Placement Candidates
Mazie Bernard
Fields of Study: International Political Economy, Global Governance, Economic Cooperation
Dissertation Title: Ideas and Expertise in Global Economic Governance: Knowledge Creation, Integration, and Contestation
Committee: Drs. Tyler Girard (Chair), Swati Srivastava, Miriam Barnum, Shan Zhou, and Mark Blyth
Summary: The central research question addressed in this project is: how are new economic ideas created, integrated, and changed in global economic governance? In answering this question, I conceptualize three forms of ideational conflict and change – emergence, adaptation, and rejection – among international organizations (IOs) and the role of expert staff in the institutionalization of gendered economic ideas. I focus specifically on gender experts, who wield significant power and authority in global governance and policymaking. Despite recent scholarship on epistemic practices associated with gender experts, this literature has only recently shifted toward explaining the variation in when, why, and what types of gendered ideas are embedded within global economic governance (Gerard 2023; Scott and Olivius 2023; Weaver 2010).
My theoretical intervention synthesizes insights from research on ideas and expertise in global governance, the epistemic power of IOs, and feminist IPE to explain how different types of ideas about gender and economic development are produced and become influential in global policymaking. I argue that the emergence, adaptation, and rejection of gendered economic ideas among IOs reflects the success or failure of three interrelated practices that enable the ongoing refinement of gender expertise: (1) the shift in weight from a supply of gendered knowledge to a demand for gendered knowledge in governance fields; (2) the elevation of lived experiences as a source of authority in knowledge production; and (3) the refinement of gender 'masking' practices to depoliticize radical or subversive ideas about gender.
This study uses three qualitative case studies of different economic governance fields – digital inclusion, development finance, and global health – to disentangle each stage of gendered knowledge production in global economic governance. In the digital inclusion field, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and International Telecommunication Union are leading efforts to coordinate activities in this new field, but the simultaneous integration of gendered economic ideas is uneven. In the development finance field, the dominant gendered economic ideas at the World Bank have shifted dramatically over time. In the global health field, the World Health Organization has rejected or sidelined gendered economic ideas despite their relevance to the organization’s mission. Empirically, I use evidence from a comprehensive discourse analysis of public-facing IO documents, relational elite interviews of IO experts, and participation at flagship IO events. Together, this evidence sheds light on the politics of economic ideas and their impact within the IO architecture and global economic policymaking.
Jieyeon Kim
CV |
Fields of Study: International Relations
Dissertation Title: Understanding the Participation of Middle Powers in United Nations Peacekeeping: Case Studies of Canada and the Republic of Korea
Committee: Ann Marie Clark (Chair), James A. McCann, Mark Tilton, Kyle Haynes
Summary: This dissertation investigates the involvement of middle powers in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations (UNPKOs), specifically focusing on Canada and the Republic of Korea. The primary objective of this research is to comprehend the motives and behaviors of middle powers when engaging in peacekeeping efforts and to identify the key factors that influence their decisions. To achieve this goal, a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and documentary analyses, is employed. The analysis draws data from government documents, reports, academic articles, and United Nations databases.
The political, security, economic, institutional, and normative rationales identified by Bellamy and Williams (2013) have a substantial influence on the involvement of middle powers in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations (UNPKOs). Although some rationales might hold greater prominence, the study recognizes that each rationale affects the choices made by middle powers to participate in UNPKOs. The research presents five hypotheses aimed at elucidating middle powers' engagement in UNPKOs and investigates the factors influencing countries' decisions to take part in these operations, particularly focusing on middle powers. The case studies of Canada and the Republic of Korea provide valuable insights into the diverse factors influencing middle powers' engagement in UNPKOs.
The study's findings hold implications for policymakers and practitioners in the field of middle powers and peacekeeping operations. Comprehending the factors influencing middle powers and their motivations can guide the development of effective strategies for engaging these actors and leveraging their unique capabilities in achieving peace and security objectives.
Sky Kunkel
CV Personal Website
Fields of study: International Relations, Political Methodology
Dissertation Title: The Local Effects of UN Peacekeeping
Committee: Kyle Haynes (Chair), Liana Eustacia Reyes, Giancarlo Visconti, Michael Greig
Summary What are the effects of UN Peacekeepers? Existing research concludes that more peacekeepers lead to less violence. However, primarily conducted at the cross-national level, whether these findings transfer to the subnational or local level remains to be determined. Applying a novel theoretical framework, I emphasize local features of peacekeepers that may impact their effectiveness at decreasing violence, specifically temporal, geospatial, and gender. Using quantitative methods, they find that women peacekeepers are vital in decreasing violence, but timing and location condition this relationship. My research adds nuance to the peacekeeping effectiveness literature. It has implications for how, when, and where to move peacekeepers and their demographic composition.
Hanna Sistek
Fields of study: Comparative Politics, International Relations, Research Methods
Dissertation Title: Structural Incentives for Politicians to Manipulate Domestic Opinion
Dissertation Committee: Cherie Maestas (Chair), Andy Baker, Mollie Cohen, Marcus Mann
Summary:
Why do democratically elected politicians increasingly employ false or biased information despite reputational risks? My dissertation argues that societal changes—media fragmentation, rising affective polarization, and democratic decline—have lowered reputational costs. I develop a Reputational Cost Theory of Disinformation, which links micro-level expected utility reasoning with macro-level institutional and societal drivers to explain shifting incentives. The first empirical chapter tests the theory using existing longitudinal data from 84 democracies. Regression analysis demonstrates that disinformation is more prevalent in weaker democracies with fragmented media and higher polarization. The second chapter employs a U.S. vignette survey experiment (N = 4,207) to examine voter sanctions of disinformation tactics. Results indicate that strong partisanship, but moderate affective attachment reduces willingness to punish co-partisan politicians. It further shows that Republicans are less penalized than Democrats—largely because Democrats self-sanction more strongly.
The third exploratory chapter draws on 29 elite interviews in Sweden, Germany, and Czechia. The key emerging drivers behind increased disinformation use include diminished detection risks, reduced punishment, and growing acceptability of false and biased information. Experts link these to digitalization, weaker gatekeeping, faster news cycles, and external shocks, noting that far-right/anti-establishment parties face the lowest sanctions.
By focusing on political elites—an overlooked but pivotal actor—this dissertation advances understanding of disinformation, polarization, and democratic backsliding.