Digital Diplomacy and Consensus-Building in International Organizations. Revise & Resubmit, Journal of Politics (Registered Report).
Has the adoption of digital diplomacy hurt consensus-building in multilateral negotiations? Building on elite interviews, I posit a theoretical framework to predict when digital diplomacy should pose a greater challenge. I argue that in institutions with strong consensus norms and diverse membership, digital diplomacy renders consensus-building more difficult. I test these expectations in the UN General Assembly, comparing consensus under the digital protocol adopted during COVID-19 to face-to-face negotiations. I also conduct an external validity probe in the EU Council. I find that, although consensus rates in aggregate did not decline, diplomats engaged in strategic selection, freezing negotiations on controversial and emerging issues to focus on easier issue areas. To separate the effects of digital diplomacy from the larger impacts of COVID-19, I propose two laboratory experiments. My findings suggest that digital diplomacy can be a useful tool for diplomatic `maintenance,’ but not for addressing many pressing issues.
China's Leadership of IOs: Reputation Management and Institutional Legitimacy" (with Rachel Ann Hulvey) Revise & Resubmit, Review of International Organizations.
As China assumes leadership in several key United Nations (UN) agencies, we assess the impact of this leadership on China’s global image, particularly in democratic states where China is increasingly viewed as a threat. We argue that a rising power uses IO leadership to portray an image of itself as a responsible power. However, these efforts may have negative effects on the perceived legitimacy of IOs, which may be subsequently viewed as subject to major power capture. We test these expectations in pre-registered survey experiments in Brazil—a China-friendly case—and France—a China-skeptical case—finding that while China’s leadership of the UN enhances its image in the skeptical country context, it negatively affects IO legitimacy in both populations. To a lesser extent, US leadership of IOs also reduces their legitimacy, suggesting publics are also concerned about great power control of IOs broadly. These findings advance our understanding of China’s image management and IO legitimacy, contributing to broader debates on China’s growing role in global governance.
Who Sets the Agenda? Diplomatic Experience and Small Power Influence in the United Nations. Under review.
Why are some small powers effective in setting the UN agenda, even in the face of larger powers’ opposition? I argue that small states are more likely to be represented by experienced diplomats, who, over time, accumulate influence that can be deployed to shape the IO agenda. To test these claims, I assemble a dataset of proposed agenda items and the tenure of all states’ ambassadors from 1946-2019 and conduct interviews with diplomats from 49 states. I find that smaller powers have more diplomatic experience, individuals with greater diplomatic experience are more successful at agenda-setting even after accounting for material power, and random shocks to ambassadorial tenure—ambassador deaths—have negative effects on diplomatic experience and effectiveness. These insights build on our understanding of the role of individuals and diplomacy in IR and the ways in which small powers influence international politics.
- Lawrence S. Finkelstein Best Paper Prize, ISA International Organization Section
Think Globally, Act Locally: The Determinants of Local Policymakers’ Support for Climate Policy (with Joshua A. Schwartz). Under review.
Although much progress to combat climate change has occurred subnationally, little research examines the policy preferences of local policymakers themselves and whether policymaker and public preferences are contradictory or compatible. To address these questions, we conduct identical conjoint experiments on over 500 local policymakers and the American public. Per our theoretical expectations, we demonstrate the probability of policy adoption can be increased by strategic design. Most notably, climate-related subsidies and regulations are preferred over taxes and penalties, suggesting efforts to put a price on carbon may not be the optimal approach. Partisan endorsements of climate plans also have a large effect—greater in some cases than substantive policy design—consistent with increasing polarization. While direct economic relief to the public is popular, it does not increase support for bolder climate policies. Finally, elite and public preferences are highly compatible, which is a positive signal about the representativeness of American democracy.
- Best Graduate Student Paper Award, ISA Environmental Studies Section
Risk and Responsibility: Climate Disasters and IMF Conditionality (with Richard Clark). Under review.
International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans often require states to implement stringent policy conditions for funds to be disbursed. However, many recipients are highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, which can limit their ability to implement such conditions. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that many developing countries are especially climate vulnerable. We examine whether and how the IMF accounts for the burden posed by states’ climate vulnerabilities when designing loan programs. We show that the Fund balances moral hazard against climate considerations by offering vulnerable countries loans with fewer and less stringent policy conditions. Mechanism tests and unique interviews with IMF staff and Executive Board members suggest this effect is driven by bureaucrats’ initiative rather than the desires of management or member states. These findings highlight the subtle responsiveness of international financial institutions to countries’ climate vulnerabilities and illustrate how climate change influences international economic policymaking processes.
Beyond Meating Climate Goals: The Unpopularity of Masculine-Threatening Climate Policies (with Christopher W. Blair and Joshua A. Schwartz) Under review.
Adopting climate mitigation policies is highly politicized in the US context. While prior work has shown a connection between the gender identity of individual members of the public and support for climate policy, to what extent does the gendered nature of the policy itself and the sex of the leader proposing it impact public opinion? We theorize that policies that are perceived as `masculine-threatening’ elicit more public opposition than gender-neutral climate policies. We further argue that women leaders face a higher penalty for pursuing climate mitigation, especially when they advocate for climate policies that threaten masculine-coded norms and behaviors. For example, if a woman leader proposes climate mitigation measures that disincentivize eating meat or driving larger, “manly” vehicles, then we expect public approval will be lower than if a man proposed an identical policy. To test our theoretical expectations, we deploy pre-registered survey experiments on representative samples of the US public. While we find that masculine-threatening policies face substantially more opposition, we do not find that women policymakers face a gender penalty for advocating either type of climate policy. These results have significant implications for academic theories about gender and climate policymaking, and suggest that sex alone does not inhibit women policymakers from advancing progressive climate action.
Everything Old is New Again: Textual Recycling in UN Resolutions
Why do negotiators recycle previous texts in the drafting of legal documents in international organizations? I engage with theories of international lawmaking to understand how the unique context of IOs leads to different expectations of textual recycling compared to previously studied contexts, primarily treaty negotiations. I argue that textual recycling is an efficiency-enhancing strategy which negotiators are particularly likely to use when confronted by demanding policy agendas and when addressing low-salience issues. To assess this theory, I deploy a machine learning approach to measure textual recycling across all UN resolutions passed from 1946-2018. In line with my expectations, I find that rates of textual recycling are higher in the UNGA—which has an extensive agenda—than the UNSC—which has a narrower agenda. I further find that recycling is more likely to be used within chambers compared to across chambers, and on lower salience issues than on security matters. These findings suggest that negotiators weigh the benefits of efficiency against the importance of specificity when choosing to recycle texts.
Proximity Matters: Exploring the Impact of Physical Arrangement on Diplomatic Interactions (with Fiona Bare)
Multilateral diplomacy is a deeply social activity, in which interpersonal interactions allow diplomats to negotiate compromises across heterogeneous preferences. Deeper social ties enable diplomats to develop trust, exchange information, and reduce miscommunication, which are instrumental in successful negotiations. Can physical proximity between diplomats facilitate social relationships, thus fostering increased multilateral cooperation? We leverage the randomized seating arrangement of the UN General Assembly to investigate this question, probing whether spatially proximate diplomats are more likely to collaborate and vote similarly compared to spatially disparate diplomats. We find support for our expectation that diplomats seated next to each other are more likely to vote similarly, even after controlling for measures of state influence and affinity, and that the mechanism behind this effect is individual-level social relations between diplomats. Our results speak to the importance of face-to-face diplomacy conducted through international organizations (IOs), as well as the role of individual bureaucrats in shaping international political outcomes.
Influencer Diplomacy: Non-Traditional Actors in Public Diplomacy (with Lotem Bassan-Nygate)
Public diplomacy, traditionally led by government actors through initiatives like state visits, foreign aid, and official messaging, aims to communicate with and attract foreign publics. However, states are increasingly delegating these efforts to private and non-state actors, including celebrities and social media influencers. Is this `influencer diplomacy‘ effective at accomplishing the goals of traditional public diplomacy? We theorize that the credibility and positionality of non-traditional messengers significantly impact their effectiveness. We propose a series of survey experiments in the U.S. to evaluate whether influencers, due to their likability and perceived authenticity (positionality), are more effective than traditional diplomats, or if their potential lack of expertise and objectivity (credibility) undermines their impact. This research contributes to understanding the evolving landscape of public diplomacy and the strategic use of influencers in IR.
Breaking Commitments: Public Reactions to Withdrawals from International Climate Agreements (with Lotem Bassan-Nygate)
How does withdrawal from international agreements shape public opinion? We explore this question in the context of climate change by focusing on the potential U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under President-elect Donald Trump. While past research has examined the impact of state withdrawal from international organizations on compliance, state behavior, and candidate choice, its effects on public opinion remain understudied. This gap is especially important in the context of climate policy, where withdrawal could either undermine public support for key policies or spark a backlash that leads to social mobilization. To investigate these dynamics, we leverage the uncertainty surrounding Trump’s decision, we expose participants to scenarios of withdrawal, continued participation, or uncertainty and assess how these perceptions shape American attitudes toward climate policies, international institutions, and elected political leaders. This design allows us to isolate the effect of withdrawal on different sets of preferences, contributing to a broader understanding of how disengagement from international institutions affects domestic public opinion.