International Relations

FSI researchers strive to understand how countries relate to one another, and what policies are needed to achieve global stability and prosperity. International relations experts focus on the challenging U.S.-Russian relationship, the alliance between the U.S. and Japan and the limitations of America’s counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan.

Foreign aid is also examined by scholars trying to understand whether money earmarked for health improvements reaches those who need it most. And FSI’s Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center has published on the need for strong South Korean leadership in dealing with its northern neighbor.

FSI researchers also look at the citizens who drive international relations, studying the effects of migration and how borders shape people’s lives. Meanwhile FSI students are very much involved in this area, working with the United Nations in Ethiopia to rethink refugee communities.

Trade is also a key component of international relations, with FSI approaching the topic from a slew of angles and states. The economy of trade is rife for study, with an APARC event on the implications of more open trade policies in Japan, and FSI researchers making sense of who would benefit from a free trade zone between the European Union and the United States.

-
We contend that contemporary support for populist parties stems from a set of economic and cultural developments that have severed the connections that usually bind people to their society. Building on an important ethnographic literature, we assess whether populism can be seen as a problem of social integration through an examination of political attitudes and electoral behavior in 26 developed democracies. Using subjective social status as an indicator for the social integration of individuals, we find that people who feel more marginal to society, because they lack social engagement or a sense of social respect, are more likely to be alienated from mainstream politics and to not vote or vote for parties of the populist right or left. The implication is that support for parties of the populist right and left has both economic and cultural roots and should be addressed, not only as an issue of economic deprivation requiring redistribution, but also as an issue of social integration requiring efforts to expand social recognition.
 
Noam Gidron image
Noam Gidron
 is fellow at the Niehaus Center for Globalization and Governance at Princeton. Noam received his Ph.D. from Harvard University in May 2016. His research focuses on political sociology and electoral politics in advanced democracies. It draws on multiple methods, including survey analysis, experiments, text analysis, and elite interviews. Geographically, Noam’s work covers member states of the European Union, the United States and Israel. Next year, Noam will join the faculty of the political science department at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

 

Co-sponsored by the Global Populisms Project

Noam Gidron Princeton University
Lectures
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs
Rachel Midura imageOur featured graduate student this month is Rachel Midura, PhD candidate in the Department of History and fellow at the Center for Spatial and Textual Analysis. Anne's research for her dissertation focuses on the postal, political, and information networks of Northern Italy from 1550 to 1720. With the support of a research grant from The Europe Center, Rachel traveled to archives in Milan, Bergamo, and London in December and January of 2016-2017 to explore their collections of notarial documents and inter-postal agreements.
 
1667. Pallavicino: Image from German translation of satirical epistolary novel ascribed to Ferrante Pallavicino 1667. Pallavicino: Image from German translation of satirical epistolary novel ascribed to Ferrante Pallavicino.
In the archives, Rachel focused on the post office of Milan in the years 1590-1620 as a hub for the Imperial, Spanish, and Venetian posts.
At the literal crossroads of the Habsburg European Empire, the post office of Milan faced a turning point with the death of Ruggiero Tasso, the last direct heir to one of the most powerful postal entrepreneurs in history, Simone Tasso. Ruggiero’s widow, with the aid of her postal lieutenant Ottavio Codogno, fought to maintain her rights and those of her minor sons, earning enmity among local political figures who dubbed her “capricious.” While only treated glancingly in the current historiography, there are hundreds of notarial documents related to this period and at least one major inter-postal agreement in 1604 with the Venetian Company of Couriers that suggest that Lucina Cataneo Tasso was an accomplished administrator in her own right. Another document of great interest is a postal itinerary that Codogno published in defiance of the prevailing culture of state secrecy. Rachel hopes to compile a comprehensive case study of the information politics navigated by postal administrators, who, despite official proscriptions, often acted as free agents, fueling local struggles between competing loyalties with potentially far-reaching consequences. Rachel will be presenting on the impact of postal infrastructure on the travel of British tourists at the Grand Tour workshop at Stanford. When she returns to her overseas research, she’ll focus on how the individual communication hubs rose and fell in prominence, and how the network as a whole survived the ravages of the Thirty Years’ War.

 

 

Hero Image
Rachel Midura image
All News button
1
Image
Rachel Midura image
Title Text
Rachel Midura image
Aria Label
Read more about Rachel Midura's GSGC experience (2017-2018)
Date Label
Display Hero Image Wide (1320px)
No
-

Between 2010 and 2015, EU governments negotiated consecutive reforms to the governance of the eurozone which, taken together, represent perhaps the most significant deepening of European integration in modern times. What factors determined the outcome of these negotiations? Did some countries exert greater influence than others? This paper offers the first systematic assessment of bargaining success in the reform of the eurozone. It evaluates the explanatory power of three potential sources of bargaining success – power, preferences, and coalitions – based on an analysis of new and unique data on the positions of all EU member states on all key reform proposals. Its conclusions carry general importance for our understanding of power and negotiation in Europe.

 

Image
Jonas Tallberg image

 

Jonas Tallberg is Professor of Political Science at Stockholm University, where he directs the research group on global and regional governance, selected as a leading area of research at Stockholm University. His primary research interests are global governance and European Union politics. His most recent book is the The Opening Up of International Organizations: Transnational Access in Global Governance (Cambridge University Press, 2013), co-authored with Thomas Sommerer, Theresa Squatrito and Christer Jönsson. Earlier books include Leadership and Negotiation in the European Union (Cambridge University Press, 2006).

Tallberg has won numerous awards for his research, including the Forskraft Award for the best Swedish dissertation on international relations, the JCMS Prize for the best article in Journal of Common Market Studies, and the Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel Research Award from the German Humboldt Foundation. He has been awarded research grants from, among others, the European Research Council, Fulbright Commission, Swedish Research Council, Riksbankens Jubileumsfond, and Nordic Research Academy.

Jonas Tallberg Stockholm University
Lectures
Authors
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

New research by Stanford economist Ran Abramitzky studies Norwegian immigrants to the U.S. during the late 19th and early 20th centuries who chose to return to Europe. Return migrants hailed from poorer backgrounds but ended up holding higher-paid occupations back home.

 

Image
Image of Ran Abramitzky
Today’s conversation about immigration and the role of immigrants in America is not so different from the conversations that took place more than 100 years ago, when European immigrants settled in cities and on farms in the United States.

That’s why Stanford economist Ran Abramitzky and his colleagues spent the past decade analyzing data on immigrants in the United States between 1850 and 1913, which was the time of the country’s largest wave of migration.

His latest research explores return migrants, those who eventually chose to come back to Europe, and how they fared when they got home. The study focuses on migrants from Norway – made possible by the availability of comprehensive new data on their activities. The research compares return migrants to both Norwegian immigrants who chose to stay in the U.S. and to the Norwegian population that never moved abroad.

The researchers found that Norwegian immigrants who returned home in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were more likely to have held lower-skilled occupations, compared with both Norwegians who never moved and those who stayed in the United States.  But upon returning to Norway, the return migrants held higher-paying occupations than Norwegians who never moved.

The findings are contrary to the popular belief that return migration mostly resulted from bad shocks, such as an illness or unemployment, said Abramitzky, an associate professor of economics at Stanford and co-author of the recently published article in the Industrial and Labor Relations Review. Instead, it appears that return migrants already hailed from poorer backgrounds before their move.

“Moving permanently to the New World was one strategy that poor European immigrants used to achieve economic success,” Abramitzky said of his joint work with Leah Boustan of Princeton University and Katherine Eriksson of the University of California, Davis. “This research suggests that temporary movement to the United States in order to accumulate savings and invest in the home country was another option available to the poor.”

Reasons for return migration

The study on return migrants is the latest piece in Abramitzky’s larger research project, which he began with his co-authors about 10 years ago, on immigration in the U.S. between 1850 and 1913.

About 30 million Europeans immigrated during the period, which scholars call the Age of Mass Migration, as America maintained open, largely unrestricted borders for European migrants until about 1914. By 1910, 22 percent of the country’s labor force was foreign-born, compared to 17 percent of today’s working population.

The same period also saw a high rate of return migration. One in three immigrants returned to their home country.

To learn which immigrants moved back and how they fared economically, Abramitzky and his colleagues needed comprehensive data on immigrants from a single country.

“It is challenging to study these types of questions because systematic data on return migrants are not typically collected,” Abramitzky said.

But Norway, which experienced a high rate of out-migration during this period, was a unique case. The country’s 1910 census asked respondents whether they spent some time in the United States, and, if so, the dates of their arrival and departure, last state of residence and last occupation held.

Because Norway recently released digital versions of those census datasets, Abramitzky and his research team chose to focus on the Scandinavian country, conducting an unprecedented analysis of individual data on return migrants to Europe during that period.

Abramitzky, Boustan and Eriksson linked the American and Norwegian census data sets to compare Norwegian migrants still living in the U.S. in 1910 with Norwegian immigrants who returned after a couple of years – as well as to Norwegians who stayed in Norway throughout this period.

The data showed that immigrants who held low-paid occupations or who came from rural parts of Norway were more likely to come back after moving to America. Once back home, the return migrants held higher-paid occupations than the Norwegians who never moved, despite hailing from poorer backgrounds.

That return migrants climbed to a higher rung on the occupational ladder may have been the result of savings accrued in the U.S., according to the researchers. Many return migrants worked as farmers, often in their town of birth. When these men – who had started out as poor farm laborers – returned to Norway, they were more likely than the non-movers to purchase and work on their own farms, a more lucrative profession made possible by the increased land they were able to buy with their savings.

These temporary moves might have been necessary, the researchers wrote, because it was difficult to borrow money in Norway, which was not as advanced financially as the U.S.

Immigration then and now

During the Age of Mass Migration, politicians and the public raised questions about immigrants that are similar to those discussed today. Can immigrants successfully integrate into America’s society and economy? Or do they remain isolated long after they settle?

Abramitzky’s past work on immigrants from 16 sending European countries provides some clues. A 2014 study showed that European immigrants arrived in the U.S. with occupations comparable to native-born Americans, and his 2016 research on cultural assimilation documented that immigrants who arrived in the early 20th century chose less foreign names for their sons and daughters as they spent more time in the United States.

Abramitzky and his collaborators are now working on a book on their years of research on immigration during that period, which may offer lessons for today’s migration policy debate.

“If we want to know how today’s newcomers will fare, we can find important clues by examining what happened to those who arrived on our shores during the greatest surge of immigration in U.S. history,” Abramitzky said. “Comparing our findings with contemporary studies can illuminate the effect of modern immigration policy on migrant selection and migrant assimilation.”

 

Media Contacts

Ran Abramitzky, Department of Economics: (650) 723-9276, ranabr@stanford.edu

Alex Shashkevich, Stanford News Service: (650) 497-4419, ashashkevich@stanford.edu

 

This article was originally published in the Stanford Report on September 12, 2017.

 

Hero Image
Emigrants Norway image
All News button
1
Paragraphs

The Ghadar movement cultivated strong ties of solidarity with Egyptian, Irish, and other anti-colonial movements. Competing visions of the future world order coexisted with common dissatisfaction with the contemporary world order. Ghadar linked militant diaspora intellectuals with activists in the subcontinent.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Commentary
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
The Tribune
Authors
Priya Satia
Paragraphs

The vitality of relations between Berlin and Washington has long served as a litmus test for the overall health of the Atlantic alliance, which makes the current rhetorical skirmishing between the principals all the more troublesome. President Trump has condemned Germany’s high trade surplus and its low defense budget as “very bad,” while Chancellor Merkel has responded, indirectly, in the Christian Democrat’s electoral platform. In 2013, that document had described the United States as Germany’s “most important friend” outside of Europe. But in 2017, that declaration of amicability is demoted to an appreciation of the “most important partner.” Germany and the United States are still on the same page, evidently, but the tone is noticeably cooler. Are we frenemies now?

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Commentary
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Defining Ideas (Hoover Institution)
Authors
Russell A. Berman
Paragraphs

Some see the popular vote in the UK to withdraw from the European Union as a major blow that diminishes the future of Europe. But Brexit is a distraction from the core threat to Europe: policy driven by business strategy in response to a looming demographic crisis.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Commentary
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Le Monde diplomatique
Authors
Roland Hsu

Lane History Corner

450 Serra Mall

200-118
 

0
Professor of History
fiona_griffiths_image.jpg

Fiona Griffiths is a historian of medieval Western Europe, focusing on intellectual and religious life from the ninth to the thirteenth century. Her work explores the possibilities for social experimentation and cultural production inherent in medieval religious reform movements, addressing questions of gender, spirituality, and authority, particularly as they pertain to the experiences and interactions of religious men (priests or monks) with women (nuns and clerical wives). Griffiths is the author of Nuns’ Priests’ Tales: Men and Salvation in Medieval Women's Monastic Life, The Middle Ages Series (The University of Pennsylvania Press: 2018); and The Garden of Delights: Reform and Renaissance for Women in the Twelfth Century, The Middle Ages Series (The University of Pennsylvania Press: 2007); as well as co-editor of Sensory Reflections: Traces of Experience in Medieval Artifacts, (with Kathryn Starkey (De Gruyter: 2018); and Partners in Spirit: Men, Women, and Religious Life in Germany, 1100-1500, (with Julie Hotchin) (Brepols: 2014). Her essays have appeared in Speculum, Church History, the Journal of Medieval History, and Viator. She has held fellowships from the National Endowment for the Humanities; the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study; the Stanford Humanities Center; and the Institute of Historical Research (University of London).

Griffith's research was featured in The Europe Center October 2017 Newsletter.

Affiliated faculty at The Europe Center

Lane History Corner
450 Serra Mall, 200-011

(650) 723-3609
0
Associate Professor of History
Director, Sohaib and Sara Abbasi Program in Islamic Studies
ali_yaycioglu_headshot.jpg

Dr. Ali Yaycıoğlu is a historian specializing in the History of the Ottoman Empire, Middle East, and Modern Turkey. Currently he is serving as the director of the Abbasi Program of Islamic Studies and the Middle East Studies Forum.

His research focuses on different dimensions of political, economic, and legal institutions and practices, as well as the social and cultural dynamics of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Dr. Yaycıoğlu is particularly intrigued by visions, representations, and documentation of concepts like property, territory, and nature in early periods. His is also interested in the application of digital tools to comprehend, visualize, and conceptualize these historical perspectives. Dr. Yaycıoğlu offers courses on the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Empires, Markets, and Networks in the Early Modern World, Global History of the Age of Revolutions, Doing Economic History, and Digital Humanities.

Dr. Yaycıoğlu's first book, Partners of the Empire: Crisis of the Ottoman Order in the Age of Revolutions (Stanford, 2016), reevaluates the Ottoman Empire within the global context of the revolutionary age in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. He also co-edited the Ottoman Digital Humanities Special Issue of the Journal of Ottoman and Turkish Studies (2023) and Crafting History: Essays on the Ottoman World and Beyond in Honor of Cemal Kafadar (Boston, 2023). Dr. Yaycıoğlu's essays on the history and contemporary affairs of the Republic of Turkey were published in his Uncertain Past Time: Empire, Republic, and Politics (in Turkish, Istanbul, 2024).

Currently, he is immersed in two book projects: Karlowitz Moment: The Ottoman Empire and the Making of the Modern World, 1699-1839, a reconsideration of the Ottoman experience in the global context during the long eighteenth century and The Order of Debt: Power, Wealth, and Death in the Ottoman Empire, analyzing property, finance, and Ottoman statehood in the first half of the nineteenth century.

Dr. Yaycıoğlu is the co-editor of the Stanford Ottoman World Series: Critical Studies in Empire, Nature and Knowledge also oversees a digital history project, Mapping Ottoman Epirus, housed in Stanford’s Center for Spatial and Textual Analysis (CESTA).

Born and raised in Ankara, Turkey, Dr. Yaycıoğlu earned degrees in International Relations from the Middle East Technical University and Ottoman History from Bilkent University. Further studies led him to McGill University in Montreal, where he focused on Arabic and Islamic legal history. He completed his Ph.D. in History and Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard in 2008, followed by post-doctoral studies in the Agha Khan Program for Islamic Architecture at Harvard and later in Hellenic Studies at Princeton. He Joined the History Department at Stanford in 2011. Dr. Yaycıoğlu regularly writes opinion pieces in Gazete Oksijen and other venues in Turkish and English on History and contemporary politics, mainly focusing on Turkey and the Middle East. In parallel with his academic pursuits, Dr. Yaycıoğlu is engaged in visual arts under the name "Critical Imagination," conducting artistic work in Palo Alto and Istanbul through the Atölye20 platform.

Affiliated faculty, The Europe Center
Affiliated faculty, CDDRL
Date Label

Lane History Corner

450 Serra Mall

200-324


 

(650) 723-2676
0
Associate Professor of History
steve_press_image.jpg

Steven Press received his B.A. from Vanderbilt University and his A.M. and Ph.D. from Harvard University. He taught at Harvard and Vanderbilt before coming to Stanford. His research interests include sovereignty and commodity networks. Press's first book, Rogue Empires: Contracts and Conmen in Europe's Scramble for Africa (Harvard University Press, 2017) won the American Historical Association Pacific Coast Branch Book Award. Press's second book, The Jewels of Empire: Germany, Africa, and the Rise of the Diamond (Harvard University Press, 2021) won the German Studies Association’s Barclay Book Prize in 2022.

 

Affiliated faculty at The Europe Center
Subscribe to International Relations