Skip to main content
Indiana University Bloomington

Woodburn Hall facilities

The World Politics Research Seminar - Previous Presentations

Friday, December 1st, 10:30 a.m. in Woodburn 218

Title: TK

AUTHOR: Federica Carugati



Federica Carugati is the associate director of the Ostrom Workshop and a visiting assistant professor in the Department of Political Science and Maurer School of Law at IU Bloomington. Her research focuses on two main topics: first, the development of political, legal, and economic institutions in pre-modern, citizen-centered, open-access governments; seconds, the lessons that the emergence, configuration, and breakdown of such institutions may hold for rethinking institution building in today's developing world. Federica is currently working on a book project based on her dissertation, titled The Athenian Constitution: Law, Democratic Stability, and Economic Growth in 4th century BCE Athens. The book analyzes the impact of legal innovation on democratic governance and economic performance in Classical Athens.

Friday, November 3rd, 10:30 a.m. in Woodburn 218

Title: Enmity in International Society

AUTHOR: Huss Banai

DISCUSSANT: Prashant Hosur Suhas

ABSTRACT: This paper considers the nature and function of enmity in international politics using the English School framework. Enmity is both constrained and mediated by what Hedley Bull identified as the ‘rules of coexistence’ and ‘rules of cooperation’ that define the terms of membership in the society of states. Yet, paradoxically, the normative foundations of enmity also affect the rules and institutions of international society as they transcend the hard boundaries of nation-states and spill onto the more contingent (and much larger) arena of world society. Enmity is both a resource and a curse for elites in international society. It is this subversive characteristic of enmity that establishes a sort of dialectic between international and world societies, and that distinguishes a pluralist society of states from a solidarist one (in the ES parlance). While constructivist accounts of world politics tend to characterize enmity as a particular ‘Hobbesian culture’ of anarchy, realists and liberals view it as an inevitable outcome of politics – yet, neither approach provides an adequate account of its genesis and development within and among human societies. The English School’s interpretivist approach and methodological pluralism, as this paper will attempt to show, allows for just such an undertaking.

Huss Banai is Assistant Professor of International Studies in the School of Global and International Studies at Indiana University Bloomington. His research is focused on Iran’s political development as well as on US-Iran relations. As regards the former, I am currently working on a book manuscript on the tortuous path of liberal thought-practices in modern Iran, provisionally titled Hidden Liberalism in Modern Iran. His is the co-author of Becoming Enemies: U.S.-Iran Relations and the Iran-Iraq War (2012 Rowman & Littlefield) and his research has appeared in the Cambridge Review of International Affairs, International Politics Review, Security Dialogue, and other outlets. 

Friday, October 6th, 10:30 a.m. in Woodburn 218

Title: Responsiveness, If You Can Afford It: Public Opinion and Policy Outcomes in Fat and Lean Times

AUTHOR: Tim Hellwig

DISCUSSANT: Will Winecoff

ABSTRACT: Traditional theories suggest that political parties have incentives to respond to public opinion. As parties come together to form governments, this responsiveness is also thought to be reflected in public policy. Research on representation has provided evidence in support of these democratic linkages. Conspicuously absent, however, is the notion of costs. We argue that the government’s cost of responding to the electorate is low under conditions of strong economic growth. Conversely, responding to electorates comes at a higher cost when the economy is depressed. Cross-national analyses of voters and governments in a set of advanced capitalist democracies produces results consistent with this expectation. Probing this result, additional analyses indicate that the reason for this outcome can be traced not to any misrepresentation of voter preferences on the part of governments but instead to the inability of policy makers to channel their position-taking statements into actual policy solutions. Study findings imply that democratic performance, expressed as responsiveness, comes at a cost, conditional on economic growth and the preferences of the electorate.

Timothy Hellwig is Professor of Political Science at Indiana University.  He holds a BA from St. Cloud State University, an MA from American University, and a PhD from the University of Minnesota. He has been a researcher at the International Foundation for Election Systems, on the faculty at the University of Houston, and a visiting researcher at the Australian National University, Gothenburg University, and the University of Essex.  He previously served as Director of the Institute for European Studies in IU’s School of Global and International Studies. 

His interests are in comparative political economy, political behavior, European politics, public policy, and research methods. He is author of Globalization and Mass Politics: Retaining the Room to Maneuver (Cambridge University Press), and his work appears in several journals and edited book, including the American Journal of Political Science, the British Journal of Political Science, and the Journal of Politics.

Thursday, September 14th, 4:00 p.m. in Woodburn 218

"The Political Economy of Emigration"

AUTHOR: David Leblang


David Leblang is professor of politics at the University of Virginia and is a faculty associate at the Miller Center where he is the J. Wilson Newman Professor of Governance. He is also a professor of public policy at the University’s Batten School for Leadership and Public Policy, where he is director of the Global Policy Center. A specialist in political economy, Leblang has served as a consultant to the International Monetary Fund, The Directorate of Finance and Economics of the European Commission, and the Department of Defense.

He is co-author of Democratic Politics and Financial Markets: Pricing Politics (2006) and more than thirty journal articles in publications including The American Political Science Review, The American Journal of Politics, International Organization, Economics and Politics, and the Journal of International Money and Finance. He has received research support from the National Science Foundation. More information can be found at his website: 

Friday, April 14th, 11:00 a.m. in Woodburn 218

"Power Sharing and Foreign Direct Investment in Post-Civil War States: Inadvertent Signals as Positive Externalities"

AUTHOR:Carolyn Hartzell (Gettysburg College), with Joshua Alley (Texas A&M)

DISCUSSANT: Cyanne Loyle

ABSTRACT:We hypothesize that countries that adopt extensive power-sharing measures as part of an agreement to end a civil war will see higher levels of FDI in the years following the end of the conflict than those countries that do not adopt such measures. Larger FDI inflows are a positive externality, an unintended consequence of power-sharing agreements designed to stabilize the post-conflict environment by addressing feelings of insecurity and exclusion on the part of warring groups. Although the parties that agree to power-sharing measures as part of a civil war settlement do not do so in order to attract FDI to the country, our theory identifies institutional and informational features associated with power-sharing settlements that reduce foreign investors’ perceptions of political risk. Peace agreements that include a range of power-sharing measures thus serve as inadvertent signals to foreign capital. We test the validity of this claim using data on post-conflict FDI in 43 states for 1970-2006. Accounting for the potential for non-random selection into power-sharing agreements, we find that extensive power sharing increases FDI inflows.

Caroline Hartzell is a Professor in the Political Science Department and was the founding director of the College's Globalization Studies program at Gettysburg College. Her research focuses on cross-national civil war settlements and the effects institutions, both domestic and international, have on social conflict. She has published numerous journal articles on the effects that power-sharing settlements of civil wars have on the duration and quality of the peace, as well as co-authored and co-edited books on those topics. She is the author (with Matthew Hoodie) of Crafting Peace: Power Sharing Institutions and the Negotiated Resolution of Civil Wars (Penn State University Press 2007) and articles in Journal of Conflict Resolution, International Organization, Journal of Peace Research, World Politics, and other outlets. She also edits the journal Conflict Management and Peace Science. More information about her work can be found at

Friday, March 3rd, 11:00 a.m. in Woodburn 218

"Selling a Deal: Economics, Security, and Individual-level Preferences for Trade Agreements"

AUTHOR: Katja Kleinberg (Binghamton University, SUNY), with Matthew DiGiuseppe (University of Mississippi)


ABSTRACT: Empirical research on the determinants of individual-level support for trade liberalization has focused almost entirely on the economic effects of trade. Yet international relations scholarship has long recognized that commerce also has a variety of security implications. While economic arguments are ubiquitous in public debates over trade, security concerns are raised more infrequently. Our goal is to contribute to our understanding of the role of competitive framing, a hallmark of democratic politics, in foreign policy public opinion. In this study, we ask two questions: First, to what extent do expectations about the security implications of trade affect individual-level attitudes toward trade agreements? Second, does framing debates over trade agreements in security terms influence how heavily individuals weigh economic costs and benefits? Put another way, once debates over a trade agreement move beyond jobs and growth, does security trump economics? We employ an original experiment embedded in a conjoint survey to investigate the relative impact of a variety of economic and security considerations on respondents’ support for trade. Our findings suggest that security framing undermines the appeal of some, though not all, economic arguments for trade liberalization among our respondents. To the extent that these results hold more broadly, policymakers and other elites may have some, albeit limited leeway in shaping public opinion on international commerce.

Katja Kleinberg is Associate Professor of Political Science at Binghamton University, SUNY. Her research interests include economic interdependence and interstate conflict, public opinion on foreign policy, and international political economy. Her work has been published in Journal of Politics, International Organization, International Studies Quarterly, Journal of Conflict Resolution, and other journals. More information about her work can be found at

Friday, February 17th, 11:00 a.m. in Woodburn 218

"Without a Trace: Enforced Disappearance as a Strategy During Armed Conflict"

AUTHOR: Cyanne Loyle

DISCUSSANT: Will Winecoff

ABSTRACT:While recent attention in conflict studies has been drawn to government and rebel targeting of civilians through discriminate and indiscriminate tactics, little work has directly investigated the use of enforced disappearance—the secret abduction and/or imprisonment of an individual followed by a refusal to acknowledge the person’s fate or whereabouts. This behavior is a form of repression used by both states and rebel groups which can have devastating post-conflict effects on the families of the disappeared and their communities. In this study, I investigate the tactic of enforced disappearance during armed conflict using subnational data on over 1,800 disappearances during the civil war in Nepal between the government and the Maoists. I demonstrate that the use of this tactic varies according to the state reach in a given area. In particular, I find that enforced disappearances are more likely in areas of conflict where the state has little formal presence or ability to gather intelligence. This finding has important implications for the prevention of disappearance as a strategic tool during armed conflict.

Cyanne Loyle is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Indiana University and the 2016-17 Leonard and Sophie Davis Fellow for the Prevention of Genocide at the Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide at the United States Holocaust Museum. Her current work focuses on transitional justice adopted both during and after armed conflict. Her research has been published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution, Journal of Human Rights, Conflict Management and Peace Science, Journal of Peace Research, and other outlets. More information about her research can be found at

Friday, December 9th, 11:00 a.m. in Woodburn 218

"Shocks and ripples: the on-going effects of the financial crisis on British elections"

AUTHOR: Jane Green (with Chris Prosser)


ABSTRACT: Traditional models of economic voting have examined the short run effects of the economy on the vote, typically the effect of economic performance in the year leading up to an election. In this paper we show that the effects of economic shocks can last considerably longer, in our case two general elections, five years apart.Using British Election Panel study data between 2005 and 2015 we show how the financial crisis of 2008 impacted on vote choices in the 2015 general election. Our analyses reveal how economic voting harmed the Labour party in 2015 through two routes: (i) via the new blame apportioned between 2010 and 2015 onto the earlier Labour government, and; (ii) via the continued direct effect of pre-2010 general election economic evaluations on 2015 vote choices. Furthermore, we show how the weaker partisan attachments of 2010 and 2015 enabled this economic shock to exert a particularly large and long-lasting impact, and why the fracturing of the party system meant the classic reward-punishment model was altered. Rather than benefit the Conservatives, the effect of long-term economic punishment against Labour benefitted the UK Independence Party in 2015. This paper demonstrates the importance of political and electoral context for understanding the impacts of economic voting, and also that economic shocks can – under certain circumstances – have long-lasting electoral consequences. 

Jane Green is Professor of Political Science in the Cathy Marsh Institute for Social Research and the Politics Discipline Area at the University of Manchester. She is a Co-director of the 2015 British Election Study as part of the Manchester-Oxford-Nottingham leadership team, funded by the ESRC (see 

Jane is author (with Will Jennings) of The Politics of Competence: Parties, Public Opinion and Voters, forthcoming with Cambridge University Press. She is also writing a book on the 2015 British general election as part of the 2015 British Election Study team. More information regarding her work can be found at

Friday, December 2nd, 11:00 a.m. in Woodburn 218

"Who Lobbies for Investment Policy Change? Leveraging Event Data to Uncover Policy Influence"

AUTHOR: Sarah Baurle Danzman


ABSTRACT:What are the constellation of preferences and processes that lead to the liberalization of domestic laws governing foreign investment, and how do they vary across time and space? I argue shifting configurations of regulation and promotion of foreign investment is the result, in part, of changes in the policy preferences of economic elite. Large, politically powerful firms may block economic liberalization when they have sufficient privileged access to debt financing, but they may advocate for regulatory reform when these channels of privilege narrow. Consequently, rather than herald their relative decline, liberalizing reforms may further entrench powerful economic elites who have the power resources necessary to adapt to changing local and global economic conditions. I leverage event data to explore patterns of firm lobbying over investment laws, relevant executive decrees, and changes to regulatory frameworks. My outcome variable, Investment Regulation, comes from two sources. First, using a historical collection of FDI-related domestic legal instruments, I code the signing date of all known foreign investment laws and decrees globally since 1970. Second, I use UNCTAD’s dataset on all FDI regulatory changes since 1992 to isolate and measure substantively meaningful administrative changes to FDI regulatory policy. I then use the Global Database on Events, Language, and Tone (GDELT) to gather evidence of cooperative and conflictual interactions between governments and key societal actors – business organizations and labor unions – in the time periods surrounding regulatory changes. These data provide more direct evidence that firms lobby for FDI liberalization when financing constraints become more binding, and probe how variations in domestic political institutions influence the ability of business groups to obtain their preferred policy outcome.

Sarah Bauerle Danzman is Assistant Professor of International Studies at Indiana University Bloomington. Her primary field of interest is the political economy of international investment and finance. She researches how domestic and multinational firms influence and adapt to investment regulation, and how rules governing capital shape global networks of ownership and production. Her work has appeared in Perspectives on Politics and International Interactions. More information about her work can be found at

Friday, October 28th, 11:00 a.m. in Woodburn 218

"Armed Group Organization in Collapsed States"

AUTHOR: Will Reno

ABSTRACT: Are 21st century wars amidst state collapse distinct from twentieth century civil wars? This research addresses variations in how armed groups organize their relations with surrounding communities in the context of conflict in collapsed states. The argument here is that multi-sided symmetrical irregular warfare in a context of extensive social fragmentation reflects the politics of the pre-conflict state prior to the collapse of central authority. This research traces how this environment creates obstacles to the formation of socially encompassing and mobilizing armed groups. Yet some armed groups appear in this context that are able to assert their own guiding narratives and organizational codes. This investigation into these variations in armed group autonomy and capacity to design their relations with surrounding communities points to the importance of patterns of pre-conflict clandestine commercial activities and the status of communities in pre-conflict patronage hierarchies.  This research draws from research in Iraq and Somalia and broader comparisons with contemporary and historical conflicts.

William Reno is a Professor of Political Science and Director of the Program of African Studies at Northwestern University. He is the author of Corruption and State Politics in Sierra Leone (Cambridge 1995), Warlord Politics and African States (Lynne Rienner 1999), and Warfare in Independent Africa (Cambridge 2011) and numerous other works on the politics of conflict and the organization of armed groups in failed states. More information about his research is available at

Friday, October 7th, 11:00 a.m. in Woodburn 218

"Power to the People: The Politics of Electricity Service Provision and Citizenship in Africa"

AUTHOR: Lauren MacLean
DISCUSSANT: Tim Hellwig (IU Political Science)

ABSTRACT: Social scientists assume the existence of a social contract binding citizens to states: as a state provides citizens with security and basic services, people respond by paying taxes, obeying laws and engaging politically as loyal citizens. However, we know little about how the social contract works in weak states, when services may be absent or low-quality. Moreover, private and nonprofit organizations increasingly provide services in developing countries, either because public organizations lack the capacity to do so, or because of donor pressures to privatize. Despite possible unintended and negative implications for: citizen support for the state, tax payment, law compliance, voter turnout, and civic engagement, donors are rapidly pushing for nonstate organizations to provide services like electricity. This study examines two core questions: 1) What is the relationship between public service provision and the social contract? 2) How does variation in who provides public services (i.e., state, nonstate, or joint state and nonstate collaborations) affect citizens’ political attitudes and participation? We hypothesize that levels of support for the state and rates of political participation will be highest when public organizations provide services, and lowest when nonstate organizations provide services.

To answer these questions, the team will examine variation in electricity provision both between and within three weakly institutionalized countries: Ghana, Uganda and Kenya. This research team is well-qualified and prepared to conduct this study: all three Principal Investigators (PIs) have previous experience studying state and nonstate service provision, and collectively they have strong ties and close partnerships with government agencies, donors, the private sector, and scholars in each study country. Leveraging these relationships, the team proposes a quasi-experimental approach. The team has identified communities in each country that currently lack access to electricity but will receive service during the proposed study period in three different governance pattern variations: 1) state provision; 2) nonstate provision, and 3) collaborative provision (joint state and nonstate). The study also includes control communities with no current or expected access. Surveys will measure participants’ political attitudes and participation activities both before and after receiving services, and qualitative interviews will investigate how and why political outcomes vary systematically with the different governance patterns.

Lauren M. MacLean is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and Indiana University. She is an affiliate faculty member of IU’s Workshop of Political Theory and Policy Analysis, the African Studies Program, the Committee on Native American and Indigenous Studies, and the Center on Philanthropy. Her research interests are comparative political economy and public policy, with a focus on the politics of state formation, public goods provision, and citizenship in Africa and the U.S.

Her first book Informal Institutions and Citizenship in Rural Africa: Risk and Reciprocity in Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire (Cambridge UP, 2010) won the 2011 APSA Sartori Book Award and was a finalist for the ASA Herskovitz award. She co-authored Field Research in Political Science (with Drs. Diana Kapiszewski and Ben Read, Cambridge UP, 2015) and has published widely in journals including African Studies QuarterlyComparative Political Studies, Journal of Modern African StudiesStudies in Comparative International DevelopmentComparative Studies in Society and History, the International Journal of Public Administration, and World Development.

Friday, September 9th, 2016, 11:00 a.m. in Woodburn 218

"Assessing Ballot Structure and Split Ticket Voting: Evidence from a Quasi-Experiment"

AUTHOR: Tiffany D. Barnes (with Carolina Tchintian and Santiago Alles)
DISCUSSANT: Armando Razo

ABSTRACT: Though a growing number of countries have implemented electronic voting, few scholars have considered the unintended consequences of such reforms. We argue that changes in ballot structure imposed by electronic voting, implemented under the exact same electoral rules, can facilitate ballot splitting. Exploiting data from three elections and a novel ballot reform in Salta, Argentina— electronic voting was incrementally introduced over multiple elections—we provide an empirical analysis of how ballot structure influences ballot splitting. We use GIS to reconstruct precinct demographics and matching to address threats to random assignment. This empirical strategy allows us to treat our data as a quasi experiment. We find that precincts casting electronic ballots under an Australian ballot, rather than the ballot-and-envelope system, have significantly higher rates of ballot splitting. Our findings imply that less complicated voting procedures can affect the composition of legislative representation and manufacture a more inclusive legislature by facilitating strategic voting.

Tiffany D. Barnes is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Kentucky. Her research is in the field of comparative politics with an emphasis on gender and politics, Latin America, and comparative political institutions.

She is the author of Gendering Legislative Behavior: Institutional Constraints and Collaboration (Cambridge University Press 2016) as well as articles in the Journal of Politics, Comparative Political StudiesGender & Politics and other journals. More information about her research can be found at

April 1, 2016, 11:00 a.m. in GISB 3067

"1914: New Facts and New Theories"

Professor Jack Snyder

ABSTRACT: Since political scientists began writing about 1914 as a security dilemma, international relations theorists have developed new or revised theories of the causes of war, including offensive realism, the bargaining theory of war, and theories of tightly coupled systems that spin out of control. Meanwhile, historians have been offering new interpretations of the causes of the war, based in part on new evidence.  In light of these new developments, what does the theory of the security dilemma contribute to understanding the causes of World War I and war in general?

Jack Snyder is Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations in the Department of Political Science and the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia.

This event is sponsored by the Indiana University Center for American and Global Security.

February 26, 11:00 a.m. in Woodburn 218

"Protecting the Capital? On repression and escalation in regions of natural resource extraction"

Professor Jessica Steinberg

ABSTRACT: Anecdotal evidence suggests that states resort to force to protect economic assets
threatened by conict, yet there has been limited investigation into whether states
systematically rely on repression as to do so. Underlying these anecdotes, as well as
broader policy decisions, is the assumption that regions with xed economic assets,
such as natural resource extractive sites are of strategic importance to governments.
To what extent does the strategic importance of these regions of natural resource ex-
traction lead governments, and for that matter, local communities, to behave somehow
dierently in these regions in comparison to others? Specically, do states use repres-
sion in response to contentious behavior near mining sites so as to protect access to
resource rents? And do agents of popular mobilization recognize the strategic impor-
tance of these sites to the state, and thus escalate because they recognize they can
threaten these economic assets? I evaluate whether regions of natural resource extrac-
tion present a sort of unique strategic context by assessing whether governments and
protesters behave systematically dierently in these regions relative to regions without
signicant resource extraction. Relying on a dataset of social conict events and min-
ing projects active in Africa between 1990 and 2011, I evaluate whether social con
events near mining sites are more likely to be repressed than those farther away and
whether such events are also more likely to escalate. The paper illuminates the im-
portance of the spatial context for understanding subnational patterns of government
repression, and indicating that the presence of such geographically xed sources of
revenue creates a strategic context unique to these regions.

Jessica Steinberg is Assistant Professor of International Studies at Indiana University. Her areas of interest include the political economy of development, governance, and violent conflict.  Her research agenda centers on understanding strategic dynamics in regions of limited state presence. Her current book project explores the strategic interactions between natural resource firms, governments, and local communities in regions of natural resource extraction, and how this strategic interaction yields variation in distributive outcomes and social conflict.  In addition to the book project, she is also studying strategic incentives in conflict events reporting, FDI regulatory compliance in developing countries, and common pool resource management in post conflict environments. She relies on mixed methods in her research, and she has conducted fieldwork in India, Congo-Brazzaville, DRC, Mozambique, and Zambia. 

January 29, 2016, 11:00 a.m. in Woodburn 218

"Newspaper Readership and the formation of stereotypes: Why do Western Publics mistakenly believe that immigrants abuse benefits?"

Professor Abdulkader Sinno, Antje Schwennicke, Scott Williamson, Hicham Bou Nassif

ABSTRACT: Why do Britons and several other Western publics believe that immigrants abuse welfare benefits in spite of strong evidence to the contrary?  Perceptions of immigrants’ abuse of benefits have propelled populist parties to unprecedented gains, pushed right of center parties further right, increased societal tensions and led to restrictions on immigration and benefits in some countries. The data from an ad hoc survey we field reveals that the ratio of those who agree that immigrants abuse welfare over those who disagree is 2.5 times higher for readers of British tabloids when compared with others who otherwise share their characteristics and 2.3 times lower for readers of broadsheets when compared with those who otherwise share their traits. A dataset of the content of newspaper coverage that we compile explains why this is so—tabloid coverage of immigrants’ use of welfare is considerably more negative than coverage of white Britons’ while broadsheets’ coverage is generally comparable and slightly sympathetic for both categories. We explain how stereotypes of abusive behavior are created by analyzing another original dataset on how Muslims’ use of benefits is covered by eight of the largest-circulation newspapers in the UK.  We find large differences in bias, frequency of coverage, the placement of articles, and in the framing of the topic across publication types. Our data also reveals that coverage of immigrants’ use of benefits is politically motivated. We conclude with a discussion of the policy and social consequences of the newspapers’ coverage choices.

Abdulkader Sinno is Associate Professor of Political Science and Middle Eastern Studies at Indiana University. His research focuses on the politics of the Middle East, North Africa, and Afghanistan, and of Muslims in Western Europe and North America. His work has been published by Cornell University Press, Indiana University Press, the Journal of Conflict Resolution, the American Historical Review, and other outlets. 


October 2, 2015, 11:00 a.m. in Woodburn 004

Female Defense Ministers


“Defending the Realm: The Appointment of Female Defense Ministers Worldwide”

Professor Diana Z. O’Brien


Though the defense ministry has been a bastion of male power, a growing number of states have appointed women to this portfolio. What explains men’s dominance in these positions? Which factors predict women’s ascension to this post? With comprehensive cross-national data on women’s ministerial appointments in the post-Cold War era, we develop and test three sets of hypotheses concerning women’s access to the defense ministry. We show that women remain excluded when the portfolio’s remit reinforces traditional beliefs about the masculinity of the position, particularly in military dictatorships and states engaged in international conflict. By contrast, female defense ministers emerge when expectations about women’s role in politics have changed—i.e. in states with female chief executives and parliamentarians. Women are also first appointed to the post when its meaning diverges from traditional conceptions of the portfolio, particularly in countries concerned with peacekeeping and in former military states with left governments. 

Diana Z. O’Brien is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Indiana University. Her research interests include women and politics, representation, political parties, political institutions, European politics, research methods, and quantitative methodology. Diana has published articles or has articles forthcoming in scholarly journals such as the American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, Politics & Gender, Comparative Politics, and the Journal of Politics. More information about Diana is available at

This paper will be discussed by Professor Karen Rasler of the Department of Political Science at Indiana University.


November 6, 2015, 11:00 a.m., Woodburn Hall 004

Violent Punjab, Quiescent Bengal, and the Partition of India

Professor Sumit Ganguly


This paper looks at three different theoretical explanations - Synder and Ballentine’s argument about democratization, nationalism, and ideas; Fearon’s commitment problem; and Posen’s ethnic security dilemma - to account for the different outcomes in the Punjab and Bengal in 1946-47. In contrast to traditional social-scientific analyses that choose one explanation from among competing explanations, this paper argues for “analytical eclecticism”. It will be shown that each explanation accounts for the migration and violence in the Punjab (and its relative absence in Bengal) during the different stages leading to the end of British colonial rule. The interplay of politics at the provincial and national levels, the competing ideas of post-independence states, and the militarization of Punjabi society (but not Bengali society) resulting from British Indian army recruitment policies explain the differences between the two cases.

Sumit Ganguly is Rabindranath Tagore Chair in Indian Cultures and Civilizations, Director of the Center on American and Global Security, and Professor of Political Science at Indiana University. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (New York) and the International Institute Strategic Studies (London). His recent research focuses on international security and India’s foreign policy, and has been or will be published by Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, Columbia University Press, Foreign Affairs, Security Studies, International Security, and other outlets. 


December 4, 2015, 11:00 a.m., Woodburn Hall 004

“The Politics of the Federal Reserve's International Crisis Lending”

Professor William Kindred Winecoff


Ties US and UK


ABSTRACT: The United States Federal Reserve engaged in significant lending to foreign banks and opened currency swaps with foreign governments during the period of global financial instability from 2007-2011. This paper argues that that these actions were not primarily intended to benefit American firms, as domestic lending facilities at both the Fed and U.S. Treasury were sufficient to stabilize American finance, so the Fed's global activities are only understandable in their systemic context. I argue that the Fed's international lending was designed to prevent the global financial system from fragmenting as it had during the 1930s. By maintaining the structural integrity of the global system, the Fed reinforced the position of U.S. banks at the core of that structure, thus maintaining America's hegemonic position in global finance. I utilize inferential network methods to demonstrate that Fed bilateral lending and currency swaps went to countries proportionate to their importance to the global banking system. While the Fed's international lending and liquidity support benefited American finance, this does not necessarily indicate that the Fed has been captured by narrow interests. Rather, the Fed's crisis lending was geopolitically motivated.

William Kindred Winecoff is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Indiana University. He researches the politics of the world economy, in particular the global financial system, and other international processes. His work has appeared or is forthcoming in International Studies Quarterly, Perspectives on Politics, and Business and Politics. More information about his work can be found at his website, 

The paper will be discussed by Sarah Bauerle Danzman of the School of Global and International Studies at Indiana University.