Allison Carnegie

This article reviews Discriminatory Clubs: The Geopolitics of International Organizations by Christina L. Davis. After highlighting the many contributions of this pathbreaking work to political science scholarship, it discusses one of the manuscript's core claims: that members of international organizations (IOs) use membership to favor their allies and exclude their rivals. Specifically, it examines a potential tension that leading states may face between keeping rivals out of these organizations for security reasons versus allowing them to join to constrain their behavior and socialize them into the IO's norms. It explores whether consideration of scope conditions, IO reforms, or international regime complexes can help explain IO behavior toward rivals. In doing so, the review suggests productive directions for future work and argues that Discriminatory Clubs will spark many exciting and fruitful research directions.

This article analyzes how fears regarding information disclosure have shaped responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and whether innovations in confidentiality at institutions like the World Health Organization may address those concerns. Sensitive information abounds in global health crises including health data, treatment options, and treatment administration. This creates a dilemma: sharing information is necessary to identify outbreaks but is prevented by concerns regarding privacy, profits, and political scrutiny. Building on insights from other institutions and issue areas, we assess how global governance institutions might respond to these disclosure dilemmas by developing forms of confidentiality in global disease governance. We analyze the benefits and trade-offs in equipping organizations like the World Health Organization with stronger methods for keeping sensitive information secure. We also use new data on a range of international organizations to show that such enhanced confidentiality can improve institutional effectiveness.

Understanding the determinants of support for democracy remains at the heart of many puzzles in international and comparative political economy. A central but still unresolved topic in this literature is the conditions under which such support dissipates. To answer this question, this article focuses on distributional politics: since democratic leaders possess limited budgets but need to win elections, they often skew resources toward one politically influential sector, leading to more negative attitudes toward democracy among electorally ignored populations. In particular, we argue that governments often face a key political trade-off: whether to direct resources to the agricultural sector or to encourage urban development. After developing this argument in a formal model, we detail historical accounts that substantiate the mechanisms identified in the model. Finally, we provide cross-national quantitative evidence that discontent with democracy increases among geographic populations when governments disproportionately distribute resources toward other sectors.

How should we reconcile covert war with normative theories of the democratic peace? Proponents argue that these interventions are consistent with democratic peace theory, as leaders intervene covertly to escape backlash by a public that has internalized liberal norms. Yet we know little about public opinion regarding the covert use of force. Using a survey experiment, we find that respondents are more favorable towards covert interventions against democratic targets than our theories assume, and that even citizens who value transparency the most still wrestle with a trade-off between their normative commitments and the instrumental benefits they perceive covert actions to hold. Our results thus help to explain why American leaders have repeatedly chosen to conduct covert military operations against fellow democracies, and raise important questions about the scope conditions of normative theories of the democratic peace.

This article provides a systematic examination of the role of security considerations in shaping mass preferences over international economic exchange. The authors employ multiple survey experiments conducted in the United States and India, along with observational and case study evidence, to investigate how geopolitics affects voters’ views of international trade. Their research shows that respondents consistently—and by large margins—prefer trading with allies over adversaries. Negative prior beliefs about adversaries, amplified by concerns that trade will bolster the partner's military, account for this preference. Yet the authors also find that a significant proportion of the public believes that trade can lead to peace and that the peace-inducing aspects of trade can cause voters to overcome their aversion to trade with adversaries. This article helps explain when and why governments constrained by public opinion pursue economic cooperation in the shadow of conflict.

A primary objective of foreign aid in conflict zones is to help political actors win citizens’ ‘hearts and minds’. Previous studies have focused on assistance provided to state actors; however, this article examines aid's impact on rebel governance. It argues that aid only bolsters opinions of rebel governors where military control is uncontested. In contested areas, rebels lose credibility if they cannot offer protection, and they have difficulty delivering – and receiving credit for – services in insecure environments crowded with competitors. Using novel data from the Syrian civil war, this article shows that aid improves opinions of opposition councils in uncontested areas but not in communities experiencing intra-rebel conflict. It also explores the underlying mechanisms using in-depth interviews with residents of Aleppo City and Saraqeb. The findings reveal a more nuanced relationship among aid, military competition and governance than prior studies have suggested, which has implications for both scholars and policy makers.

Existing research generally finds that foreign aid is ineffective in bolstering perceptions of governance, especially in conflict‐affected countries. Yet while most studies have focused on aid provided to state actors, this paper examines the link between aid and popular support for governing institutions in rebel‐held territory. We argue that aid can improve opinions of these institutions when they are embedded in the demographic, aspirational, and experiential solidarities of their communities. To evaluate our theory, we analyze new perceptions of data collected from residents of 27 rebel‐held communities inside Syria from 2014 to 2016. We find a modest but positive effect of aid on perceptions of local institutions, but only when the institutions were not imposed by outside actors. These results are further supported by a case study of Raqqa City, which shows that aid only boosted citizens’ views of the local governing body when it was embedded within the community.