Bi-Weekly Discussion - IR Scholars & The Foreign Policy Consensus

Details

The weather forecast for Sunday looks good, so I've scheduled our meetup for Washington Square Park again, between 6th & 7th Streets on Walnut in Olde City. Although it's supposed to rain in the early morning, the weather forecast says it should be clear & sunny by noon with temperatures in the mid 70s, there's plenty of shaded areas in the park that should still be dry. If you don't want to sit on the grass, just bring a folding chair or picnic blanket to sit on. You can also bring any type of food or drink you want, although I don't think alcohol is allowed in the park.

(If the weather changes, our fallback spot will be Café Walnut, which is right off the square at 703 Walnut Street.)

The park is fairly easy to get to if you're using public transit. With SEPTA, take the Market-Frankford Line & get off at the 5th Street Station (corner of 5th & Market), and walk 2 blocks south on 5th and then turn right on Walnut Street and walk 1 block west. With PATCO, just get off at the 9th-10th & Locust stop and walk 3 blocks east. For those who are driving, parking in the neighborhood can be tough to find. If you can't find a spot on the street, I'd suggest parking in the Washington Square parking deck at 249 S 6th Street which is just a half block away.

----------------------------------------------------------

UNDERSTANDING INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS & THE FOREIGN POLICY CONSENSUS:

This discussion will look at the scholarly consensus in International Relations (IR) that we can glean from the College of William & Mary's "Teaching, Research, and International Policy" (TRIP) project which regularly polls hundreds of IR scholars, and then we'll turn to the foreign policy consensus as it exists among the top policymakers at the federal level, including members of Congressional committees & the State Department, top military officials, heads of the intelligence agencies, and think tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

We'll follow this by looking at how the results of Philip Tetlock's research on expert political judgement has created some doubts about the value of the expert consensus in international relations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_E._Tetlock#Work

We'll finish by looking at some critiques of the foreign policy consensus from the IR scholar Stephen Walt & the economist Jeffrey Sachs, as well as some articles that suggest by the bipartisan foreign policy of "neoliberal" Democrats & "neoconservative" Republicans is so hard to change.

The videos you see linked below are intended to give you a basic overview of international relations as an academic field & the way in which it translates (or does not translate) into foreign policy. As usual, I certainly don't expect you to read all the articles prior to attending our discussion. The easiest way to prepare for our discussion is to just read my notes & watch the videos linked under each topic, which come to about 26 minutes total. The articles marked with asterisks are just there to supply additional details. You can browse and look at whichever ones you want, but don't worry - we'll cover the stuff you missed in our discussion.

In terms of the discussion format, my general idea is that we'll address the 5 topics in the order presented here and we'll spend about 20 minutes on the first section and about 25 minutes on each of the following sections.

WHAT ARE THE MAJOR SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS? WHAT DOES THE IDEOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF AMERICAN I.R. SCHOLARS LOOK LIKE?

Rhonda Callaway, "Major Theories of IR" (video - 9:02 min.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU0Iks1arFQ

Callaway's video gives some basic information on the 2 major schools of thought in international relations - Realism which focuses more on anarchic competition for state survival & war, and Liberalism which focuses more on cooperation (or "complex interdependence") & positive-sum trading relationships. She also gives an overview of 3 minor schools: Constructivism which focuses on collective values, culture, and social identities; Marxist IR which reject the realism's focus on state executives in favor of focusing on economic structures and rejects liberalism's positive-sum view of world trade (which masks exploitation) in favor of "dependency theory"; and Feminist IR which rejects realism's masculine bias, and mixes Marxist & Constructivist approaches with a special emphasis on gender issues. Wikipedia gives a basic overview as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_relations_theory

Judging from the TRIP survey of American IR scholars, the field is fairly skewed towards the political left: https://trip.wm.edu/charts/#/bargraph/37/1239

As you can see, of the 1,524 IR scholars surveyed, 25.52% are very liberal, 39.3% are somewhat liberal, 22.77% are middle of the road, 10.56% are somewhat conservative, and 1.84% are very conservative. When you toggle over to the "paradigm" tab, you can see that 94.74% of the very liberal group use a Marxist paradigm. This seems bizarre since Marxism has been mostly discredited in economics, but perhaps this indicates "post-Marxist" perspectives in IR like Immanuel Wallerstein's "World Systems Theory" and "Neo-Gramscianism," both of which trace their ideological lineage back to Marxism.

However, it looks like there's quite a bit of variation in the ideology of IR scholars who respond to their various polls, as well as some nuance I might be missing in the labels IR scholars use to describe themselves. Check out this poll on whether or not U.S. involvement in the global economy is good: https://trip.wm.edu/charts/#/chartdata/6772/337

86% of the liberals, 82.86% of the conservatives, and 94.62% of the moderates are in favor of globalization & free trade. Even stranger, when you toggle over to the "paradigm" tab, you can see that the majority of the feminists (80%) and a plurality of the Marxists (46.15%) are in favor of U.S. involvement in the global economy. This may mean that "neoliberal" ideas on the benefits of free trade have influenced left-wing IR scholars quite a bit more than you might think, or perhaps it's just an indication that they're part of the "alter-globalization" movement that has its own unique vision of world trade.

WHAT IS THE EXPERT CONSENSUS IN THE ACADEMIC FIELD OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS?

Michael Tierney, "SNAP polls: Giving voice to foreign-policy experts" (video - 1:40 min.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoweWJNCIzA

I've been looking for an organization that regularly polls foreign policy experts & IR scholars on various geopolitical issues, and it looks like I've finally found it. The College of William & Mary, in collaboration with Foreign Policy, launched the "Teaching, Research, and International Policy" (TRIP) Project back in 2014, and they've been polling a significant fraction (~700-900) of the 4,078 IR scholars currently teaching and/or researching at colleges and universities throughout the United States. You can check out the poll results here: https://trip.wm.edu/home/index.php/surveys/snap-polls

Here's a general summary of the scholarly consensus gleaned from the SNAP polls:

Mar. 2014 Snap Poll I: Syria, Ukraine and the U.S. Defense Budget

Most IR scholars polled: (1) think the U.S. spends too much on defense, (2) foresaw violence but not a civil war in Ukraine or Russian intervention in Ukraine, (3) did not expect Syria to fulfill its pledge to relinquish its chemical weapons, (4) favored sanctions instead of military intervention in Syria.

May 2014 Snap Poll II: Ukraine, Energy and the Middle East

Most IR scholars polled: (1) were against a U.S. show of force in the Ukraine crisis, (2) did not believe an overextended State Department led to the collapse of Middle East peace talks, (3) were generally supportive of cutting aid to Egypt after its military coup but believe that aid will neither be suspended nor reduced, and (4) were very supportive of NAFTA but somewhat less supportive of TPP.

Jan. 2015 Snap Poll III: Seven Questions on Current Global Issues for IR Scholars

Most IR scholars polled: (1) did not think a war with China is likely in the next decade, (2) were slightly less skeptic about a possible war with Russia, but still leaned towards no war in the next decade, (3) were split on the question of a "Second Cold War" with Russia, (4) agreed with Obama's decision to pull out of Iraq in 2011, (5) were skeptical that bombing Assad empowered ISIS, (6) were split on the question of whether funding the Syrian rebels empowered ISIS, (7) rated Henry Kissinger (followed by James Baker) as the most effective Sec. of State in the last 50 years, (8) were slightly optimistic about improvements to the global financial regulatory infrastructure, (9) were split on whether or not international health agencies could prevent pandemics, (10) were in favor of allowing increased immigration to the U.S.

Mar. 2015 Snap Poll IV: Ten Questions on Current Global Issues for IR Scholars

Most IR scholars polled: (1) expected Greece would still be using the Euro in 2016, (2) thought the U.S. should not send military aid to Ukraine, (3) thought the Iran nuclear deal was helpful, (4) thought that US-Israel relations had weakened somewhat but would improve in the long term, (5) were divided on the costs of Obama's foreign policy, but tended to think it had yielded some benefits from less intervention, (6) thought Congress should approve the use of force resolution against ISIS with some limitations of duration & scope, (7) thought the U.S. was spending enough on fighting Ebola in Africa but could possibly spend more, (8) supported TPP, (9) were split on whether or not China & the U.S. would meet their carbon pollution reduction goals from the November 2014 agreement.

Apr. 2015 Snap Poll V: IR Scholars React to Proposed Nuclear Agreement with Iran

Most IR scholars polled: (1) the Iran nuclear deal would help stabilize the Middle East by reducing incentives towards nuclear proliferation, (2) predicted that Iran would allow inspections but were less sure that Iran would limit uranium enrichment or ship spent fuel out of Iran, (3) thought more sanctions would have decreased the likelihood that Iran would sign the deal, (4) thought the deal's provisions for inspections were adequate, (5) thought a future president unilaterally withdrawing from the deal would increase the chances Iran would renew its nuclear program.

June 2015 Snap Poll VI: IR Scholars React to Greece, Migration Crisis, Trade Agreements, and FIFA

Most IR scholars polled: (1) expected Greece would still be using the Euro in 2016 & thought this was the right choice, (2) thought search & rescue operations in international waters wouldn't affect future migration flows much or would have only a small effect, (3) predicted that political disagreement among EU member states over migration policy would have a negative effect on the credibility of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), (4) supported the U.S. Justice Department indicting officials from FIFA (the world governing body for soccer) for corruption, (5) supported TPP but didn't think it would have much effect on their personal financial situation.

Sept. 2015 Snap Poll VII: IR Scholars React to South China Sea, Refugee Crisis, and Iran Deal

Most IR scholars polled: (1)

Feb. 2016 Snap Poll VIII: IR Scholars React to 2016 Presidential Campaign, Terrorism and the Middle East, and Zika

Most IR scholars polled: (1)

Oct. 2016 Snap Poll IX: U.S. Foreign Policy and the 2016 Presidential Election

Most IR scholars polled: (1)

HOW BIG IS THE COMMUNICATION & IDEOLOGICAL GAP BETWEEN IR SCHOLARS AND THE PUBLIC? HOW ABOUT THE GAP BETWEEN IR SCHOLARS AND FOREIGN POLICY ADVISORS IN GOVERNMENT?

James M. Lindsay, "Public Opinion and the Media in Foreign Policy" (video - 3:55 min)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qReTkWrRXQ

Pew Research Center, "Public Sees U.S. Power Declining As Support For Global Engagement Slips - Commentary by James M. Lindsay & Rachael Kauss of the Council on Foreign Relations: The Public’s Mixed Message on America’s Role in the World" (short section of long report)

http://www.people-press.org/2013/12/03/commentary-by-james-m-lindsay-and-rachael-kauss-of-the-council-on-foreign-relations/

Dina Smeltz, et al., "The Foreign Policy Establishment or Donald Trump? Which Better Reflects American Opinion" (long article)

https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/publication/foreign-policy-establishment-or-donald-trump-which-better-reflects-american-opinion

Matthew Ribar, "What Does the Policy-Academia Gap Really Look Like?" (short article)
http://foreignaffairsreview.co.uk/2015/04/policy-academia/
Susan Peterson, "You Can't Always Get What You Want: Policymakers Learn From International Relations Scholars" (medium-length article)
http://www.isanet.org/Publications/ISQ/Posts/ID/1420/You-Cant-Always-Get-What-You-Want-What-Policymakers-Learn-From-International-Relations-Scholars

HOW SKEPTICAL SHOULD WE BE OF EXPERT POLITICAL JUDGEMENT & PREDICTIONS?

4a) Philip Tetlock, "U.S. Intelligence Balances 'Political Safety' and Accuracy" (video - 1:08 min.)

http://www.wsj.com/video/tetlock-us-intelligence-balances-political-safety-and-accuracy/B4475121-01D4-41EB-AA45-0D1EC5D18BE7.html

4b) Philip Tetlock, "Prof. Tetlock on His Groundbreaking Research About 'Expert Judgement'" (video - 3:23 min.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcnj61KSOhM

Louis Menand, "Everybody's An Expert. Putting Predictions to the Test. [review of Philip Tetlock's book, Expert Political Judgement]" (medium-length article)
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/12/05/everybodys-an-expert
Bryan Caplan, "Tackling Tetlock" (short blog post)
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2005/12/tackling_tetloc_1.html

IF WE SET ASIDE THE CRAZIER CONSPIRACY THEORIES ABOUT EVIL GLOBALISTS BUILDING A "NEW WORLD ORDER," WHAT ARE SOME RATIONAL CRITIQUES OF THE EXPERT CONSENSUS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS? WHY IS THE FOREIGN POLICY CONSENSUS SO HARD TO CHANGE?