Research Library

2008
Lamont, Michèle, and Bruno Cousin. 2008. “Les Conditions de l’évaluation Universitaire”.Abstract

La question de l’évaluation professionnelle des enseignants-chercheurs est au cœur du mouvement qui, depuis trois mois et demi, les oppose quasi unanimement au gouvernement français. Ils ont entendu Nicolas Sarkozy leur reprocher de ne jamais voir leur travail évalué, alors que c’est aujourd’hui le cas à chaque étape de leur carrière, chaque fois qu’ils sollicitent le financement d’un projet et chaque fois qu’ils soumettent un article à une revue scientifique. D’autre part, on leur rebat que le « classement de Shanghai » mesure les performances d’ensemble du système de recherche français, alors même qu’il ignore par construction une grande partie de sa production (effectuée au sein du CNRS) et qu’il s’agit d’un palmarès peu valorisé à l’étranger. Le point crucial de la controverse concerne néanmoins le type et les modalités d’évaluation individuelle auxquels il est souhaitable de soumettre les enseignants-chercheurs au long de leur parcours professionnel. De nombreuses interventions publiques ont déjà souligné qu’une évaluation collégiale, indépendante, approfondie et qualitative, par des spécialistes du domaine concerné, était une condition nécessaire pour recruter et distinguer de bons chercheurs. Ce n’est pas un hasard si c’est la façon de faire courante dans la plupart des pays européens, ainsi qu’en Amérique du Nord. En France aussi, jusqu’en 2008, les enseignants-chercheurs étaient sélectionnés exclusivement par leurs (futurs) collègues : d’abord par une section du Conseil National des Universités propre à chaque discipline, puis par une commission de spécialistes de cette même discipline propre à chaque établissement. Le système français comportait néanmoins et comporte toujours de nombreux défauts nuisant trop souvent à son efficacité (et à sa justice), notamment au moment de la première embauche : récurrence du clientélisme local, auditions-éclairs des candidats, manque de transparence des délibérations, pénurie chronique de postes à pourvoir alors que l’Université est déjà en sous-effectifs, attractivité limitée par des conditions de travail dégradées et des salaires peu compétitifs à l’international (y compris en Europe). Pourtant, la vaste « réforme » entreprise depuis deux ans sous l’égide de la loi LRU, ne s’attaque véritablement à aucun de ces problèmes cruellement ressentis par les enseignants-chercheurs. Au lieu de quoi, elle prétend réformer leurs carrières en soumettant les recrutements et promotions à des comités de sélection ad hoc, qui peuvent être largement interdisciplinaires, passibles du véto du président d’établissement, et en conférant à ce dernier le pouvoir de moduler à la hausse le service d’enseignement des universitaires qui seraient identifiés (par qui ? comment ?) comme des chercheurs peu performants. Cette perspective managériale est-elle envisageable ? Est-elle compatible avec le principe de l’évaluation par les pairs (qui veut que le « bon mathématicien » soit désigné comme tel par ses collègues mathématiciens, et le « bon historien » par les autres historiens) ? Pourrait-elle avoir des effets vertueux sur les universités françaises ?

Le livre que l’une d’entre nous vient de publier apporte de nombreux éléments de réponse à ces questions. À partir de l’étude empirique du monde académique américain, où des commissions scientifiques interdisciplinaires et encadrées par un « program officer » attribuent les prestigieuses bourses de recherche qui jalonnent une carrière universitaire réussie, il met en évidence les conditions de possibilité d’un dispositif d’évaluation semblable – par certains aspects – à celui qui est en train de voir le jour en France. Mais aussi les écueils qu’il devrait absolument éviter… Même en se limitant aux sciences humaines, économiques et sociales, les conceptions de l’excellence scientifique et les critères de son évaluation divergent nettement d’une discipline à l’autre. La nouveauté, le caractère généralisable et la virtuosité d’une recherche pèsent différemment et n’ont pas le même sens selon les domaines ; les divers modes de validation d’une connaissance et d’administration de la preuve (par déduction, par induction ou par interprétation) y sont plus ou moins bien acceptés ; et l’idée même de commensurabilité au sein d’une discipline n’est pas partagée par l’ensemble de celles-ci. Enfin, l’innovation – cette mesure utilitariste de la recherche à l’aune des avantages compétitifs qu’elle génère sur les marchés – n’apparaît que marginalement comme une marque de qualité scientifique telle que l’entendent les chercheurs de ces disciplines. L’évaluation ne peut donc s’exercer au sein de ces commissions interdisciplinaires qu’à travers le respect de plusieurs principes fondamentaux : l’indépendance professionnelle de la recherche, qui se fixe elle-même ses objectifs ; la reconnaissance de l’expertise de chacun dans son domaine de compétence ; la croyance de ceux qui jugent en la mission de sélection méritocratique qui leur est confiée. Or, ce fonctionnement est le fruit d’une culture académique relativement confiante dans ses valeurs partagées et consciente des enjeux auxquels elle fait face, mais aussi de normes coutumières, d’ajustements progressifs et d’apprentissages en situation concernant la façon la plus efficace et équitable d’interagir au sein des comités. Par rapport à une sélection automatisée par l’usage seul d’instruments comme les décomptes bibliométriques (qu’il est aisé de manipuler [10]), la délibération apparaît comme un processus décisionnel plus complet et plus juste, parce qu’elle conduit à l’explicitation, à la transparence et à une pondération réfléchie des critères utilisés. Mais les vertus du dispositif relèvent moins de la configuration de celui-ci que des bonnes habitudes et des valeurs qu’y insufflent ceux qui y prennent part ; or, ces dernières ne s’établissent pas par décret. Ainsi, dans le contexte américain, le rôle managérial des « program officers » est de stimuler le développement de mécanismes institutionnels vertueux, et de garantir la mise en œuvre effective de la collégialité et d’une évaluation par les pairs qui contrebalancent les inévitables idiosyncrasies de chacun. Il s’agit donc, malgré leur participation à la constitution initiale du jury, essentiellement d’un rôle de coordination et non de direction.

Bien sûr, on ne saurait plaider ici pour l’adoption de modes d’évaluation qui seraient une copie conforme du cas étasunien. Celui-ci est composé de près de 3000 établissements dispersés à travers le pays, dont plusieurs centaines d’universités qui développent une activité de recherche plus ou moins intensive . Cette dispersion accroît le degré d’autonomie, d’anonymat et de non coordination des procédures d’évaluation qui se tiennent de part et d’autre ; tandis qu’en France, la taille comparativement limitée du monde académique rend plus denses et quasiment inévitables les liens d’interconnaissance. Par ailleurs, au delà de l’octroi des bourses individuelles de recherche dont les modalités sont présentées ci-dessus, l’ensemble de la carrière d’un-e universitaire américain-e se déroule dans un monde à la fois plus fluide (en termes de mobilité professionnelle) et hiérarchisé (en termes de classements de valeur) que ce n’est le cas en France. Dans ce contexte, des normes instititionnelles partagées (comme l’interdiction pour un département de recruter directement ses propres docteurs ou le poids des avis sollicités auprès d’experts extérieurs lors des procédures locales de titularisation), ainsi que des mécanismes concurrentiels interindividuels et inter-établissements, jouent un rôle central dans la légitimation réciproque du niveau des uns et des autres. Néanmoins, l’étude des pratiques d’évaluation et de gestion des carrières universitaires, telles qu’elles se déroulent Outre-Atlantique, mettent surtout en évidence combien la combinaison entre une délibération collégiale développée et la croyance en un idéal (et une norme) d’excellence académique présentent un caractère auto-réalisateur de cette dernière, ou créent du moins une tension constante dans sa direction. Ce tropisme n’est pas sans inconvénient : il suscite souvent un rapport enchanté à la réussite (d’autant plus marqué qu’il est partagé aux États-Unis par la majorité des autres secteurs professionnels), une absence de réflexivité à propos des ressorts de la légitimation en milieu académique, ainsi qu’une valorisation de l’équité supposée et des « gagnants » de la compétition universitaire, au détriment de considérations d’égalité entre ses participants. Mais, ce faisant, il empêche aussi la diffusion d’un scepticisme comme celui que l’on recueille auprès de nombreux enseignants-chercheurs français, qui nient la possibilité même que – dans l’état actuel des modalités d’évaluation – eux-mêmes ou leurs collègues (même les plus reconnus) puissent exprimer un jugement informé et désintéressé sur un candidat. Une des critiques récurrentes du système français tel qu’il existe aujourd’hui (particulièrement vive à propos du recrutement des maître-sse-s de conférence) est que la procédure de sélection ne se donne pas pour ce qu’elle est et qu’il ne s’agit pas, comme aux Etats-Unis, de « jouer le jeu » de la méritocratie et de l’excellence pour les faire ainsi advenir au mieux. Au contraire, la rapidité de la procédure formelle d’évaluation (2-3 semaines pour examiner plus d’une centaine de dossiers et pour lire les publications des auditionnés, et moins d’une demi-heure consacrée à chaque audition, alors même que l’on recrute potentiellement un-e collègue pour les trente-cinq années à venir) amène nombre de commissions de sélection à privilégier d’autres sources d’information pouvant confirmer les qualités de chercheur, informer sur les qualités d’enseignant, et garantir l’aménité de caractère du candidat ; voire à porter directement leur choix sur quelqu’un déjà connu localement, afin d’éviter toute mauvaise surprise. La justice procédurale de la sélection s’en trouve alors inévitablement compromise, au point que se développe parfois une forme de cynisme à l’égard des atteintes qui lui sont portées, laquelle augmente à son tour le risque de voir se multiplier ces dernières… En la matière, l’Université italienne – dont les établissements publics sont largement autonomes depuis 1999 – est un contre-modèle des plus notoires : elle s’est tellement enfoncée (et depuis si longtemps) dans ce cercle vicieux que la véhémence avec laquelle son fonctionnement ouvertement non méritocratique est dénoncé de temps en temps dans l’espace public n’a d’égal que le fatalisme avec lequel ses insiders (et aspirants tels) le reproduisent, et le volume des vagues d’exil vers l’étranger (notamment en France) qui en résultent.

La comparaison avec le cas étasunien suggère par contraste que toute réforme du métier et des carrières des enseignants-chercheurs devrait commencer par se demander comment augmenter l’investissement des universitaires dans la justice du système d’évaluation par les pairs, ainsi que leur croyance en la possibilité de celle-ci. Certaines des mesures nécessaires à cet effet seraient gratuites et à effet immédiat (comme l’interdiction du localisme), mais d’autres devraient consister à limiter au possible la pénurie de moyens et la surcharge de travail administratif auxquelles sont confrontés la grande majorité des universitaires français. En effet, la collégialité se diffuse certainement d’autant mieux que les enseignants-chercheurs d’un département y disposent de bureaux et ne sont pas obligés de rester chez eux pour travailler… tandis que l’organisation d’auditions longues où un candidat multiplierait au cours d’une journée les rencontres et les présentations de son travail requiert des ressources matérielles destinées à cet effet, et que les enseignants-chercheurs puissent être libérés en échange d’un certain nombre de tâches administratives pour lesquelles leur expertise n’est pas nécessaire. L’autonomie et la collégialité académique ne sauraient donc se confondre avec une forme d’autogestion où les enseignants-chercheurs doivent assurer la quasi-totalité des tâches nécessaires au fonctionnement d’une organisation aussi complexe qu’une université. La présence de personnels de support technique et administratif (dont le nombre et les compétences pointues sont un atout des universités de recherche étasuniennes souvent sous-estimé), et d’un appareil de gestionnaires exécutifs veillant à la bonne tenue du budget et (éventuellement) du patrimoine de l’établissement, apparaît comme un pré-requis nécessaire si l’on souhaite que la liberté et l’indépendance des enseignants-chercheurs ne soient pas uniquement formelles. Il ne s’agit donc pas d’un paradoxe, mais de souligner que la réorganisation – nécessaire – des universités françaises ne pouvait faire l’économie d’un affrontement pour redessiner les périmètres de compétence et les prérogatives de chacun des métiers qui doivent se côtoyer au sein d’un établissement. Plus que de fournir des modèles à imiter ou des repoussoirs, la comparaison nous montre à ce propos que les conflits entre logiques managériales et collégiales peuvent se prolonger durant des années et sont faits de petits glissements stratégiques plus que de grandes victoires éclatantes (que l’on pense aux conflits feutrés entre l’administration et les universitaires de Sciences Po Paris, ou au cas américain de la New York University) ; ils peuvent contribuer à reproduire voire renforcer des féodalités antérieures (comme c’est trop souvent le cas en Italie), ou déboucher à l’inverse sur la disparition de départements de recherche entiers sous l’effet du New Public Management (comme ce fut le cas au Royaume-Uni durant les années 1980 et 1990). En France, la sauvegarde de la collégialité apparaît d’autant plus difficile que les universités occupent une position structurellement et conjoncturellement faible au sein de la société : secondes aux classes préparatoires et aux Grandes Écoles en termes de prestige de la formation (et sous-financées par rapport à celles-ci), elles voient désormais leur activité de recherche sous-estimée par les indicateurs internationaux, et font face à un gouvernement qui envisage l’autonomie des établissements essentiellement dans ses dimensions directoriales (avec un président d’université qui en serait aussi une sorte de directeur général) et gestionnaires (afin de diminuer ultérieurement, à terme, l’engagement de l’État dans cette branche de l’éducation supérieure). Portant, après la promulgation (probable) de tous les décrets d’application de la loi LRU, ce sera aux enseignants-chercheurs de chaque université « autonome » de s’organiser – et d’organiser les différents conseils et comités d’établissement – pour se donner les moyens de sauvegarder et d’améliorer la collégialité face aux risques de dérives managériales, clientélistes et/ou autocratiques. Le conflit, ainsi éparpillé au niveau local, sera peut-être moins spectaculaire, mais il est loin d’être terminé.

Kay, Tamara, and Rhonda Evans. 2008. “How Environmentalists "Greened" Trade Policy: Strategic Action and the Architecture of Field Overlap.” American Sociological Review. American Sociological Review. Publisher's VersionAbstract
This article examines why and how environmental activists, despite considerable political weakness and disproportionally few resources, won substantive negotiating concessions that far outstripped labor achievements during NAFTA’s negotiation. Despite a trade policy arena hostile to their demands, environmentalists gained official recognition for the legitimacy of their claims, obtained a seat at the negotiating table, turned a previously technocratic concern into a highly visible populist issue, and won an environmental side agreement stronger than its labor counterpart. We argue that this unexpected outcome is best explained by environmentalists’ strategic use of mechanisms available at the intersection of multiple fields. While field theory mainly focuses on interactions within a particular field, we suggest that the structure of overlap between fields—the architecture of field overlap—creates unique points of leverage that render particular targets more vulnerable and certain strategies more effective for activists. We outline the mechanisms associated with the structure of field overlap—alliance brokerage, rulemaking, resource brokerage, and frame adaptation—that enable activists to strategically leverage advantages across fields to transform the political landscape.
Brown, Vincent. 2008. The Reaper's Garden: Death and Power in the World of Atlantic Slavery. Harvard University Press. Publisher's VersionAbstract

What did people make of death in the world of Atlantic slavery? In The Reaper's Garden, Vincent Brown asks this question about Jamaica, the staggeringly profitable hub of the British Empire in America—and a human catastrophe. Popularly known as the grave of the Europeans, it was just as deadly for Africans and their descendants. Yet among the survivors, the dead remained both a vital presence and a social force.

In this compelling and evocative story of a world in flux, Brown shows that death was as generative as it was destructive. From the eighteenth-century zenith of British colonial slavery to its demise in the 1830s, the Grim Reaper cultivated essential aspects of social life in Jamaica—belonging and status, dreams for the future, and commemorations of the past. Surveying a haunted landscape, Brown unfolds the letters of anxious colonists; listens in on wakes, eulogies, and solemn incantations; peers into crypts and coffins, and finds the very spirit of human struggle in slavery. Masters and enslaved, fortune seekers and spiritual healers, rebels and rulers, all summoned the dead to further their desires and ambitions. In this turbulent transatlantic world, Brown argues, “mortuary politics” played a consequential role in determining the course of history.

Insightful and powerfully affecting, The Reaper's Garden promises to enrich our understanding of the ways that death shaped political life in the world of Atlantic slavery and beyond.

  • 2009 Co-winner of the Merle Curti Award, Organization of American Historians
  • 2009 James A. Rawley Prize, Organization of American Historians
  • 2008-2009 Louis Gottschalk Prize, sponsored by the Executive Board of the American Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies and the Louis Gottschalk Committee
Ziblatt, Daniel. 2008. “Does Landholding Inequality Block Democratization? A Test of the 'Bread and Democracy' Thesis and the Case of Prussia?”.Abstract
Does landholding inequality block democratization? This classic question in the study of political regimes concerned Alexis de Tocqueville, Max Weber, and Alexander Gerschenkron. It is also a question that has recently attracted the attention of leading “new structural” political economists interested in the sources of regime change. Echoing Gerschenkron’s evocatively titled Bread and Democracy in Germany, these scholars have returned to the question of how preindustrial patterns of inequality—namely, landholding inequality—might exert an enduring and underappreciated effect on the chances for democratic transitions.3 The new literature utilizes the most advanced tools of political economy to examine historical and contemporary cases of democratization, generating competing accounts of how the preexisting distribution and mobility of economic resources affect regime change.
Viterna, Jocelyn. 2008. “Democratization, Women’s Movements, and Gender-Equitable States: A Framework for Comparison”.Abstract
There is a rich collection of case studies examining the relationship between democratization, women’s movements, and gendered state outcomes, but the variation across cases is still poorly understood. In response, this article develops a theoretically-grounded comparative framework to evaluate and explain cross-national variations in the gendered outcomes of democratic transitions. The framework highlights four theoretical factors—the context of the transition, the legacy of women’s previous mobilizations, political parties, and international influences—that together shape the political openings and ideologies available to women’s movements in transitional states. Applying the framework to four test cases, we conclude that women’s movements are most effective at targeting democratizing states when transitions are complete, when women’s movements develop cohesive coalitions, when the ideology behind the transition (rather than the ideology of the winning regime) aligns easily with feminist frames, and when women’s past activism legitimates present-day feminist demands. These findings challenge current conceptualizations of how democratic transitions affect gender in state institutions and provide a comparative framework for evaluating variation across additional cases.
Marks, Stephen. 2008. “Health, Development, and Human Rights.” Palgrave Macmillan. Publisher's VersionAbstract
The purpose of this chapter is to explore how the three concepts of human rights, health and human development have been defined and linked and what implications these linkages have for international policy and practices of international organizations. At the conceptual level, the definitions of development, health and human rights are virtually identical and widely accepted in the abstract. However, even at such a high level of abstraction, distinctions can be made.
Viterna, Jocelyn, Kathleen M Fallon, and Jason Beckfield. 2008. “How Development Matters: A Research Note on the Relationship between Development, Democracy and Women's Political Representation”.Abstract
Most studies find that the substantial cross-national variation in women's legislative representation is not explained by cross-national differences in socioeconomic development. By contrast, this note demonstrates that economic development does matter. Rather than looking for across-the-board general effects, we follow Matland (1998), and analyze developed and developing nations separately. We find that accepted explanations fit rich nations better than poor nations, and obscure the effects of democracy on women's representation in the developing world. We call for new theoretical models that better explain women's political representation within developing nations, and we suggest that democracy should be central to future models.
Marks, Stephen, and Kathleen A. Modrowski. 2008. Human Rights Cities: Civic Engagement for Societal Development. UN HABITAT and PDHRE. Publisher's VersionAbstract

This publication reviews one strategy that addresses both a broader and a narrower dimension of urban poverty. The Human Rights Cities Program is not directed toward securing legal title as a means of protecting the urban poor from market eviction and gentrification or to catalyze investment in low-income housing. It is rather a broader strategy of empowering inhabitants of communities to find collectively the ways and means of ensuring respect for their human rights, including the right to adequate housing, component elements of which are security of tenure, access to basic urban services, transport and mobility, financial services and credit, women’s empowerment, urban citizenship, income and livelihoods. It is thus a broader strategy than securing legal tenure.

Marks, Stephen. 2008. Implementing the Right to Development: The Role of International Law. Friedrich-Ebert Stiftung. Publisher's VersionAbstract

This collection of papers deals with the legal issues involved in considering an international convention on the right to development. It is the outcome of a meeting jointly convened by the Program on Human Rights in Development of the Harvard School of Public Health and the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Geneva Office in an effort to provide clarity regarding a highly charged issue on the human rights agenda of the international system. The Expert Meeting on legal perspectives involved in implementing the right to development was held at the Chateau de Bossey, Geneva, Switzerland, on January 4–6, 2008, and was attended by 24 experts in their personal capacity.

While positions of governments are entrenched and debates in the diplomatic setting of the General Assembly or the Human Rights Council are often acrimonious, none of the contributions to this study is premised on any political preference for or against the elaboration of a convention. The aim of each author was to provide clarity regarding the legal problems to be addressed.

Kelman, Herbert C. 2008. “Negotiating a Principled Peace Based on Historic Compromise.” Israel Horizons. Meretz USA. Publisher's VersionAbstract

There are good reasons to be skeptical—even cynical—about the outcome of the Annapolis Conference and pessimistic about the prospects of achieving a negotiated agreement by the end of this year. Yet, granting the vagueness of the commitments made in Annapolis and the discouraging effect of subsequent actions on the ground that have undermined the peace process, the conference has opened up the best opportunity since the failure of the Camp David summit for a return to a serious negotiation of a final agreement on a two-state solution. I saw such an opportunity, for example, in a February statement by Haim Ramon that Israel hoped to reach agreement with its Palestinian negotiating partners by the end of 2008 on a "declaration of principles" for peace, but not on a detailed peace treaty.

Download Paper
Ferguson, Niall. 2008. The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World. The Penguin Press. Publisher's VersionAbstract

Niall Ferguson follows the money to tell the human story behind the evolution of finance, from its origins in ancient Mesopotamia to the latest upheavals on what he calls Planet Finance.

Bread, cash, dosh, dough, loot, lucre, moolah, readies, the wherewithal: Call it what you like, it matters. To Christians, love of it is the root of all evil. To generals, it’s the sinews of war. To revolutionaries, it’s the chains of labor. But in The Ascent of Money, Niall Ferguson shows that finance is in fact the foundation of human progress. What’s more, he reveals financial history as the essential backstory behind all history.

Through Ferguson's expert lens familiar historical landmarks appear in a new and sharper financial focus. Suddenly, the civilization of the Renaissance looks very different: a boom in the market for art and architecture made possible when Italian bankers adopted Arabic mathematics. The rise of the Dutch republic is reinterpreted as the triumph of the world’s first modern bond market over insolvent Habsburg absolutism. And the origins of the French Revolution are traced back to a stock market bubble caused by a convicted Scot murderer.

With the clarity and verve for which he is known, Ferguson elucidates key financial institutions and concepts by showing where they came from. What is money? What do banks do? What’s the difference between a stock and a bond? Why buy insurance or real estate? And what exactly does a hedge fund do?

This is history for the present. Ferguson travels to post-Katrina New Orleans to ask why the free market can’t provide adequate protection against catastrophe. He delves into the origins of the subprime mortgage crisis.

Perhaps most important, The Ascent of Money documents how a new financial revolution is propelling the world’s biggest countries, India and China, from poverty to wealth in the space of a single generation—an economic transformation unprecedented in human history.

Yet the central lesson of the financial history is that sooner or later every bubble bursts—sooner or later the bearish sellers outnumber the bullish buyers, sooner or later greed flips into fear. And that’s why, whether you’re scraping by or rolling in it, there’s never been a better time to understand the ascent of money.

The "Ascent of Money," a two-hour documentary based on the newly-released book, premiered on Tuesday, January 13 on PBS. The film was written and presented by the bestselling author, economist, historian, and Harvard professor Niall Ferguson. To watch the full program, go to PBS online.
for Affairs, Weatherhead Center International. 2008. “José Manuel Barroso to Deliver the 18th Paul-Henri Spaak Lecture”.Abstract

The President of the Commission of the European Union, José Manuel Barroso, will speak at the Weatherhead Center's 18th Paul-Henri Spaak Lecture on September 24. Created in 1981 thanks to the generosity of Frank Boas, the Spaak lecture series brought eminent Europeans to Harvard to address issues of importance to both Europe and the United States. After its suspension in 1999—and thanks to a donation by the Nicolas Janssen Family Fund of Brussels—this lecture series has been re-launched to address the new challenges and prospects of transatlantic relations.

President Barroso will deliver the 2008 Paul-Henri Spaak Lecture titled "A Letter from Brussels to the Next President of the United States."

Barroso became Commission President in the midst of the ratification process of the "Constitutional Treaty," worked out to further advance European unity and to better accommodate the EU enlargement by the formerly Communist Central European countries as well as Malta and Cyprus. He dealt with a crisis when the French and Dutch rejected this Treaty in a referendum in 2005, and spearheaded the drafting of a “Reform Treaty” to meet its constituents’ demands, which was ratified by a large majority of EU members but rejected by the Irish voters in a referendum in 2008.

This lecture series was named after Paul-Henri Spaak, the Foreign Minister of Belgium who played a decisive role in working out the Treaty of the European Economic Community and EURATOM of 1958.

Varshney, Ashutosh, and Daniel Herwitz. 2008. Midnight's Diaspora: Critical Encounters with Salman Rushdie. University of Michigan Press. Publisher's VersionAbstract

Almost twenty years after the Ayatollah Khomeini declared a fatwa against him, Salman Rushdie remains the most controversial and perhaps the most famous living novelist. Far more than an acclaimed author, Rushdie is a global figure whose work is read and studied by a wide variety of constituencies, many of whom are not primarily concerned with its literary significance.

This important collection of essays and interviews brings together a distinguished group of critics and commentators, including Rushdie himself, to explore the political and cultural contexts of Rushdie's novels. While each of the essays offers a distinct and often highly original take on Rushdie and his work, the two substantial interviews with Rushdie illuminate his thoughts on a series of literary and political subjects that he has for the most part been reluctant to discuss in public. This combination of fresh perspectives and historical and political context will appeal to a wide array of readers interested not only in Rushdie's own work but also in the many collateral cultural and political issues it raises.

for Affairs, Weatherhead Center International. 2008. “Weatherhead Center Awards Doctoral Candidates with Research Grants”.Abstract

The Weatherhead Center for International Affairs has selected eleven Harvard doctoral candidates to receive pre- and mid-dissertation grants to conduct research on a project related to the core research interests of the Center. In addition and for the first time in 2008, the Center is awarding foreign language grants to doctoral students to assist them in their field research studies. The Weatherhead Center dissertation grant recipients, along with their research projects, are listed below:

Christopher Bail, Ph.D. candidate in sociology, is researching the distortion of collective memory among Muslims and non-Muslims in the United States and the UK.

Amy Catalinac, Ph.D. candidate in government, is conducting research on the electoral politics of national security to explain the contemporary rise of Japan.

Suzanna Chapman, Ph.D. candidate in government, will conduct interviews with immigration policy-makers to examine how states select their population.

Paul Cruikshank, Ph.D. candidate in the history of science, is investigating the late twentieth century historical transformation of the politics in the field of international health.

Michael James Esdaile, Ph.D. candidate in history and Middle Eastern studies, is studying Arabic for his dissertation on the anti-imperial movements termed the “Aden Emergency” that opposed British control in Yemen.

Alex Fattal, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, is conducting an analysis of the demobilization of insurgents in Colombia to better understand the cultural politics of humanitarianism.

Meghan Healy, Ph.D. candidate in history, is conducting research on South African women’s schooling and power since 1869.

Max Hirsch, Ph.D. candidate in architecture and urban planning, is researching architectural and urban planning strategies that are designed to attract and retain highly skilled international migrants in Frankfurt and Hong Kong.

Jane Hong, Ph.D. candidate in history, is examining political deportation cases of foreign-born Asian communists living in Los Angeles as a lens to explore the relationship between U.S. foreign policy in East Asia and domestic security measures passed between 1945 and 1965.

Catherine Kelly, Ph.D. candidate in government, is studying Wolof in Senegal for her dissertation on Franco-West African relations.

Katherine Mason, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, is conducting an ethnographic investigation of the rebuilding of China’s disease control system in the wake of the 2003 SARS epidemic.

Sreemati Mitter, Ph.D. candidate in history and Middle Eastern studies, is studying Arabic and Hebrew for her dissertation on relations between Jordan and Israel between 1950 and 1967.

Vipin Narang, Ph.D. candidate in government, is exploring the sources and consequences of regional power nuclear postures by examining the India-Pakistan crises that occurred both before and after nuclearization.

Rebecca Nelson, Ph.D. candidate in government, seeks to explain why some governments get more debt restructurings with private creditors than others.

Aleksandar Sopov, Ph.D. candidate in history and Middle Eastern studies, will study Arabic and Albanian for his dissertation on how the competing histories of the peoples in the Balkans and the Middle East influence their social and political realities.

for Affairs, Weatherhead Center International. 2008. “Weatherhead Center Names Twenty-six Graduate Student Associates and Grants Three Dissertation Completion Fellowship”.Abstract

The Weatherhead Center for International Affairs is supporting twenty-six doctoral candidates as Graduate Student Associates for 2008-2009. The Center’s Graduate Student Associates are a multidisciplinary group of advanced degree candidates from the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences’ departments of Anthropology, Government, History, Religion, Public Health and Sociology on topics related to international affairs. 

The Center provides its Graduate Student Associates with research grants, office space, and computer resources; and they participate in a variety of seminars, including their own graduate student seminars during which they present and receive feedback on their work. This year grantees, along with their research projects, are as follows: 

Marcus Alexander, Ph.D. candidate, Department of Government. Behavioral political economy; experimental social science; econometrics; dynamics of conflict and cooperation.

Christopher Bail, Ph.D. candidate, Department of Sociology. Diverse Diversities: the configuration of symbolic boundaries against immigrants in twenty-three European countries.

Suzanna Chapman, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Government. Measuring and explaining trends in restrictive immigration policy in wealthy democracies, 1960–2006.

Alex Fattal, Ph.D. candidate, Department of Anthropology. Demilitarization, demobilization, and reintegration of insurgents in Colombia.

Garner Gollatz, Ph.D. candidate, Department of Anthropology. Healing, pilgrimage, and spirituality at the Sanctuary of Lourdes, France.

Karen Grépin, Ph.D. candidate, Department of Health Policy. Economics of health systems; health human resources; and effectiveness of health development assistance. Research area: Africa, specifically Ghana.

Zongze Hu, Ph.D. candidate, Department of Anthropology. How locals have encountered and seen the national state in a North China village.

Robert Karl, Ph.D. candidate, Department of History. State formation, politics, violence, and U.S. influence in 20th century Colombia.

Yevgeniy Kirpichevsky, Ph.D. candidate, Department of Government. Secret weapons and secret diplomacy in international relations.

Ian Klaus, Ph.D. candidate, Department of History. The role of trust in the business and military relations of the British empire.

Diana Kudayarova, Ph.D. candidate, Department of History. Labor policy and labor-market strategies of white-collar professionals in the Soviet Union.

Rebecca Nelson, Ph.D. candidate, Department of Government. Explaining variation in the terms of sovereign debt restructurings with private creditors in the post-WWII era.

Vernie Oliveiro, Ph.D. candidate, Department of History. The United States’ efforts against the bribery of foreign public officials by multinational corporations wishing to do business abroad, 1975-1997.

Sabrina Peric, Ph.D. candidate, Department of Social Anthropology. Examining intersections of violence, identity and primary resource extraction in Bosnia and Herzegovina’s ethnographic present, and in its history.

Sanjay Pinto, Ph.D. candidate, Department of Sociology and Social Policy. The Political Economy of Social Stratification: Varieties of Class Structure in Post-Industrial and Newly Industrialized Societies.

Giacomo Ponzetto, Ph.D. candidate, Department of Economics. The role of partisanship and voters’ asymmetric information in the political economy of trade policy.

Brenna Powell, Ph.D. candidate, Department of Government and Social Policy. Comparative ethno-racial politics, civil conflict and political violence; dissertation work in Northern Ireland, Brazil, and the United States.

Jonathan Renshon, Ph.D. candidate, Department of Government. How status considerations affect the calculations of states in international politics.

Meg Rithmire, Ph.D. candidate, Department of Government. Building modern cities: development, space and power in urban China.

Claire Schwartz, Ph.D. candidate, Department of Government. Implications of the shift from state governance toward "civil governance" in industrial regulation and the differential effects of developed and developing countries.

Sarah Shehabuddin, Ph.D. candidate, Department of Government. The rules of engagement: women’s rights and the determinants of secularist-Islamist relations.

Anthony Shenoda, Ph.D. candidate, Department of Anthropology and Middle East Studies. Coptic orthodox Christian encounters with the Miraculous in Egypt.

Anya Vodopyanov, Ph.D. candidate, Department of Government. Political economy of service provision in the Middle East: impact of increased basic service provision by Islamic groups on the quality and reach of government services.

Ann Marie Wilson, Ph.D. candidate, Department of History. An investigation into the origins of modern American human rights activism, focusing on the Anglo-American humanitarian movements that arose in response to crises in Armenia, Russia, and the Congo Free State between 1880 and 1920.

Lili Zhang, Ph.D. candidate, Department of Government. Reputation and War Termination: An approach based on psychology and behavioral economics.

Min Zhou, Ph.D. candidate, Department of Sociology. Grassroots organizations in the 2005 anti-Japan movement in China.

The Center also granted three dissertation completion fellowships for the current academic year:

  • Yevgeniy Kirpichevsky, Graduate Student Associate and Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Government was awarded the Sidney Knafel Dissertation Completion Fellowship
  • Giacomo Ponzetto, Graduate Student Associate and Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Economics was awarded the Hartley Rogers Dissertation Completion Fellowship
  • Nico Slate, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of History was awarded the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs Dissertation Completion Fellowship

 

Gans-Morse, Jordan, Sebastián Mazzuca, and Simeon Nichter. 2008. “Who Gets Bought? Vote Buying, Turnout Buying, and Other Strategies”.Abstract
During elections in many countries, political parties distribute particularistic benefits to individuals. The existing literature reveals that parties choose from at least five distinct strategies when distributing benefits, but fails to explain how parties allocate resources across these strategies. Our formal model provides insight into this key question. Most studies focus exclusively on "vote buying," a strategy by which parties reward voters for switching their votes. Our model first shows how parties trade off between "vote buying" and "turnout buying," a strategy by which parties reward supporters for showing up at the polls (Nichter 2008). We then show how parties combine these and other commonly observed strategies.
Reich, Michael R, Keizo Takemi, Marc J Roberts, and William Hsiao. 2008. “Global Action on Health Systems: A Proposal for the Toyako G8 Summit.” The Lancet. The Lancet. Publisher's VersionAbstract

The G8 summit in Toyako offers Japan, as the host government, a special opportunity to influence collective action on global health. At the last G8 summit held in Japan, the Japanese government launched an effort to address critical infectious diseases, from which a series of disease-specific programmes emerged. This year’s summit provides another chance to catalyse global action on health, this time with a focus on health systems.

Global efforts to improve health conditions in poor countries have embraced two different strategies in recent decades, one focusing on health systems, the other on specific diseases. The interactions of these two strategies have shaped where we stand today.

Reich, Michael R, Veronika J Wirtz, René Leyva Flores, and Anahí Dreser. 2008. “Medicines in Mexico, 1990-2004: Systematic Review of Research on Access and Use.” Salud Pública de México. Salud Pública de México. Publisher's VersionAbstract
Objective. To review original research studies published between 1990 and 2004 on the access and use of medicines in Mexico to assess the knowledge base for reforming Mexico’s pharmaceutical policy. Material and Methods. A literature review using electronic databases was conducted of original studies published in the last 15 years about access and use of medicines in Mexico. In addition, a manual search of six relevant journals was performed. Excluded were publications on herbal, complementary and alternative medicines. Results.Were identified 108 original articles as being relevant, out of 2 289 titles reviewed, highlighting four policy-related problems: irrational prescribing, harmful self-medication, inequitable access, and frequent drug stock shortage in public health centers. Conclusions. This review identified two priorities for Mexico’s pharmaceutical policy and strategies: tackling the irrational use of medicines and the inadequate access of medicines. These are critical priorities for a new national pharmaceutical policy.
Reich, Michael R, Stefano Villa, and Amelia Compagni. 2008. “Orphan Drug Legislation: Lessons for Neglected Tropical Diseases.” Wiley InterScience. Wiley InterScience. Publisher's VersionAbstract

In the last 20 years, orphan drug legislation (ODL) has been adopted in several countries around the world (USA, Japan, Australia, and the European Union) and has successfully promoted R&D investments to develop new pharmaceutical products for the treatment of rare diseases. Without these incentives, many life-saving new drugs would have not been developed and produced.

For economic reasons, the development of medicines for the treatment of diseases prevalent in the developing world (or tropical diseases) is lagging behind. Among several factors, the low average per-capita income makes pharmaceutical markets in developing countries appear relatively unprofitable and therefore unattractive for R&D-oriented companies.

The case of ODL may offer some useful insights and perspectives for the fight against neglected tropical diseases. First, the measures used in ODL may also be effective in boosting R&D for neglected tropical diseases, if appropriately adapted to this market. Second, small-sized companies, which have played a successful role in the development of orphan drugs for rare diseases, may also represent a good business strategy for the case of tropical diseases.

Garip, Filiz. 2008. “Social Capital and Migration: How Do Similar Resources Lead to Divergent Outcomes?”.Abstract
This article investigates how migrant social capital differentially influences individuals’ migration and cumulatively generates divergent outcomes for communities. To combine the fragmented findings in the literature, the article proposes a framework that decomposes migrant social capital into resources (information about or assistance with migration), sources (prior migrants), and recipients (potential migrants). Analysis of multilevel and longitudinal data from 22 rural villages in Thailand shows that the probability of internal migration increases with the available resources, yet the magnitude of increase depends on recipients’ characteristics and the strength of their ties to sources. Specifically, individuals become more likely to migrate if migrant social capital resources are greater and more accessible. The diversity of resources by occupation increases the likelihood of migration, while diversity by destination inhibits it. Resources from weakly tied sources, such as village members, have a higher effect on migration than resources from strongly tied sources in the household. Finally, the importance of resources for migration declines with recipients’ own migration experience. These findings challenge the mainstream account of migrant social capital as a uniform resource that generates similar migration outcomes for different groups of individuals or in different settings. In Nang Rong villages, depending on the configuration of resources, sources, and recipients, migrant social capital leads to differential migration outcomes for individuals and divergent cumulative migration patterns in communities.

Pages