power.

The authors argue that democracy is more likely to be created when there is sufficient social unrest in a non-democratic regime that cannot be defused by limited concessions.  Societal actors are distinguishable by inequalities in resource and the defacto power by which to change distributions of the former.  When the disadvantaged are provided the temporary opportunity to change their status, the advantaged may attempt one of three strategies to maintain their relative positions: repression, concessions, and democratization.  Repression may work, but it is a costly maneuver, especially in a capital-intensive society.  Elites' use of force can dampen productivity and create losses that are harmful.  Concessions may work, but the commitment problem remains--that is, even if temporary payments induce loyalty, it does not promise to hold indefinitely.  Where citizens use their defacto power to force democratization, however, it enables the creation of more durable, long-term agreements, such as parties and legislature, which ensure that redistribution will continue in the future.  

In considering the authors' explanation, one can think of types of governance as a continuum.  At one end there is rule by one person; at the other, all citizens have a say in government.  To formalize their argument the authors imagine a society composed of elites vs. citizens (two groups).  The bargaining between them occurs over one issue--redistribution.  Elites prefer to not redistribute, and citizens (the poor) prefer to redistribute.  Primarily, the comparative statics center on these assumptions.  They authors do consider how the presence of a middle class or alternative identities affects when and whether elites prefer repression, concession, or democratization.  Primarily, however, the workhouse model is based on the assumptions that there are relatively few, cohesive groups bargaining over one issue, and that each group is a unitary actor with nearly perfect information.

The insights of Acemoglu and Robinson (2005) are many.  It is therefore not surprising that it has been hailed as a major contemporary work on democratization.  The authors provide an explanation for when and why limited concessions may not be enough, and how expectations are moderated by relative inequality.  They also add in the role of social stratification and alternative identities.  Generally, the model demonstrates that given complete information, societal actors can act in their best interest and generate a number of different forms of government, the explanation for which is rooted in inequality, defacto power, and expectations about the future.

Bueno de Mesquita et al. (2004) ask why autocrats last longer in office.  They argue that survival is based on how leaders manage their supporters (called the winning coalition, W) relative to the set of people with the qualities required to choose/benefit from leadership (the selectorate, S).  Management of supporters and the selectorate is based on redistribution of goods, which is the result of taxation and spending.  A smaller winning coalition, relative to the selectorate, encourages loyalty by limited access to goods, which are more expedient to deliver privately.  As the number of supporters that the leader needs increases, he/she must switch from providing private goods to providing public goods.  Increasing the size of the winning coalition thereby affects of number of economic decisions, and ultimately makes the leader more susceptible to defeat in office. 

The authors claim to endogenize the interaction described by Acemoglu and Robinson (2005).  Institutions affect coalition size, which in turn, affects the choice of future institutions.  Their explanation for leader tenure maps nicely onto Acemoglu and Robinson's explanation of democratization.  If we think of elites as W and the poor as S, we can imagine how changes in the relative sizes of each group would affect the incentives to redistribute.  What Acemoglu and Robinson call revolution Bueno de Mesquita et al. call leader defeat; repression equal purges, and concessions equal small-scale inclusion.  

Together, the stories suggest that autocracy is a situation where a small number of elites support the leader, relative to the rest of society.  When rest of society (the selectorate) become powerful enough, those in the winning coalition  may support repression (discouraging a widening of the coalition).  The leader may also be able to widen the coalition just enough to co-opt revolution.  Otherwise, elites must adapt to increasing the political arena to accommodate new demands, which entails a shift from private to public goods provision.  The two explanations are fairly complementary, and add to each other.  For one, Acemoglu and Robinson do not consider how the distribution of elite vs. citizen membership affects the dynamic.  This is precisely what Bueno de Mesquita et al. account for by considering the relative size of W to S in society.  Bueno de Mesquita et al. also highlight the ability of citizens to move from one segment to another.  The authors do not explain when and how a challenger might arise from the selectorate, however, which Acemoglu and Robinson explain as a shift in the defacto power of the disenfranchised.  Bueno de Mesquita also suggest that sources of conflict may differ by the group that initiates them, which Acemoglu and Robinson do not address (they assume that each group acts in tandem).  

For their compelling nature and complementarity, the two stories are incomplete.  For one,  some important concepts are not clearly defined, such as the term revolution.  It is also not clear who are elites, who are citizens, who is in the winning coalition, at any given point.  For any given issue, who is in W/S/R?  How does that differ when one considers multiple bargaining issues?  Secondly, one thing that both Bueno de Mesquita et al. and Acemoglu and Robinson ignore is the incentive for someone in the winning coalition--or an elite--to challenge the incumbent authoritarian.  Is it necessarily true that elites prefer to avoid a revolution, or might we expect entrepreneurial elites to create tension so as to capitalize on it?  Thirdly, although Acemoglu and Robinson touch on the issue, it remains unclear how exactly cross-cutting cleavages and multiple identities complicate "affinity" and create coordination problems.  Finally, Bueno de Mesquita et al. go beyond Acemoglu and Robinson in considering how membership in each group affects the source of conflict that might emerge.  They do not, however, go into detail as to how leaders' response to different forms of conflict might affect future politics.

The two arguments are convincing, but perhaps too abstract.  One must seriously consider what are the concepts to get at the need to strategically adapt.  Different actors have different (assumed) payoffs from, sources of, and vulnerabilities to defacto power.  The actors can also be expected to differ with regard to political capital and its convertability.  The arguments also do not adequately deal with how political differentiation and the bargaining between groups are affected by multiple issues.  What is more, both Acemoglu and Robinson and Bueno de Mesquita et al. overlook the role of order in determining outcomes.  The order in which grievances, opportunity, concessions, and institutions occur suggests that there should be more variability than the authors suggest.

Back to the broader issue--why do non-democracies use democratic institutions if they are not on their way to becoming full-fledged democracies?  Gandhi (2007) argues that dictators must thwart challenges to rule and solicit cooperation, but that the severity of problems differ by societies.  As Acemoglu and Robinson suggest, sometimes concession is not enough, for which institutions are necessary to co-opt opposition members.  Gandhi uses a similar explanation for seemingly democratic institutions in non-democracies as would Acemoglu and Robinson and Bueno de Mesquita  et al. The need for cooperation, societal polarization, and the observation of opposition strength induces dictators to offer monetary concessions and institutions that would create policy concessions as well.  Opposition members then decide whether or not to revolt.  Institutions are used by dictators who cannot avert threats to their rule otherwise, and the use of institutions by dictators affect specific liberties and policies.  They do not necessarily lead to democracy, which is the main point highlighted by Gandhi.  This point is largely overlooked by Acemoglu et al., who see democratization as any movement towards democracy.  Gandhi's empirics are not particularly convincing, nor does she address the variety of ways in which concessions can be made, institutions can be used, and threats can be averted.  The book is nevertheless an important contrast to the two major works, however, in that it introduces the expectation that political co-optation--also conceived of as organizational proliferation (see Haber 2006)--is a unique response to commitment problems that arise in society over the issue of redistribution which does not necessarily produce democracy.  Indeed, Gandhi shows that it produces particularly stable forms of non-democracy, though they may be more peaceful and moderate than more conventional forms of authoritarianism.

Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy and the Logic of Political Survival are major cornerstones on which a stronger theory of democracy can be built.  They pose politics as bargaining between actors--who are distinguishable on the basis of entitlement--over different aspects of redistribution.  To mitigate societal conflict, the leader incentivizes their loyalties through the use of repression, concession, and institution-building.  Whether someone is entitled (in the winning coalition) or not, and whether he/she is enfranchized or not (relatively better off) shapes the particular threat that he/she poses to the leader.  The uniqueness of threats posed by the distribution of citizens demands unique combinations of repression, concession, and institutions to thwart a truly formidable challenge.  From these works, we can expect various actors in society to fluctuate with regard to relative enfranchisement and entitlement.  We can also expect them to decide, based on position and likeliness, whether to threaten the incumbent regime.  To the extent that the leader values office and can foresee the threat, he/she should manipulate the conditions to stay in office.  In so doing, the probability of regime change is altered, as are the actors that contribute to its survival.  These expectations nevertheless go beyond the aforementioned writings, however, in their emphasis on the non-stationarity of actors and different types of threats and threat response.  In combination with Gandhi, a theory of democratization must also account for the use of democratic institutions to respond to particularly threats, stabilize authoritarianism, and prevent democracy.

Small victories

Saudi King Abdullah sacks conservative adviser

[post from 14 May--still relevant!  More to follow...]

So, I've definitely been lax this weekend with regard to blogging.  I've begun to revert to my old ways, which includes staying up late and sleeping in in the morning.  Nevertheless, it is a sign that I'm adjusting to my life here!

I spent the latter part of this week finishing a manuscript that I will present at PRIO on Wednesday.  I am grateful to have gotten a solid critique of it from one of my professors, and as a result it has improved substantially.  I think I may have a decent submission before the summer is over.  To be honest, I am looking forward to getting to work this morning to continue work on it. 

Several noteworthy, unrelated events have occurred these past few days.  For one, the House of Representatives has passed an amendment excluding political science from NSF-funded projects.  Bear in mind that my work here is funded by the NSF... For a concise and articulate response, click here.  The professor with whom I am working while here also had a baby this weekend.  Whatismore, Ben and I planted seeds at the apartment so that we could have something to enjoy watching.  The seeds, which are Icelandic poppies, spouted this weekend!  In all, these are a series of small victories and a minor (hopefully temporary) defeat.  

On Saturday Ben and I slept in and went to a sculpture park called Frogner park.  The weather was chilly but beautiful, and the park was quite nice.  We walked around until 4pm, when I was to meet some coworkers.  I volunteered to run for the Centre in a city-wide relay race, in which an estimated 40,000 people attended.  From the institute there were two teams of 15 people each, one team representing the Centre for the Study of Civil Wars (CSCW), and the other representing the Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO).  I ran 800 meters for my leg.  It was short, but the air is so clear here that I felt as though I had been running a much longer distance.  It was really neat to see so many people in the city gearing up for a physical activity.  Let me tell you, people took this race seriously.  I was perhaps one of the only people not in running pants (I ran in swimming trunks, actually).  

After the race we joined our colleagues for dinner and then attended our first house party.  The house party was thrown by one of my coworkers, at which we spent most of the time on the terrace at the top of their apartment building.  We got a nice 360-degree view of the city, and we stayed out there as we waited for it to get dark, except that it never did.  Saturday night was the first night that I realized that the sun wasn't completely going down.  In truth, we arrived home at 3am and it still wasn't completely dark!

Interesting sights

Mexico TV debate team sorry for skimpy dress 'mistake'

The following are sights along my bus ride from home (Brekkelia) to work (Hausmann's Gate):

The bus winds downhill to Ovre Stabburvei

Cars zoom by, up the hill

A motorcyclist passes dangerously alongside the bus

The newly trimmed trees are putting out leaves

A man in crazy black-and-white pants walks a dog near Godals Vei

A young woman talks to an older woman with her coffee on the stoop of a glass shop

Bicyclists emerge from a nearby park at Badebakken

People wait patiently for a bus on the other side of the street

The KIWI grocery store is open

Construction workers in neon green vests congregate over a bin of rubble

Lots of people get on the at Bjolsen

A runner in running clothes sprints off the bus and down the street

People build scaffolding to scale the exterior of a building above a flower shop

A man enjoys his coffee at a bakery near Arendalsgata

A man with flowers lining the rim of his hat walks a dog at Advokat

Men working at Frukt & Gront set out fresh flowers and fruit for the day

A woman with a miniature pinscher walks a child to school

Another woman is talking to her baby in its carriage

Construction workings are digging a hole near Arengals

The number of people on the bus grows as we approach the city

The Sagene Lunjsbar is bright yellow and happy looking

A girl in a beige coat stomps by on heels on the corner of a church near Sagene

Women at Sagene have scarves on in a variety of ways

A man in a blue jacket sits down beside me on the bus

What looks like community gardens are being dug up near Arkitekt Riverts Plass

A bicyclist passes by close enough to touch outside my window

A women in a burka gets on at Arkitekt Riverts Plass

Two guys are conversing to each other in Norwegian across the bus, facing me

Large rocks jut out at the street

There is a sign at Edvald Righs Gate of a beautiful model with only one hand

A pretty girl who smells nice sits down across me from me; she has glasses on

There is a wall made of cobbled stones which looks quite old, covered in graffiti

We pass a bright blue sign that says 'Spill Her!' (whatever that means)

The conversant guys get off the bus at Telthusbakken

There are lush green trees and hills all along the route

A guy descends down stone stairs from a street below

Bikinioverdel for 49,50 kr, according to three signs near Mollerveien; 

the models in them are unnaturally tan

I get off at Calmeyers Gate near a piano store 

Business as usual

Al-Qaeda underwear bomber 'was undercover agent'

Not too much to report today.  Today was a regular workday.  It was (and still is) kind of rainy and blah today.  I spent the full day working on updating my presentation for next Wednesday.  Upon arriving home this afternoon I stomped around and proclaimed that I was bored.  It's not the best weather to go out in, and museums and shopping areas were closed.  I offered to sit with Ben while he finished his work, but my computer suddenly rejected the wireless, leaving me without internet.  Without internet, I had no option but to pout.  When Ben finished his work, we laid in bed and flipped through a large book on Impressionist art.    (That's Ben's favorite period, according to him.)  I warmed up to the style a little more, as a result of having seen some of the pieces in the book.  We played some cards and I won, so he's cooking me dinner.  There was another book on the shelf in the apartment which contained Shakespeare's complete works.  I had considered finding two-person scenes for us to act out, but then considered that it would be best for us to read the play in full.  Perhaps we'll play dress up and post a video soon.  

Hungry

Ukraine's Yulia Tymoshenko to end hunger strike

Today's been a long day.  Not by any means has it been bad, merely... eh.  I worked 9-5, mainly fixing up the R&R.  After much deliberation, I finally resubmitted the manuscript.  *fingers crossed*  At 12 pm we had a brownbag presentation by Thomas Plümper.  The research question regarded free-riding in military alliances, which really isn't my forte, but I was interested in the research design.  He had a novel approach to studying free-riding.  If you were asked to determine whether a partner country was taking advantage of another country's military expenditures--that is, not putting in the same amount--how would you go about doing so?  Thomas and his colleague focused on the issue of spatial simultaneity, which in this case concerns how a country's military spending patterns are affected by those nearest it (i.e., the alliance partner).  I have my doubts about the research design, but it didn't come across as effectively as I had hoped in the Q&A.  A common feeling is to think as critically as  you can and to come up with a comment to help the presenter, to gather up the courage to speak to a room full of people, only to hear crickets once the question's been asked.  It's a hollow feeling.  Nevertheless, it was a good exercise to think more critically about the research design and an overall interesting presentation.
When it was time, I clocked out and went to grab some groceries.  The thing about grocery stores in Norway is that pretty much no two grocery stores are alike.  I ducked into the first store that I came to (near the closest bus stop), but I found none of the things that I was looking for.  I'm not talking about specific brands like 'Tide' or 'Doritos', but things like 'cereal' or 'spaghetti'.  I found Ben's requested items at the second store.  Each grocery trip has been unique like that.  In some ways there are many more options in terms of the type of food that one can buy, as a result of cultural pluralism.  At the same time, there are not a lot of the conveniences to which I have become accustomed to at home.  The act of gathering together the ingredients to make spaghetti and meatballs seems like quite a task!  To be sure, it probably wouldn't feel that way if I could read Norwegian.  Until I learn how to, we are relegated to vegetables and breads and packages with symbols for instructions.  No worries though, we are not hungry.  We are, however, being forced to eat better.  

Socializing

Socialist Francois Hollande wins French presidency

Sunday Ben and I slept in, then visited the botanical gardens.  Alas, Ben discovered once we arrived at the gardens that he'd left the SIM card in his computer.  As a result, no pictures to show (this time, anyway).  It was, however, a very relaxing afternoon trip.  We came home and napped, no idea why we were so sleepy.

Today I woke up bright and early and headed out to work.  After a week I have kept up with reading the news, meditating, and blogging daily, for which I am a tiny bit proud.  I worked on my R&R for the most part of the day.  At noon we had a brownbag (my first), at which John O'Loughlin from UC Boulder presented on the practical and ethical issues of dealing with sensitive data.  He apparently had first contact with data from WikiLeaks and with Julian Assange, and was navigating issues surrounding the publication of data and replication files for projects using such data.  Though I doubt that I will ever work with sensitive data like that it was an insightful dialogue, especially with the heads in that were in the room.  Difficult questions to ponder are: what do you do if you get access to data that is classified, or secret, or even just kind of scandalous?  What if the data are purposely hidden--by, let's say, a government--but do not identify anyone in particular?  How much would you be willing to endure to publish novel--perhaps critical--findings?  

I have apparently been drafted into running in a relay race in the city on Saturday, for which some of the PRIO-ites have been training.  I agreed to run this afternoon with them, which turned out to be a 10 kilometer bike ride and a 10 kilometer run.  That was definitely not to be expected--I ran along and enjoyed it, but I was left in the dust.  Fortunately, I had a lagging companion with me.  This was my first social event since arriving.  It was interesting running and joking with a respected academic like Håvard Hegre (who is, by the way, a fast runner).  We ran on the Bygdøy peninsula, which is covered in lush forest.  It is also where the king has a summer home and farm.  Gaw-geous!  I plan to rent bikes and take Ben there soon.

  

Public square

Moscow clashes at anti-Putin protests

On our first weekend in Oslo, we spent Saturday touring the national museums, of which there are four.  The National Gallery houses older, more classic works; it was our first stop.  It isn't very large compared to other museums like the MoMA or the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, but its size was perfect to Ben and I.  After a while of staring at artwork, they all start to look the same, whether you appreciate it or not.  Ben and I have very different tastes in visual (fine) art--he prefers impressionist, "pretty" paintings like those by Bonnard, Matisse, and Cezanne.  He enjoys the use of bright, happy colors.  To be sure, I'm not looking for ugly paintings, but I don't really share his tastes.  I enjoy paintings that are more defined and which use more dramatic color and sharper contrasts.  In the past, I have usually expressed disinterest in paintings that depicted realistic landscapes, but I changed my tune when I was introduced to Thomas Fearnley and Johan Christian Dahl.  Some of the landscapes that we saw where amazing!

We spent much of the morning enjoying the gallery.  It was a very nice collection of paintings, including Skrik,  or the Scream, by Edvard Munch, one of Norway's most celebrated artists.

For lunch, we went to the local McDonald's.  It isn't the most sophisticated choice, but ever since we tried a delicious burger at a McDonald's in Medellin, Colombia we decided to compare quality and presentation of across different countries.  In the afternoon, we went to the Museum of Contemporary Art.  I consider myself an appreciator of art, but this museum forced me to draw the line.  Some of the exhibits were so minimalist that they were laughable; others were downright vile.  We came across a panel of mixed-media works, probably 100 in all, that may very well have been painted with blood.  On the first floor I was all about being open to something new, but we pretty much sped through the second floor.  To be sure, there were a few really cool pieces that we found, which made the visit worthwhile.

We also briefly visited the Museums of Architecture and Decorative Arts and Design.  We walked down to the water and enjoyed a beer out in the sunshine, where we discussed our feelings about the museums that we had visited.  The question that we mulled over is what is art?  After some discussion, I think we decided that anything can be art, but that it leads to a different, more complicated question regarding the functionality, intent, and ethics of its creation/display.  In short, the jury's out.  It was a wonderful Saturday.