Event Information

Since the Rose Revolution in November 2003, Georgia has grappled with the many challenges of building a modern, Western-oriented state, including implementing political and economic reforms, fighting corruption, and throwing off the vestiges of the Soviet legacy. On the path toward a functioning and reliable democracy, Georgia has pursued these domestic changes in an often difficult international environment, as evidenced by the Russia-Georgia conflict in 2008.

On March 17, the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings (CUSE) hosted President Mikheil Saakashvili to discuss Georgia’s approach to these challenges. A leader of Georgia’s 2003 Rose Revolution, Saakashvili was elected president of Georgia in January 2004 and reelected for a second term in January 2008.

Vice President Martin Indyk, director of Foreign Policy at Brookings, provided introductory remarks and Senior Fellow and CUSE Director Fiona Hill moderated the discussion. After the program, President Saakashvili took audience questions.

Video

• Georgia Is a Transformed Country
• Georgia Is a Valuable Asset to Europe
• The Key to Effective Change Is Youth

Audio

• From Popular Revolutions to Effective Reforms: The Georgian Experience

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20110317_saakashvili_transcript

      

Editor's Note: Launched at a December 5, 2011 event at Brookings, this study is based on a publication developed in 2005 by the Brookings-Bern Project on Internal Displacement: Addressing Internal Displacement: A Framework for National Responsibility.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

It is a central tenet of international law that states bear the primary duty and responsibility to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of persons within their borders, including the internally displaced. While internally displaced persons (IDPs) remain entitled to the full protection of rights and freedoms available to the population in general, they face vulnerabilities that nondisplaced persons do not face. Therefore, in order to ensure that IDPs are not deprived of their human rights and are treated equally with respect to nondisplaced citizens, states are obligated to provide special measures of protection and assistance to IDPs that correspond to their particular vulnerabilities. Reflecting these key notions of international law, the rights of IDPs and obligations of states are set forth in the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (hereafter, “the Guiding Principles”).

Using the Guiding Principles as a departure for analysis, this study examines government response to internal displacement in fifteen of the twenty countries most affected by internal displacement due to conflict, generalized violence and human rights violations: Afghanistan, the Central African Republic, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Georgia, Iraq, Kenya, Myanmar, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Turkey, Uganda and Yemen. The analysis seeks to shed light on how and to what extent, if any, governments are fulfilling their responsibility toward IDPs, with a view to providing guidance to governments in such efforts. In so doing, this study also seeks to contribute to research and understanding regarding realization of the emerging norm of the “Responsibility to Protect.” To frame the analysis, the introduction to this volume examines the connections among the concepts of national responsibility, “sovereignty as responsibility” and the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P).

The comparative analysis across the fifteen countries, presented in chapter 1, is based on a systematic application of the document Addressing Internal Displacement: A Framework for National Responsibility (hereafter, “Framework for National Responsibility,” “the Framework”). Seeking to distill the Guiding Principles, the Framework outlines twelve practical steps (“benchmarks”) that states can take to directly contribute to the prevention, mitigation and resolution of internal displacement:

1. Prevent displacement and minimize its adverse effects.
2. Raise national awareness of the problem.
3. Collect data on the number and conditions of IDPs.
4. Support training on the rights of IDPs.
5. Create a legal framework for upholding the rights of IDPs.
6. Develop a national policy on internal displacement.
7. Designate an institutional focal point on IDPs.
8. Support national human rights institutions to integrate internal displacement into their work.
9. Ensure the participation of IDPs in decision making.
10. Support durable solutions.
11. Allocate adequate resources to the problem.
12. Cooperate with the international community when national capacity is insufficient.

      

Event Information

On December 5, 2011, the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement held a private launch event for its report, From Responsibility to Response: Assessing National Approaches to Internal Displacement, which examines government response to internal displacement in fifteen of the twenty countries most affected by internal displacement due to conflict, generalized violence and human rights violations. The analysis presented in the report is based on the first ever systematic use as an assessment tool of the document, Addressing Internal Displacement: A Framework for National Responsibility, developed by the Brookings-Bern Project on Internal Displacement in 2005 to provide guidance to governments in their response to internal displacement.

Roberta Cohen (nonresident senior fellow at Brookings and former co-director of the Project) moderated the event, which featured remarks from the co-authors of the report, Elizabeth Ferris (senior fellow at Brookings and co-director of the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement), Erin Mooney (senior IDP and protection adviser at the United Nations and former deputy director of the Project) and Chareen Stark (senior research assistant, Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement). In attendance were representatives from the US Department of State and international NGOs, as well as researchers from think tanks and universities.

Cohen opened the event by discussing the background and significance of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. From the very beginning of discussions about internal displacement, there was an emphasis on the fundamental responsibility of national governments to protect and assist those displaced within their territory. And yet over the years there has been an awareness that international actors also have a role to play. She noted the positive strides that have occurred over the past twenty years in regards to government response to internal displacement. Country visits by the UN experts on IDPs—the Representatives of the Secretary-General on IDPs—have been instrumental to improving government response, in some instances leading governments to address internal displacement for the first time. Today, most governments understand their obligations and responsibilities to protect and assist IDPs; the challenge is often translating that understanding into concrete actions.

Elizabeth Ferris gave an overview of the Framework for National Responsibility, which was used to assess government response in each of the fifteen countries in the report (Afghanistan, The Central African Republic, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Georgia, Iraq, Kenya, Myanmar, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Turkey, Uganda and Yemen). The Framework outlines twelve minimum steps—or benchmarks—that governments can take to address the protection and assistance needs of internally displaced persons within their territory, from preventing displacement to appointing a focal point on IDP issues, to facilitating the work of the international community. She explained the methodology used in the study and described the challenges the authors faced in conducting the research. For example, basic data on various aspects of government response was lacking in many instances and it was often difficult to determine the impact of a particular government policy in addressing internal displacement. In addition to analyzing the response of the fifteen governments on each of the twelve benchmarks, the study included four extended case studies commissioned for this report: Afghanistan, Georgia, Kenya and Sri Lanka.  Ferris discussed some of the overall findings of the study, noted that the Framework had proven to be a useful assessment tool for examining national responses to displacement, and suggested a number of areas where further research is needed. 

Erin Mooney briefed the audience on benchmark seven—designating an institutional focal point on IDPs—and benchmark ten—supporting durable solutions for IDPs. Mooney noted that designating a governmental focal point for addressing internal displacement is important for clarifying institutional responsibilities and, therefore, for increasing governmental accountability.  Of the 15 countries assessed, all but one had designated a national institutional focal point for addressing internal displacement. She discussed some of the challenges institutional focal points often face, including a lack of funding and a lack of political clout which often challenge their ability to coordinate across government agencies. Benchmark ten, the achievement of durable solutions, was one of the most complex and politicized areas of government action, and is  arguably the one in which government commitment to addressing displacement becomes most apparent. Governments tend to emphasize return as the primary solution to displacement, but, in situations where return has occurred, there is usually little information about whether IDPs have in fact achieved a durable solution. Mooney discussed some of the challenges the fifteen governments faced in finding durable solutions, noting that in none of the countries have durable solutions to displacement been fully achieved.

Chareen Stark discussed the report’s findings on benchmark one—the prevention of arbitrary displacement—and the study’s overall recommendations. Given that the study assessed governments already experiencing large-scale displacement and, in most instances, multiple waves of displacement, Stark said it was obvious that all fifteen governments had failed to prevent displacement. There were three major limitations to governments’ ability to prevent displacement: many of the governments are themselves parties to conflict; many of the governments assessed do not exercise effective sovereignty over all of their territory, due to the presence of nonstate armed actors and/or foreign militaries; and all of the assessed countries face financial and human capacity limitations. She explained that the study found that nearly half of the countries assessed had developed some sort of preventive measures (at least on paper), including several governments that had taken measures to prevent displacement from natural disasters but not conflict. Stark discussed some of these laws, policies and institutional mechanisms as well as the challenges to their effective implementation. She also outlined the report’s recommendations to governments of countries with IDP populations, such as developing and implementing laws and policies in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement and devoting adequate resources at the national and local levels.

Concluding the discussion, the panel responded to questions from the audience on issues such as incentives for governments to address internal displacement using the Framework for National Responsibility and challenges in data reporting and analysis.  Specific questions were also raised on benchmarks five (laws on internal displacement), six (policies on internal displacement), three (designating an institutional focal point for IDPs) and twelve (working with the international community).

Event Materials

• From Responsibility to Response Nov 2011doc

      

Editor's Note: This is the first part of a two piece series on internal displacement that originally appeared online in TerraNullius. The second part is available here.

The Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement recently released a study entitled "From Responsibility to Response: Assessing National Response to Internal Displacement." The study examined 15 out of the 20 countries with the highest number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) due to conflict, generalized violence and human rights violations—Afghanistan, the Central African Republic, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Georgia, Iraq, Kenya, Myanmar, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Turkey, Uganda and Yemen.

According to estimates, these 15 countries represent over 70 percent of the world’s 27.5 million conflict-induced IDPs. Wherever possible, we also tried to include government efforts to address internal displacement by natural disasters. But in this and the subsequent blog post, we will focus on our main general conclusions as well as particular issues around housing, land and property (HLP) rights that emerged from our analysis (see Part II of this posting).

The study looks at how governments have fared in terms of implementing 12 practical steps (“benchmarks”) to prevent and address internal displacement, as outlined in the 2005 Brookings publication entitled "Addressing Internal Displacement: A Framework for National Responsibility." The 12 benchmarks are as follows:

1. Prevent displacement and minimize its adverse effects.
2. Raise national awareness of the problem.
3. Collect data on the number and conditions of IDPs.
4. Support training on the rights of IDPs.
5. Create a legal framework for upholding the rights of IDPs.
6. Develop a national policy on internal displacement.
7. Designate an institutional focal point on IDPs.
8. Support national human rights institutions to integrate internal displacement into their work.
9. Ensure the participation of IDPs in decisionmaking.
10. Support durable solutions.
11. Allocate adequate resources to the problem.
12. Cooperate with the international community when national capacity is insufficient.

Stepping back from HLP issues (to be addressed in a subsequent set of comments in Part II of this guest posting), we drew several key observations on our overall findings.

The study found that political will was the main determining factor of response to internal displacement. Governments cannot always control the factors that cause displacement, or may themselves be responsible for displacement, but they can take measures to improve the lives and uphold the rights and freedoms of IDPs. Internal displacement due to con­flict derives from political issues, and all aspects of a government’s response to it therefore are affected by political considerations, including, for example, acknowledgment of displacement, registration and collection of data on IDPs, ensuring the participation of IDPs in decision-making, assistance and protection offered to different (temporal) caseloads of IDPs, support for durable solutions, which durable solutions are supported, and the facilitation of efforts by international organizations to provide protec­tion and assistance to IDPs.

While none of the governments surveyed was fully protecting and assisting IDPs, four stand out in particular—Colombia, Georgia, Kenya and Uganda—for implementing their responsibility toward IDPs while three others—Central African Republic, Myanmar and Yemen—had particular difficulties in fulfilling their responsibilities toward IDPs. In Myanmar, the obstacles were primarily political while in Yemen and the Central African Republic, as in many of the countries surveyed, the limitations appear to arise primarily from inadequate government capacity.

The other eight countries were somewhere in between. For example, some, such as Nepal, have demonstrated a significant commitment at one particular point in time but have failed to follow through. Others, such as Sri Lanka, have at times demonstrated blatant disregard for their responsibility and have moved swiftly to try to bring an end to displacement. Sudan, Pakistan, and to a certain extent, Turkey, have very problematic records with respect to preventing displacement in one part of the country yet have supported efforts to bring an end to displacement in others. In some cases, such as Afghanistan and Yemen, the continuing conflict and the role of nonstate actors (and in Afghanistan, the presence of foreign militaries as well) have made it difficult for the government to respond effectively to internal displacement.

Prevention of internal displacement is paramount, but is probably the most difficult measure to take and the least likely to be taken in the countries as­sessed, which all had large IDP populations. Given the scale of displacement in the fifteen countries surveyed, it was to be expected that these governments would not have been suc­cessful in preventing displacement. Nearly half of the fifteen countries assessed had adopted some preventive measures on paper, but all fifteen have fallen short of actually prevent­ing displacement in practice.

Moreover, many national authorities themselves have been or are perpetrators of violence or human rights abuses that have led to displacement, and many states foster a culture of impunity for alleged perpetrators of serious human rights violations. Further, the presence of foreign military forces and/or non-state armed actors limits the abil­ity of many states to exercise full sovereignty over their territory and therefore to prevent the conditions that drive people into displacement. Some countries have taken steps to prevent dis­placement due to natural disasters or develop­ment but not due to conflict, indicating that the former is perhaps less politically taboo and/or practically less difficult to implement than the latter.

Sustained political attention by the highest authorities is a necessary, though not suffi­cient, condition for taking responsibility for IDPs. Nearly all of the governments surveyed, at least at some point, have exercised their responsibility to IDPs by acknowledging the existence of internal displacement and their responsibility to address it as a national prior­ity, for example, by drawing attention to IDPs’ plight. However, government efforts to raise awareness of internal displacement through public statements was not always a useful indicator of a government’s commitment to upholding the fundamental human rights and freedoms of IDPs.

Among the five countries with laws on or related to internal displacement, there were notable limitations to the scope of the laws and gaps in implementing them. Legislation was quite comprehensive in scope in at least two cases and was narrow in others, address­ing specific rights of IDPs or a phase of dis­placement. Other countries lacked a national legislative framework on IDPs but had generic legislation relevant to IDPs. Still others had laws that violated or could violate the rights of IDPs. Laws on internal displacement must be viewed in the context of other legislation and administrative acts applicable to the general population (e.g., those related to documenta­tion, residency, housing, land and property, and personal status), which this study reviews to the extent possible, particularly in the case studies on Georgia, Kenya, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. In Africa, the region with the most IDPs, states have recognized in legally binding instruments the importance of addressing internal displace­ment by incorporating the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement into domestic legisla­tion and policy.

Many of the governments surveyed have adopted policies or action plans to respond to the needs of IDPs, but adequate implementa­tion and dissemination were largely lacking. Nine of the countries surveyed had developed a specific policy, strategy or plan on internal displacement, implemented to varying degrees; those in six of these countries were still active at the time of writing. In addition, at least two countries had national policies in draft form, and one country that does not recognize conflict-induced displacement had a plan for mitigating displacement by cyclones and a plan on disaster risk reduction, although it did not discuss displacement. While in some cases positive steps had been taken, by and large im­plementation of policies on internal displace­ment remains a challenge and has, in some cases, stalled. Available information indicates that efforts to raise awareness of IDP issues and policies have largely been inadequate.

It is difficult to assess governments’ com­mitment of financial resources to address internal displacement, but some trends were identified. Addressing internal displacement, especially over time, is a costly venture. While it was difficult to obtain a full picture of a coun­try’s expenditure on IDPs, several countries allocated funds to assist IDPs, including a few that had no national laws or policies on IDPs. In at least two countries, funds for assisting IDPs seemed to diminish in recent years. In many countries, difficulties arise at the district or municipal levels, where local authorities bear significant responsibility for addressing internal displacement but face many obstacles, including insufficient funds, to doing so. Allegations of corruption and misallocation of funds intended to benefit IDPs at certain points has been observed in some of the countries as­sessed. Some countries seem to rely on inter­national assistance to IDPs rather than national funds.

National human rights institutions (NHRIs) contribute invaluably to improving national responses to internal displacement in a number of countries. In recent years, an increasing number of NHRIs around the world have begun to integrate attention to internal displacement into their work. NHRIs have played an impor­tant role in raising awareness of internal dis­placement, monitoring displacement situations and returns, investigating individual complaints, advocating for and advising the government on the drafting of national policies to address inter­nal displacement, and monitoring and reporting on the implementation of national policies and legislation. In particular, the NHRIs of six of the countries surveyed stand out for their efforts to promote the rights of IDPs in their countries. Interestingly, almost all of their work with IDPs is funded by international sources, raising the question of whether national governments themselves should not be doing more to increase their funding of NHRIs in order to support their engagement with IDP issues.

International actors are valuable resources for efforts aiming to improve government response to IDPs. In many cases, the past Representatives of the UN Secretary-General (RSGs) mandated to study the issue of internal displacement (Francis Deng and his successor Walter Kälin) and the current UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons (Chaloka Beyani) had exercised significant influence on governments in encouraging and supporting action on behalf of IDPs. Along with these actors, UNHCR and the Brookings Project on Internal Displacement have provided technical assis­tance to support governments’ efforts to de­velop national legal frameworks to ensure IDPs’ access to their rights.

Durable solutions: Return was the durable solution most often supported by the govern­ments assessed. The Framework for National Responsibility identifies three durable solu­tions—return, local integration and settlement elsewhere in the country. However, the fifteen countries surveyed herein reflect a global ten­dency to emphasize return, often excluding the other durable solutions. Yet for solutions to be voluntary, IDPs must be able to choose among them, and local integration or settlement else­where in the country may in fact be some IDPs’ preferred solution. Especially in situations of protracted displacement, those may be the only feasible solutions, at least in the near future.

The most difficult benchmarks to analyze were those whose underlying concepts are very broad and those for which data was seemingly not publicly available. Chief among these were the benchmarks on preventing internal displacement (Benchmark 1), raising national awareness (Benchmark 2), promoting the participation of IDPs in decisionmaking (Benchmark 9), and allocating adequate resources (Benchmark 11). Analysis on all other benchmarks also faced data constraints as in many cases data were outdated or incomplete or simply were not available. Nonetheless, we found that the twelve benchmarks all directed attention to important issues in governments’ responses to internal displacement.

We also found that while protection is central to the Framework, the issue is of such importance that there should be a benchmark explicitly focused on it—and specifically on protection as physical security, provided to IDPs during all phases of displacement. This benchmark would also underscore the responsibility of governments to protect the security of humanitarian workers engaged with IDPs.

Overall, the study found that the Framework for National Responsibility is a valuable tool for analyzing government efforts to prevent dis­placement, to respond to IDPs’ needs for protection and assistance and to support durable solutions. But this study also reveals certain limitations to using the Framework as an assessment tool, particularly in terms of accounting for the responsibility of nonstate actors; accounting for national responsibility for protection, particularly during displacement; and accounting for causes of displacement other than conflict, violence and human rights violations.

       

Editor's Note: This is the second part of a two piece series on internal displacement that originally appeared online in TerraNullius. The first part is available here.
 
This post continues our discussion of the study entitled "From Responsibility to Response: Assessing National Response to Internal Displacement" recently released by the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement.

Addressing housing, land, and property (HLP) issues is a key component of national responsibility. Principle 29 of the non-binding but widely accepted Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement emphasizes that competent authorities have a duty to assist IDPs to recover their property and possessions or, when recovery is not possible, to obtain appropriate compensation or another form of just reparation.

The 2005 Framework for National Responsibility – which set the benchmarks we applied in our current study – reaffirms this responsibility (in Benchmark 10, “support durable solutions”) and flags a number of the challenges that often arise, such as IDPs’ lack of formal title or other documentary evidence of land and property ownership; the destruction of any such records due to conflict or natural disaster; and discrimination against women in laws and customs regulating property ownership and inheritance. The Framework for National Responsibility stresses that, “Government authorities should anticipate these problems and address them in line with international human rights standards and in an equitable and non-discriminatory manner.”

The extent to which a government has safeguarded HLP rights, including by assisting IDPs to recover their housing, land, and property thus was among the indicators by which we evaluated the efforts of each of the 15 governments examined in our study. Our findings emphasized the importance of both an adequate legal and policy framework for addressing displacement related HLP issues and the role that bodies charged with adjudication and monitoring can play in ensuring implementation.

HLP Law and Policy Frameworks

One of the most encouraging signs of governments taking seriously their responsibility to address internal displacement has been the development, adoption and implementation in all regions of the world of specific laws and policies that respect the rights of IDPs. Some of the countries surveyed have developed laws, decrees, orders, and policies that protect IDPs’ HLP rights, but these measures are also not without their limits and challenges. A few examples are presented below.

In Colombia, while Law 387 on Internal Displacement (1997) stipulates the right of IDPs to compensation and restitution (Article 10), the government has been hard-pressed to establish measures enabling them to realize that right (see further, below). In Colombia, the constitutional complaint process – the acción de tutela petition procedure – has made the government accountable to IDPs and has influenced government policy toward IDPs, including the policy of allocation of government assistance such as housing subsidies.

In Georgia, the legal framework for IDP protection includes a property restitution law for IDPs from South Ossetia, adopted in 2007, which provided for the establishment of a Commission on Restitution and Compensation; however, this body never became operational and the status of the law is unclear following the August 2008 conflict. The State Strategy on IDPs, also adopted in 2007, protects IDPs against “arbitrary/illegitimate eviction” and sets out a large-scale program for improving the living conditions of IDPs in their place of displacement, all the while reaffirming their right to property restitution.[1]

Displaced families whose homes were destroyed or damaged during the August 2008 received $15,000 from the government to rebuild their homes, although many IDPs have held off reconstruction efforts due to concerns about insecurity. The RSG on IDPs recommended in 2009 the established of a comprehensive mechanism for resolving HLP claims for both the South Ossetia and Abkhazia conflicts. In addition, in 2010, Georgia adopted procedures for vacating and reallocating IDP housing, which, among other things, addresses those cases in which removal of IDPs from a collective center is ordered by the government and may require an eviction, and spells out safeguards for guaranteeing the right of IDPs.[2]

Iraq’s 2005 Constitution protects Iraqis against forced displacement (Article 44(2)). Through its Property Claims Commission, formerly the Commission on the Resolution of Real Property Disputes established by Order No. 2 (2006), Iraq has sought to recover property seized between 1968 and 2003, although significant gaps and challenges remain. For those internally displaced between 2006 and 2008, Prime Ministerial Order 101 (2008) sets out a framework for providing property restitution for registered IDPs with a view to encouraging and facilitating their return to Baghdad governorate, the origin of the majority of post-2006 IDPs and the location of the majority of post-2006 returnees. However, there have been few claims; many IDPs lack the necessary documentation, do not trust government institutions, fear retribution or cannot afford the requisite costs.[3]

In Afghanistan, where national authorities have not yet defined “internally displaced persons,” property and land rights of IDPs are either specifically addressed or generally implicated in substantive and procedural provisions found in a series of executive acts that have been issued since 2001, including the most IDP-specific of them, Presidential Decree No. 104 on Land Distribution for Settlement to Eligible Returnees and Internally Displaced Persons (2005). This decree sets forth a basic framework for distributing government land to both IDPs and returnees as a means of addressing their housing needs. However, IDPs seeking access to land are required to provide their national identity cards (tazkera) and documentation proving their internal displacement status—documentation which they may have lost. Moreover, the decree does not recognize other fundamental rights or needs of the internally displaced; it is valid only in areas of origin; and its implementation has been marred by inefficiency and corruption within the very weak ministry that is tasked with its implementation.

Although the 2006 peace agreement in Nepal  included a commitment to return occupied land and property and to allow for the return of displaced persons, four years after the peace agreement (and three years after the adoption of a national policy), between 50,000 and 70,000 people remained displaced.  Nearly half of the returnees interviewed by the Nepal IDP Working Group reported serious land, housing and property problems.  Of the more than 10,000 claims for compensation for property filed in 2007 only 2,000 families had received support to reconstruct or repair their houses by 2009.  It is widely reported that IDPs with non-Maoist political affiliations have been the least likely to recover land and property.

In Turkey, the government has yet to take full responsibility for displacement caused by its security forces against a largely Kurdish population. In its Law 5233 on Compensation of Damages That Occurred Due to Terror and the Fight against Terror (27 July 2004) and its Return to Village and Rehabilitation Program, displacement is defined in terms of “terrorism” or the “fight” against it. This law does not specifically focus on internal displacement, but it does benefit IDPs among other affected populations. Law 5233 and its related amendments and regulations compensate for “material damages suffered by persons due to terrorist acts or activities undertaken during the fight against terror” between 1987 and 2004. Compensation is provided for three types of damage: loss of property; physical injuries, disabilities, medical treatment, death and funerals; and inability to access property due to measures taken during “the fight against terrorism.”

According to the law, compensation is to be determined by damage assessment commissions (DACs) at the provincial level, with funding provided by the Ministry of the Interior. From 2004 to August 2009, the commissions received just over 360,000 applications. Of those, over 190,000 claims were decided: 120,000 were approved and the claimants awarded compensation; the remaining 70,000 were denied. Around $1.4 billion in compensation was awarded, of which close to $1.1 billion has been paid.[4] The existing legal and policy framework do not adequately address the obstacles to return, including the village guard system, insecurity and the presence of landmines and unexploded ordnance.

In Kenya, the government’s promotion of return included a National Humanitarian Emergency Fund for Mitigation and Resettlement of Victims of 2007 Post-Election Violence which was to meet the full costs of resettlement of IDPs, including reconstruction of basic housing, replacement of household effects and rehabilitation of infrastructure. But in practice, the government has been criticized for promoting return before conditions were safe. The government has also tended to focus on IDPs who own land and to attach durable solutions to land; there is no clear strategy for dealing with landless IDPs, such as squatters and non-farmers.

Awareness among IDPs as to their housing, land, and property rights under existing law – where there is law addressing those rights – is inadequate in many instances. For example, in Turkey, about half of IDPs surveyed in 2006 were not aware of their entitlements under the Return to Village and Rehabilitation Program or the Law on Compensation. [5]

National Human Rights Institutions and Constitutional Courts

In some cases, national human rights institutions (NHRIs) and constitutional courts have a critically important role to play in supporting as well as in holding governments accountable to guarantee the rights of IDPs. In a number of the countries our study examined, the work of NHRIs on internal displacement has included a focus on HLP issues.

In Georgia, for example, the Public Defender has been actively monitoring and reporting on the country-wide housing program begun in 2009 and has raised concerns about evictions of IDPs and the quality of housing in relocation sites. The Public Defender’s office also has undertaken a study on the conditions of the hidden majority of IDPs living in private accommodation rather than in collective centers.

The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission has reported on and raised concerns about the large number of IDPs living in urban slums and informal settlements and about the fact that many IDPs were unable to return to their homes due to disputes over land and property.

Constitutional courts have in some instances played a role in strengthening the national legal framework for protecting the property rights of IDPs. Notably, Colombia’s activist Constitutional Court, in its Decision T-821 in October 2007, ordered the government to ensure respect for IDPs’ right to reparation and property restitution. In January 2009, the Constitutional Court ordered the government to comprehensively address land rights issues and to establish mechanisms to prevent future violations.

Subsequently, the government has sought to ensure these rights by adopting in 2011 the historic and ambitious Law 1448, known as the Victims and Land Restitution Law. In this law, government acknowledges for the first time ever the existence of an internal armed conflict in Colombia, and recognizes as “victims” those individuals or communities whose rights were violated under international humanitarian law or international human rights law. The law regulates reparations for all victims of the armed conflict since 1985 – numbering over 5 million – including through land restitution or compensation for IDPs which is to occur over the next decade.

However, restitution of land does not guarantee returnees’ security and may even endanger people given that land disputes and seizures remain a driving force of displacement. Aiming to prevent further victimization of returnees as a result of insecurity and violence, the government established a new security body, the Integrated Center of Intelligence for Land Restitution (Centro Integrado de Inteligencia para la Restitución de Tierras, also known as CI2-RT) within the Ministry of Defense. Additional participants include the Office of the Vice President, the Ministry of Justice and Interior, the Department of Administrative Security (DAS), Social Action (Acción Social), Incoder, and organizations representing victims of violence. Time will tell how successful the implementation of this ambitious law will be.

In Georgia, the Constitutional Court has also played an important role by recognizing the rights of IDPs to purchase property without losing their IDP status or in any way jeopardizing their right to return.

Conclusion

Securing HLP rights for IDPs is, of course, a key component of finding durable solutions to displacement. The study found that land and property disputes are almost always sources or manifestations of lingering conflict and often an obstacle to IDPs’ free exercise of their right to return.  While some governments have made efforts to provide mechanisms for property restitution or compensation, those mechanisms have rarely been adequate to deal—at least in a timely manner—with the scale and complexity of the problem. National human rights institutions and constitutional courts can play a key role in holding governments accountable for HLP and other rights and freedoms of IDPs.

---

[1] Government of Georgia, State Strategy for Internally Displaced Persons–Persecuted Persons, Chapter V.

[2] The Standard Operating Procedures for Vacation and Reallocation of IDPs for Durable Housing Solutions (2010) (www.mra.gov.ge)

[3] IDMC, Iraq: Little New Displacement but around 2.8 Million Iraqis Remain Internally Displaced: A Profile of the Internal Displacement Situation, 4 March, 2010, p. 240 (www.internal-displacement.org)

[4] IDMC, Turkey: Need for Continued Improvement in Response to Protracted Displacement: A Profile of the Internal Displacement Situation, 26 October 2009, p. 12, citing correspondence with the government of Turkey, 17 September 2009 (www.internal-displacement.org)

[5] Hacettepe University, Institute of Population Studies, "Findings of the Turkey Migration and Internally Displaced Population Survey," press release, 6 December 2006, cited in IDMC, Turkey: Need for Continued Improvement in Response to Protracted Displacement: A Profile of the Internal Displacement Situation, 26 October 2009, p. 11 (www.internal-displacement.org)

       

Event Information

Register for the Event

Stability in Europe’s eastern neighborhood, already precarious, is being further strained. The political prospects of several countries, including Ukraine, Georgia, Turkey and Russia, remain unclear. The region is grappling with the fallout of the economic crisis, and Russia and Turkey, in particular, are threatened by the turmoil in the Arab world.

On April 13, the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings (CUSE) hosted former European Union High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana for a discussion on how the European Union (EU) and NATO should engage with Europe’s strategic partners in the East and Southeast. As a former secretary general of NATO and secretary-general of the Council of the European Union, Solana offered insight into the prospects for future EU and NATO enlargement, the potential impact of the eurozone crisis on the region and how Europeans should attempt to cooperate with their neighbors in tackling global challenges.

Brookings President Strobe Talbott provided introductory remarks and moderated the discussion.

Video

• Syria, Russia and Iran
• Global Governance Can Work
• Turkey and Cyprus

Audio

• Europe's Eastern Frontiers: A Conversation with Javier Solana

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20120413_eastern_europe

       

It’s a fair question to ask: what was all the fuss about last October? The elections in Georgia and Azerbaijan came and went and the results were no surprise. Azerbaijani incumbent Ilham Aliyev won and Georgia's Mikhail Saakashvilli did not. The Azerbaijani elections were bogus; the Georgian elections were not. So what? Life goes on.

But perhaps it is not that simple. Most outside observers saw these elections as a barometer of democratic progress in a region where the West — and the U.S. in particular — has invested time, resources and effort over more than 20 years to help these countries to build a better future for themselves. As stakeholders in the democratic process in the South Caucasus since Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia gained their independence in 1991, Europe and the U.S. must fuss over the outcomes of the Azerbaijani and Georgian elections. 

Beyond Election Day

Evaluating these elections and their impact on the domestic social and political landscape as well as foreign relations requires, however, a focus on more than just election day. The excellent report from the European Stability Inititive on the election observation mission to Azerbaijan makes a strong case for not judging democratic progress based only on how the elections may appear to be conducted on election day.

The Georgian elections proved that post-Soviet governments could change, politicians could change and a European path be chosen. The Azerbaijani elections proved that a regime could “buy” favorable reports from short-term observers imported for election day, carry on with election rigging, continue human rights violations and ignore international criticism, whether from the Department of State or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s long-term observer mission.

Why the difference between the two neighboring countries? There are several reasons. First, Georgia’s generally free and fair 2012 parliamentary elections set a strong example for the 2013 presidential elections, and Georgia welcomed outside involvement and observation. Azerbaijan, on the other hand, prevented the visit of U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Democracy and Human Rights Tom Melia before its elections. Second, Georgian political parties, including the opposition, agreed on electoral ground rules. Third, the Georgian population demanded leadership change. Fourth, the outcome of elections in Georgia was accepted as a transparent way to — for the first time in modern Georgian history — transfer political legitimacy.

Test of Democratic Evolution

The real test of democratic evolution has to do with actions — over a period of months before and after election day — as well as rhetoric that affect the integrity of the elections. The pre- and post-election environments in Azerbaijan consist of continuing intimidation of the political opposition and independent NGO leadership, suppression of freedom of expression and official dismissal of any need to change. While Georgia had a pretty good pre-election period, the post-election period remains fraught with challenges to the effectiveness of Parliament and other fragile institutions, and whether the current government will pursue criminal charges against former President Saakashvili.

Is it Our Business?

There are different views regarding whether democratic evolution — in its broadest sense — is our (e.g. the West, U.S.) business at all. Who are we — despite our support for democratic change — with all our defects to establish standards for others to follow? At least for the short-term the Maidan events in Ukraine put this point into practical focus. If a country wants to be part of the West there are certain standards of economic and political reform that must be met as part of that association. In other words values matter. The traditional excuses of geopolitical importance or interests of energy security for failure to accept even the minimal international norms for treatment of a country’s own citizens are gone.

A major issue for the post-election period has become the choice between closer association with the EU or Vladimir Putin’s Eurasian Union. This choice really is about values that countries choose to be identified by. Armenia and Georgia made clear choices at Vilnius summit for the Eastern Partnership: Georgia and Moldova for the EU; Armenia for Eurasian Union. Ukraine was asked to make a decision but chose to walk the line between short-run financial expediency and a long-term commitment to a European future. Azerbaijan decided to choose none of the above; “neutrality” the regime called it. All the while proclaiming — along with its apologists in the West — the strategic importance of Azerbaijani energy for Europe’s future.

These countries can no longer talk their way around this or employ foreign surrogates to do this for them. Arguments for overlooking bogus elections, corruption and human rights abuses based on overriding strategic importance to the U.S. (e.g. war against terror, Northern Distribution Network, energy security) are excuses for inaction on the fundamental values that must be at the core of our relationships in the 21st century.

When countries like Azerbaijan fail to live up to these standards we do not walk away. Rather we continue to insist on solid, value-based behavior by those who profess they are partners with us. That means economic and political reforms to complete the transition from post-Soviet to 21st Century status. This requires observance of human rights, respect for freedom of expression, and release of political prisoners. It also requires a pattern of increasingly democratic elections. That’s why we need to care about elections in the south Caucasus.

We must congratulate Tbilisi on its accomplishments in the October electoral process. At the same time we must encourage the Georgian government to move along with strengthening institutions like Parliament and the judiciary so Georgia can avoid a political justice system.

       

As the Obama administration copes with Russia’s annexation of Crimea and continuing pressure on Ukraine, its actions invariably invite comparison to the Bush administration’s response to the 2008 Georgian-Russian war. But as the Obama White House readies potentially more potent economic sanctions against Russia, former Bush administration officials are bandying a revisionist history of the Georgia conflict that suggests a far more robust American response than there actually was.

Neither White House had good options for influencing Russian President Vladimir Putin. And this time, the fast-moving developments on the ground in Ukraine confront the United States with tough choices. Because the West will not go to war over Crimea, U.S. and European officials must rely on political, diplomatic and financial measures to punish Moscow, while seeking to launch negotiations involving Russia in order to de-escalate and ultimately stabilize the Ukraine situation. They are not having an easy time of it.

Neither did the Bush administration during the 2008 Georgia-Russia war. In a brief, five-day conflict, the Russian army routed its outnumbered and outgunned Georgian opponent and advanced to within a short drive of the Georgian capital, Tbilisi. Bush officials ruled out military options and found that, given the deterioration in U.S.-Russian relations over the previous five years, they had few good levers to influence the Kremlin. The sanctions Washington applied at the time had little resonance in Moscow.

In recent days, however, former Bush administration officials have described a forceful and effective U.S. response in Georgia. On “Fox News Sunday” on March 16, former senior White House adviser Karl Rove told Chris Wallace, “What the United States did was it sent warships to, to the Black Sea, it took the combat troops that Georgia had in Afghanistan, and airlifted them back, sending a very strong message to Putin that ‘you’re going to be facing combat-trained, combat-experienced Georgian forces.’ And not only that, but the United States government is willing to give logistical support to get them there, and this stopped them.”

Rove was echoing what former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wrote in a March 7 op-ed in The Washington Post: “After Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, the United States sent ships into the Black Sea, airlifted Georgian military forces from Iraq back to their home bases and sent humanitarian aid. Russia was denied its ultimate goal of overthrowing the democratically elected government.” Really? These statements do not match well with the history of the conflict.

War broke out the night of Aug. 7, when Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili ordered his troops into the breakaway region of South Ossetia, after Russian forces shelled Georgian villages just outside South Ossetia. The Russians — by appearances, spoiling for a fight — responded swiftly with massive force. They turned the Georgian army back and overran much of Georgia.

As has been widelyreported, when the conflict began, one of Georgia’s five army brigades was serving as part of the coalition force in Iraq (not Afghanistan, as Rove claimed). On Aug. 10, U.S. C-17s began returning the brigade to Tbilisi, and it promptly went into combat.

The brigade was well-trained and experienced — but in counterinsurgency operations for Iraq, not combined arms operations. Facing a larger and far better-armed opponent, the brigade added little to the failing Georgian effort to halt the Russian advance. On Aug. 12, Moscow announced a cease-fire. French President Nicolas Sarkozy traveled to the Russian and Georgian capitals to formalize an end to the hostilities.

Did the U.S. airlift of the Georgian troops to Tbilisi change the tide of battle or Moscow’s political calculations? No. The Russian army handily drove them back.

What about the deployment of U.S. Navy ships to the Black Sea? The guided missile destroyer USS McFaul did enter the Black Sea to deliver humanitarian supplies to Georgia, passing through the Bosporus on Aug. 22 — 10 days after the cease-fire.

No evidence suggests these actions had much, if any, impact on Putin’s decision making. The Russians halted their offensive short of Tbilisi, figuring that occupying the capital was unnecessary. They thought — as did many in Georgia and the West — that the political shock of the rout would suffice to bring down Saakashvili’s government (though, in the end, it did not).

U.S. C-17s did fly humanitarian supplies to Tbilisi, but President Bush ruled out military action. His administration imposed modest penalties on Russia, ratcheting down bilateral relations, freezing a U.S.-Russia civil nuclear cooperation agreement and ending support for Moscow’s bid to join the World Trade Organization. U.S. officials found that they had little leverage to affect Moscow’s behavior.

The Obama administration has applied similar measures as it seeks to sway Putin again, but it has added a new penalty: visa and financial sanctions targeted at individual Russians, including some close to Putin. On March 20, the president also announced a new executive order to enable U.S. sanctions against key sectors of the Russian economy, including finance, energy and defense — the kinds of tough penalties that the United States has not previously applied against Moscow.

Despite the bluster of former Bush administration officials today, Washington in fact has a stronger hand in the current crisis in Ukraine in one other regard. In 2008, many European states held Saakashvili partially responsible for triggering the war with the Georgian advance into South Ossetia. Ukraine, by contrast, has acted with great restraint. This time, nearly all of Europe agrees that Russia’s actions are out of bounds. Sure enough, European states also appear more ready to sanction Russia than in 2008. Along with the various sanctions the U.S. alone has announced, European Union officials last week also announced visa and financial sanctions on individual Russians.

These moves might not end up shaking Putin from his course, but applying the new executive order could inflict real pain on the Russian economy — something Washington did not accomplish in 2008. Those who faced the challenge of punishing Russia over Georgia should understand the complexities of dealing with Putin and, at a minimum, cut the current administration a little slack.

Read the original article at POLITICO Magazine»

       

Event Information

Register for the Event

Recent events in Ukraine have raised important questions about Russian ambitions in the former Soviet space and the future political perspectives of the countries caught between Russia and the European Union. These countries are facing substantial obstacles in their efforts to maintain balanced relations with the United States, the European Union and the Russian Federation because of increased Russian political, economic and military pressures. In Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea and the ongoing turmoil in the East threaten the Ukrainian government's ability to maintain its independence and the sovereignty of Ukraine. Georgia and Moldova have expressed their intention to sign Association Agreements with the European Union, but increasingly face the prospects of destabilizing Russian economic sanctions and even the possible rekindling of their “frozen conflicts” in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria.

On April 29, the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings (CUSE) will host the ambassadors of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine—Ambassadors Archil Gegeshidze, Olexander Motsyk and Igor Munteanu—as well as Eric Rubin, U.S. deputy assistant secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, to discuss the dilemmas of these countries and possible solutions. Fiona Hill, director of CUSE, will introduce the speakers and moderate the discussion.

After opening remarks, panelists will take questions from the audience.

Audio

• A Discussion with the Ambassadors of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine

Transcript

• Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20140429_ambassadors_transcript

       

Event Information

Register for the Event

Russia’s annexation of Crimea in March and the continuing crisis in Ukraine have triggered the most heated confrontation between Russia and the West since the Cold War. The standoff over Ukraine has raised critical questions about Russia’s ambitions in the post-Soviet space and the future political perspectives of the countries caught between Russia and the European Union. Despite political and economic pressure and ongoing occupation by Russia, Georgia is pursuing democratic transformation and a path toward the West.

On May 5, the Center on the United States and Europe (CUSE) at Brookings hosted Georgian Defense Minister Irakli Alasania for an address on Georgia’s vision for Euro-Atlantic integration during a period of increased insecurity in the region. In his remarks, Minister Alasania shared his insights on the upcoming NATO summit and Georgia’s approach to enhancing its relations with the West while attempting to normalize relations with Russia to lower tensions still simmering from the war six years ago.

Irakli Alasania previously served as Georgia's permanent representative to the United Nations from 2006 to 2009 and before that as special representative of the president in Georgian-Abkhazian negotiations. He is the founder and chairman of the Our Georgia-Free Democrats Party and one of the founders of Georgian Dream Coalition.

CUSE Director Fiona Hill provided introductory remarks and moderated the discussion.

Audio

• Georgia's Euro-Atlantic Aspirations and Regional Security

Transcript

• Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20140505_georgia_security_transcript

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

Event Information

Register for the Event

To build on its longstanding interest in the evolving transatlantic relationship and to address the serious differences that have emerged between America and Europe after the September 11 terrorist attacks and throughout the ongoing war on terrorism, Brookings announces the launch of its new Center on the United States and Europe. The center offers a forum for research, high-level dialogue, and public debate on issues affecting U.S.-Europe relations.

At the inaugural conference to launch the new center, experts discussed the theme "The United States and Europe: One Year after the War in Iraq." Panelists at this special event included Javier Solana, Robert Kagan, Charles Grant, Klaus Scharioth, Andrew Moravcsik, Martin Indyk, Ulrike Guerot, Pascale Andreani, Cesare Merlini, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Gilles Andreani and others.

Transcript

• Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• cuse20040421

       

Event Information

Register for the Event

The crisis over Iraq was the latest in a series of international security crises that demonstrated that the European Union has not yet emerged as unified actor on difficult global security issues. Yet since the Iraq crisis, the member states of Europe have shown a renewed interest in creating EU institutions capable of coherent action on controversial foreign policy issues, in articulating a distinct European strategy for promoting security and stability, and in establishing a European role in issues well beyond the European continent.

The Center on the United States and Europe's annual conference brought together renowned experts and policymakers from both sides of the Atlantic to examine Europe's Global Role. The first panel looked at the ongoing efforts by the United Kingdom to steer a course between and "Atlanticist" and "European" foreign policy; the second panel examined the European Union's efforts to manage its relationships with a proliferating number of candidates to the east—at the same time that it sorts out its own political future; and the last panel looked at the integration of a rising China into the international system, an extra-European issue on which the European Union and the United States have already shown signs of discord.

Welcome and Introduction:
Philip H. Gordon, Director, Center on the United States and Europe

Britain Between America and the European Union:
Philip H. Gordon

Panelists:
Anatol Lieven, Carnegie Endowment
Gerard Baker, The London Times
Charles Grant, Centre for European Reform

Where Does Europe End?
Strobe Talbott, President, The Brookings Institution

Panelists:
John Bruton, EU Ambassador to the U.S.
Sylvie Goulard, Institut d'Etudes Politiques, Paris
Andrew Moravcsik, Princeton University
Vladimir Ryzhkov, Russian Duma

The Global Agenda:
James B. Steinberg, Vice President and Director, Foreign Policy Studies, The Brookings Institution

Panelists:
R. Nicholas Burns , Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs
Jean-David Levitte, French Ambassador to the U.S.

Transcript

• Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• annualconf20050511

       

Event Information

Register for the Event

Welcome and Introduction:
Philip H. Gordon , Director, Center on the United States and Europe

Is the European Union Failing? Politics and Policy after the Referendums
Philip H. Gordon , Director, Center on the United States and Europe

Panelists:
Gerard Baker, The Times (London)
Joschka Fischer, Member of Bundestag and former German Foreign Minister
Noëlle Lenoir, President of the European Institute of HEC, former French Minister for European Affairs
Andrew Moravcsik, Princeton University/Brookings

Is Russia Lost? The Future of Russian Democracy and Relations with the West
Fiona Hill, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution

Panelists:
Daniel Fried, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs
Anatol Lieven, New America Foundation
Strobe Talbott, President, The Brookings Institution
Dmitri Trenin, Carnegie Moscow Center

Is America above the Law? A U.S.-Europe Dialogue about the War on Terror
Jeremy Shapiro, Director of Research, Center on the United States and Europe

Panelists:
Joschka Fischer, Member of Bundestag and former German Foreign Minister
Tom Malinowski, Human Rights Watch
Pauline Neville-Jones, Chair, British Conservative Party National and International Security Group
Victoria Toensing, former U.S. Justice Department Official
Ruth Wedgwood, Johns Hopkins-SAIS

       

Event Information

Register for the Event

On April 30, 2007, the Brookings Center on the United States and Europe held its fourth annual conference. As in previous years, the annual conference brought together scholars, officials, and policymakers from both sides of the Atlantic to examine the evolving roles of the United States and Europe in the global arena. Panel discussions covered some critical issues about Europe and the U.S.-Europe relationship: "The French Elections", "NATO and Afghanistan" and "Islam in Europe". Panelists included, among others, Lt. General Karl Eikenberry, Deputy Chairman of the NATO Military Committee; Ashraf Ghani, former Finance Minister of Afghanistan; Tufyal Choudhury of Durham University; Philip Gordon of the Brookings Institution; and Corine Lesnes from Le Monde.

8:30 a.m.		Continental breakfast available
8:50 a.m.		Welcome and Introduction Strobe Talbott, President, The Brookings Institution
9:00 - 10:30 a.m.		"The French Elections" Chair: Jim Hoagland, The Washington Post Panelists: Laurent Cohen-Tanugi, Skadden Arps; Notre Europe Corine Lesnes, Le Monde Philip Gordon, The Brookings Institution
10:30 - 10:45 p.m.		Break
10:45 a.m. - 12:15 p.m.		"NATO in Afghanistan" Chair: Carlos Pascual, The Brookings Institution Panelists: Lt. General Karl Eikenberry, Deputy Chairman of the NATO Military Committee Ashraf Ghani, former Finance Minister of Afghanistan Marvin Weinbaum, Middle East Institute
12:15 - 1:30 p.m.		Buffet Lunch (Saul/Zilkha)
1:30 - 3:00 p.m.		"Islam in Europe" Chair: Jeremy Shapiro, The Brookings Institution Panelists: Daniel Benjamin, The Brookings Institution Tufyal Choudhury, Durham University Jonathan Laurence, Boston College

The Center on the United States and Europe Annual Conference is made possible by the generous support of the German Marshall Fund of the United States

Transcript

• Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20070430

       

Event Information

On May 20, 2008, the Center on the United States and Europe held its fifth annual conference. As is in previous years, the Conference brought together leading scholars, officials, and policymakers from both sides of the Atlantic to examine issues shaping the transatlantic relationship and to assess the evolving roles of the United States and Europe in the global arena.

Gary Schmitt of the American Enterprise Institute; Sir Lawrence Freedman of King’s College, London; Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times; former Norwegian Foreign Minister Jan Petersen; and Strobe Talbott, President of The Brookings Institution joined other prominent panelists and CUSE scholars for this year’s sessions. The series of panel discussions explored transatlantic relations beyond the Bush presidency, Sarkozy’s plans for France’s EU presidency, and the future of Russia under Medvedev.

Transcript

• Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 0520_europe

       

Event Information

Register for the Event

President Barack Obama has established a broad policy of engagement as a central feature of his administration’s foreign policy agenda. From the earliest days of his presidency, the president has reached out to Iran, Russia and other nations around the world, marking not only a turning of the page but possibly a whole new chapter in U.S. foreign policy. While Europeans have advocated for increased bi-lateral and multi-lateral dialogue for some time, several important questions remain. With which nations or groups should the United States and Europe engage and should there be limits to dialogue in some cases? What are the consequences if dialogue fails? Do Europeans and Americans now have the same agenda and goals for engagement?

On May 29, the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings (CUSE) will host experts and officials from both sides of the Atlantic for the 2009 CUSE Annual Conference to address these issues. Panelists will examine the prospect of engagement with Iran and Russia, and how to deal with groups such as Hamas and the Taliban. After each panel, participants will take audience questions.

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20090529_cuse

       

Event Information

Register for the Event

With a U.S. Administration still popular across Europe and a new Lisbon Treaty designed to enhance the diplomatic reach of the European Union, transatlantic relations should now be at their best in years. But this is clearly not the case, with the strategic partners often looking in opposite directions. While the United States channels its foreign policy attention on the war in Afghanistan, counterterrorism and nuclear non-proliferation, Europe is turning inward. Despite its ambitions, the European Union has yet to achieve the great global role to which it aspires, or to be the global partner that Washington seeks. Moreover, the Greek financial crisis has raised questions about the very survival of the European project.

On June 2, the Center on the United States and Europe (CUSE) at Brookings and the Heinrich Böll Foundation hosted experts and top officials from both sides of the Atlantic for the 2010 CUSE Annual Conference. Panelists explored critical issues shaping the future of transatlantic relations in the post-Lisbon Treaty era, including Europe’s Eastern neighborhood and the role Russia plays, and the impact of the Eurozone crisis.

After each panel, participants took audience questions.

Audio

• From the Lisbon Treaty to the Eurozone Crisis: A New Beginning or the Unraveling of Europe?
• From the Lisbon Treaty to the Eurozone Crisis: A New Beginning or the Unraveling of Europe?
• From the Lisbon Treaty to the Eurozone Crisis: A New Beginning or the Unraveling of Europe?

Transcript

• Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20100602_eurozone

       

Event Information

Register for the Event

With many national economies slipping back into recession and voters in Greece, France and the United Kingdom rejecting austerity measures in recent elections, the European political and economic landscape has shifted again. Europe now seems headed towards a revised social contract and a new round of negotiations to respond to the continuing financial crisis. The United States, while experiencing a mild recovery, also strives to find the right balance between fiscal consolidation and growth preservation—a mission made more challenging with the upcoming November elections. A new loss of confidence in Europe may well imperil the U.S. economy’s fragile recovery. Will similar anti-austerity political currents cross the Atlantic and bring "change" to the United States? Despite the crisis, transatlantic cooperation has increased during the Obama administration, but U.S.-EU relations will be subjected to critical examination during the election year.

On May 23, the same day European leaders will gather for an extraordinary summit in Brussels, the Center on the United States at Brookings (CUSE) and the Heinrich Böll Foundation hosted a discussion featuring experts and top officials from both sides of the Atlantic for the 2012 CUSE Annual Conference. Panelists explored critical issues shaping the future of transatlantic relations in a year of elections and political transitions, from the euro crisis and the future of NATO to relations with Russia, Turkey and the Middle East.

After each panel, participants took audience questions.

The event is available in full on C-SPAN »

Video

• NATO in Afghanistan: In Together, Out Together
• U.S. Has Enormous Stake in Euro Crisis
• U.S., European Allies United on Iran
• U.S. Will Move Forward with Russia on Areas of Mutual Interest

Audio

• Visions of Europe in an Election Year: Part 1
• Visions of Europe in an Election Year: Part 2
• Visions of Europe in an Election Year: Part 3

Transcript

• Intro And Remarks With Phillip Gordon (.pdf)
• Panel One Transcript (.pdf)
• Panel Two Transcript (.pdf)
• Complete Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20120523_europe_visions_gordon_transcript_corrected
• 20120523_europe_visions_panel_one_corrected
• 20120523_europe_visions_panel_two_corrected
• 20120523_europe_visions_complete_corrected

       

       

       

       

       

       

Americans often think of our country as being one of great opportunity – where anyone can rise from very modest circumstances, if they work hard and make good choices. We believe that often remains true.

But, for children and youth growing up in poverty, such upward mobility in America is too rare. Indeed, just 30 percent of those growing up in poverty make it to middle class or higher as adults. Though we’ve made progress in reducing poverty over the past several decades, our poverty rates are still too high and our rate of economic advancement for poor children has been stuck for decades. That is an embarrassment for a nation that prides itself on everyone having a shot at the American Dream.

What can we do to reduce poverty and increase economic mobility? In our polarized and poisoned political atmosphere, it is hard to reach consensus on policy efforts. Both progressives and conservatives want lower poverty; but progressives want more public spending programs to improve opportunity and security for the poor, while conservatives generally argue for more responsibility from them before providing more help.

Even so, progressives and conservatives might not be as far apart as these stereotypes suggest. The two of us—one a conservative Republican and the other a progressive Democrat—were recently part of an ideologically balanced group of 15 scholars brought together by the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution. Our charge was to generate a report with policy proposals to reduce poverty and increase upward mobility. An additional goal was simply to see whether we could arrive at consensus among ourselves, and bridge the ideological divide that has so paralyzed our political leaders.

Together we decided that the most important issues facing poor Americans and their children are family, education and work. We had to listen to each other’s perspectives on these issues, and be open to others’ truths. We also agreed to be mindful of the research evidence on these topics. In the end, we managed to generate a set of policy proposals we all find compelling.

To begin with, the progressives among us had to acknowledge that marriage is a positive family outcome that reduces poverty and raises upward mobility in America. The evidence is clear: stable two-parent families have positive impacts on children’s success, and in America marriage is the strongest predictor of such stability. Therefore marriage should be promoted as the norm in America, along with responsible and delayed child-bearing.

At the same time, the conservatives among us had to acknowledge that investing more resources in the skills and employability of poor adults and children is crucial if we want them to have higher incomes over time. Indeed, stable families are hard to maintain when the parents – including both the custodial mothers and the (often) non-custodial fathers – struggle to maintain employment and earn enough to support their families. Investing in proven, cost-effective, education and training programs such as high-quality preschool and training for jobs in high-growth economic sectors can improve the skills and employability of kids from poor families and lift them out of poverty through work.

Another important compromise was that progressives acknowledged that expecting and even requiring adults on public assistance to work can reduce poverty, as we learned in the 1990s from welfare reform; programs today like Disability Insurance, among others, need reforms to encourage more work. And reforms that encourage innovation and accountability would make our public education programs for the poor more effective at all levels. We need more choice in public K-12 education (through charter schools) and a stronger emphasis on developing and retaining effective teachers, while basing our state subsidies to higher education institutions more heavily on graduation rates, employment, and earnings of their graduates.

Conservatives also had to acknowledge that requiring the poor to work only makes sense when work is available to them. In periods or places with weak labor markets, we might need to create jobs for some by subsidizing their employment in either the private or public sector (as we did during the Great Recession). We agreed that no one should be dropped from the benefit rolls unless they have been offered a suitable work activity and rejected it. And we also need to “make work pay” for those who remain unskilled or can find only low-wage jobs – by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit (especially for adults without custody of children) and modestly raising the minimum wage.

We also all agreed on other topics. For instance, work-based learning—in the form of paid apprenticeships and other models of high-quality career and technical education—can play an important role in raising both skills and work experience among poor youth and adults.  And, if we raise public spending for the poor, we need to pay for it—and not increase federal deficits. We all agree that reducing certain tax deductions for high-income families and making our retirement programs more progressive are good ways to finance our proposals.

As our report demonstrates, it is possible for progressives and conservatives to bridge their differences and reach compromises to generate a set of policies that will reduce poverty and improve upward mobility. Can Congress and the President do the same?

Editor's Note: this piece first appeared in Inside Sources.

Downloads

• Explore the full report

      

      

This year shone a bleak light on the deep racial divides of the U.S. The flash-points of Ferguson, Baltimore and Chicago gave new impetus to movements to reform the criminal justice system and policing. But behind the headlines, the evidence for wide, stubborn race gaps on economic and social indicators is perhaps more troubling still. 

Especially for black Americans, race gaps in family formation, employment, household income, wealth, educational quality, and neighborhood segregation have shown little­—if any—sign of improvement in recent years. The very first Social Mobility Memos was about the barriers to black upward mobility, and in recent months, we have been focusing increasingly on issues of race, place, and opportunity, and here, to close 2015, we recap 15 of our pieces on the subject, including pieces from our colleague Jonathan Rothwell on college, drugs and neighborhoods, and the first Brookings piece from our new nonresident scholar, William Julius Wilson. 

Our hope is that 2016 will see a much greater focus on race and opportunity in America. 

1. Five Bleak Facts on Black Opportunity, Richard V. Reeves and Edward Rodrigue

What would Martin Luther King Jr. think of America in 2015 if he’d lived to see his eighty-sixth birthday? No doubt, he’d be pleased by the legal and political advances of black Americans, crowned by the election and re-election of President Obama.

2. Four charts that show the opportunity gap isn’t going away, Richard V. Reeves

Child poverty rates are coming down slowly, according to figures from the Pew Research Center, except among one racial group: African Americans. This is the latest reminder that the economic gap between black and white Americans is not closing over time. Indeed, on some dimensions, it is widening.

3. Obama’s Post-Presidency? Tackling the Social Mobility Challenge for Black Men, Richard V. Reeves

President Obama’s initiative to boost opportunities for young black men—My Brother’s Keeper—looks to be a post-presidential plan, as much as presidential one. Valerie Jarrett, his closest aide, said that it was a vocation the president and first lady Michelle Obama will undertake “for the rest of their lives…That’s a moral, social responsibility that they feel will transcend the time that he’s president.”

4. School readiness gaps are improving, except for black kids, Richard V. Reeves

Between 1998 and 2010, inequality in school readiness—in terms of math, reading, and behavior—declined quite significantly, according to Reardon and Portilla’s analysis of ECLS data, being presented today at the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management Annual Conference. This positive trend can be seen for gaps in both income and race (or at least, for Hispanic-white differences).

5. Rich Neighborhood, Poor Neighborhood: How Segregation Threatens Social Mobility, Patrick Sharkey

Racial segregation in American cities has declined slowly, but steadily over the past four decades. This is good news. Over the same timeframe, however, the level of economic segregation has been rising. Compared to 1970, the rich are now much more likely to live in different communities than the poor.

6. Segregation and concentrated poverty in the nation’s capital, Stuart M. Butler and Jonathan Grabinsky

The social mobility gap between black and white Americans has barely narrowed in the last decades, and sharp differences in access to opportunity persist. This racial opportunity gap can, in part, be traced back to the neighborhoods where whites and blacks grow up: research from urban sociologists like Patrick Sharkey and Robert Sampson shows the damaging effects racial segregation and concentrated neighborhood poverty can have on children’s life chances. Washington, D.C. is a case in point.

7. The other side of Black Lives Matter, William Julius Wilson

Several decades ago I spoke with a grieving mother living in one of the poorest inner-city neighborhoods on Chicago’s South Side. A stray bullet from a gang fight had killed her son, who was not a gang member. She lamented that his death was not reported in any of the Chicago newspapers or in the Chicago electronic media.

8. Guns and race: The different worlds of black and white Americans, Richard V. Reeves and Sarah Holmes

“The nation’s consciousness has been raised by the repeated acts of police brutality against blacks. But the problem of public space violence—seen in the extraordinary distress, trauma and pain many poor inner-city families experience following the killing of a family member or close relative—also deserves our special attention.”

9. Measuring the Racial Opportunity Gap, Richard V. Reeves and Quentin Karpilow

The U.S. is sharply divided by race, not least in terms of the opportunities for children—a point that a new report from the Annie E. Casey Foundation vividly shows. At every life stage, there are gaps between kids of different colors.

10. How the War on Drugs Damages Black Social Mobility, Jonathan Rothwell

The social mobility of black Americans has suffered collateral damage from the “War on Drugs.” Being convicted of a crime has devastating effects on the employment prospects and incomes of ex-felons and their children, as my Brookings colleagues and other scholars have found. These findings are often used to motivate efforts to reduce criminal behavior. They should also motivate changes in our criminal justice system, which unfairly punishes black Americans—often for victimless crimes that whites are at least as likely to commit.

11. Black Students at Top Colleges: Exceptions, Not the Rule, Jonathan Rothwell

A generation has been lost in the journey towards race equality in terms of income. The income gap between blacks and whites has been stuck since 1980. Why? Dozens of factors count, of course, but one in particular is worth further exploration: the underrepresentation of black students in elite colleges. As I noted in a previous blog, this could help to explain why blacks earn less than whites, even in the same occupation and with the same level of education.

12. The stubborn race and class gaps in college quality, Jonathan Rothwell

Increasing the number of low-income adults going to—and through—college is an important step towards greater social mobility and reduced income inequality. College is also an important tool for tackling race gaps. But the challenge is not just about quantity: college quality counts for a good deal, too.

13. Single black female BA seeks educated husband: Race, assortative mating and inequality, Edward Rodrigue and Richard V. Reeves

There is a growing trend in the United States towards assortative mating—a clunky phrase that refers to people’s tendency to choose spouses with similar educational attainment. Rising numbers of college-educated women play a key role in this change. It is much easier for college graduates to find and marry each other when there are more equal numbers of each gender within an educational bracket.

14. Sociology’s revenge: Moving to Opportunity (MTO) revisited, Jonathan Rothwell

Neighborhoods remain the crucible of social life, even in the internet age. Children do not stream lectures—they go to school. They play together in parks and homes, not over Skype. Crime and fear of crime are experienced locally, as is the police response to it.

15. Space, place, race: Six policies to improve social mobility, Richard V. Reeves and Allegra Pocinki

Place matters: that’s the main message of Professor Raj Chetty’s latest research. This supports the findings of a rich body of evidence from social scientists, but Chetty is able to use a large dataset to provide an even stronger empirical foundation. Specifically, he finds that children who move from one place to another have very different outcomes, depending on whether they move to a low-opportunity city or a high-opportunity one.

      

As the income inequality discussion continues to simmer across the country, municipal minimum wage ordinances have become hot topics of conversation in many cities. In January 2016, Seattle will implement its second step-up in the local minimum wage in 9 months, reaching $13 for many employers in the city and edging closer to a $15 an hour minimum that will apply to most firms by 2019. San Francisco will reach a $15 an hour minimum by July 2018. Yet cities as diverse as Birmingham, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Louisville have enacted or proposed similar minimum wage laws. It is too early to discern true impact of these local wage ordinances, but speculation abounds regarding whether or how the higher wage will affect firms and the earnings of low-wage workers.

Less prominent in debate and discussion about the minimum wage is the potential impact that higher minimum wage rates may have for nonprofit organizations. Nonprofits perform many critical functions in our communities—often serving the most at-risk and disadvantaged. Yet, fiscal constraints often place a low ceiling on what many nonprofits can pay frontline staff. As a result, many different types of nonprofit organizations—child care centers, home health care organizations, senior care providers—pay staff at rates near or below the targets set by the recent crop of local minimum wage laws. Our popular image of a minimum wage worker is the teen-age cashier at a drive-through window or the sales clerk at a retail store in the local strip mall, but many workers in these “helping professions” are being paid low wages.

Increases in the minimum wage are occurring at the same time that many nonprofit service organizations are confronted with fixed or declining revenue streams. Facing fiscal pressure, nonprofit service organizations may pursue one or more coping strategies. In addition to reductions in staffing or hours, commonly expected responses, nonprofits may cut back services offered, scale back service areas, or favor clients that can afford higher fees.

Such responses could reduce the amount and quality of the services provided to vulnerable populations. For example, elderly populations on fixed incomes may have fewer options for home care. Working poor parents may find higher child care costs prohibitively expensive. Employment service organizations may find it harder to place hard-to-serve jobseekers in jobs due to more competitive applicant pools.

At the same time, higher minimum wages could have positive consequences for nonprofit staffing and capacity. Higher wages could reduce employee turnover and increase staff morale and productivity. Organizations may not have to grapple with the contradiction of serving low-income persons, but paying modest wages.

The most recent set of wage ordinances take cities to unknown territory. Anticipating potential negative effects, Chicago has exempted individuals in subsidized employment programs from its recent minimum wage ordinance. The city of Seattle has set aside funds to help nonprofits meet the higher local minimum wage, but many nonprofit funding streams are beyond the city’s control and are not seeing similar adjustments.

In the coming years, more research on how local nonprofits are affected by local minimum wage laws needs to occur. We should expect there to be a mix of positive and negative effects within a particular nonprofit organization and across different types of organizations. Nonprofit organizations should be engaged as stakeholders in debates around higher local minimum wages. And, nonprofits should actively engage in research efforts to document the impact of higher wages. In particular, nonprofits should work to compile data that can compare staffing, service delivery, and program outcomes before and after wage laws phase-in. Such data could provide important insight into the impact of local wage ordinances.

We also should be careful not to confuse other challenges confronting the nonprofit sector with the impact of higher minimum wages. For example, private philanthropy to human service nonprofits has failed to keep up with rising need and declining public sector revenue streams in most communities—realities that may pose more serious challenges than minimum wage laws, but ones without an obvious scapegoat.

In the end, ongoing debate around local minimum wage ordinances should provide us with the opportunity to re-examine how we support community-based nonprofits as a society and assess whether that support fits with all that we expect the nonprofit sector to accomplish for children and families in our communities. 

      

MEDIA RELEASE

Low-Income Boys in Higher Inequality Areas Drop Out of School More Often than Low-Income Boys in Lower Inequality Areas, Limiting Social Mobility, New Brookings Paper Finds
“Economic despair” may contribute if those at the bottom do not believe they have the ability to achieve middle class status

Greater income gaps between those at the bottom and middle of the income distribution lead low-income boys to drop out of high school more often than their counterparts in lower inequality areas, suggesting that there is an important link between income inequality and reduced rates of upward mobility, according to a new paper presented today at the Brookings Panel on Activity. The finding has implications for social policy, implying a need for interventions that focus on bolstering low-income adolescents' perceptions of what they could achieve in life.

In “Income Inequality, Social Mobility, and the Decision to Drop Out Of High School,” Brookings Nonresident Senior Fellow and University of Maryland economics professor Melissa S. Kearney and Wellesley economics professor Phillip B. Levine propose a channel through which income inequality might lead to less upward mobility—often assumed to be the case but not yet fully proven. The conventional thinking among economists is that income inequality provides incentives for individuals to invest more in order to achieve the higher income position in society, but Kearney and Levine observe that if low-income youth view middle-class life as out of reach, they might decide to invest less in their own economic future.

---

See an interactive map of inequality by state, plus more findings »

---

The authors focus on income inequality in the lower half of the income distribution, as measured by income gaps between the 10th and 50th percentiles of the income distribution rather than income gaps between the the top and bottom of the income distribution, which has been more of a focus in popular culture. They show this "lower-tail" inequality is more relevant to the lives of poor youth because the middle is a more realistic ambition. Furthermore, their research could reconcile a puzzle: social mobility does not appear to be falling, despite the rise in income inequality. But, as Kearney and Levine point out, U.S. income inequality has been rising because the top of the distribution has been pulling away from the middle, not because the bottom is falling farther behind the middle.

The authors look specifically at high school drop-out rates through a geographic lens, noting the link between highly variable rates of high school completion and income inequality across the country. One-quarter or more of those who start high school in the higher inequality states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, and the District Columbia fail to graduate in a four-year period, as compared to only around 10 percent in Vermont, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and Nebraska—lower inequality states. Their econometric analysis goes on to show that low-income youth—boys in particular—are 4.1 percentage points more likely to drop out of high school by age 20 if they live in a high-inequality location relative to those who live in a low-inequality location.

Kearney and Levine examine a number of potential explanations for this link, including differences in educational inputs, poverty rates, demographic composition, and other factors. Ultimately, the evidence suggests that there is something specific about areas with greater income gaps that lead low-income boys there to drop out of school at higher rates than low-income boys elsewhere. The authors' research suggests that adolescents make educational decisions based on their perceived returns to investing in their educational development: a greater distance to climb to get to the middle of the income distribution could lead to a sense that economic success is unlikely—what they term “economic despair.”

"Income inequality can negatively affect the perceived returns to investment in education from the perspective of an economically disadvantaged adolescent,” they write. “Perceptions beget perceptions."

Digging into reasons students themselves give for dropping out, they find that low-income students from more unequal places are more likely to give up on their educational pursuits. Surprisingly, survey evidence shows that academic performance does not have as large an impact on low-income students in high inequality states: 51 percent of dropouts in the least unequal states reported that they dropped out because they were performing poorly, as compared to only 21 percent of students who dropped out in the most unequal states.

The finding suggests that economic despair could play an important role: if a student perceives a lower benefit to remaining in school, then he or she will choose to drop out at a lower threshold of academic difficulty. They also note that while the wage premium of completing high school should reduce the dropout rate, household income inequality has an offsetting negative effect.

The choice between staying in school and dropping out may reflect actual or perceived differences from the benefits of graduating. For instance, the authors note their past research showing that youth from low-income households who grow up in high lower-tail inequality states face lifetime incomes that are over 30 percent lower than similar children in lower inequality states. They also highlight other research showing that the overwhelming majority of 9th graders aspire to go to college, but by 11th grade, low-SES students are substantially less likely to expect they will enroll in college, even among those students with high test scores.

"There are important policy implications for what types of programs are needed to improve the economic trajectory of children from low-SES backgrounds," they write. "Successful interventions would focus on giving low income youth reasons to believe they have the opportunity to succeed. Such interventions could focus on expanded opportunities that would improve the actual return to staying in school, but they could also focus on improving perceptions by giving low-income students a reason to believe they can be the "college-going type." For example, interventions might take the form of mentoring programs that connect youth with successful adult mentors and school and community programs that focus on establishing high expectations and providing pathways to graduation. They could also take the form of early-childhood parenting programs that work with parents to create more nurturing home environments to build self-esteem and engender positive behaviors."

Read the full paper from Kearney and Levine here »

Downloads

• Download the full paper

Video

• How “economic despair” affects high school graduation rates for America’s poorest students

       

The mayoral election in Baltimore has brought local economic development strategies to the forefront. In a city in which inequality—by income, by race, and between neighborhoods—has increased in the past five years, the candidates have made it clear that more action must be taken to close disparities and improve economic outcomes for all residents. In a podcast segment, I commend the much-needed focus on equity but argue that the mayoral candidates should not lose sight of another critical piece of the equity equation: economic growth. Citing lessons from my recent paper, I outline strategies that Baltimore’s presumptive leaders should pursue—as well as several they should abandon—to place the city’s residents on the path to a more prosperous, equitable future.

Listen to the full podcast segment here: 

       

Income and wealth inequality in the U.S. is a stark reality.  Research from a variety of fields demonstrates that children born into poor families tend to end up less educated, less healthy, more prone to contact with the police, and less likely to accumulate wealth over a lifetime.  In contrast, children born into well-off families tend to exhibit better outcomes on all of these dimensions.

How should social scientists and policymakers understand and address intergenerational mobility in the U.S.? This question is difficult to answer—and highly politicized.  To start with, there are several possible mechanisms driving high intergenerational persistence of economic outcomes.  These are often characterized as factors related either to “nurture” or “nature.” 

The “nurture” hypothesis asserts that poor parents lack critical resources such as wealth or information.  Such parents may therefore find it difficult to make the education and time investments that would promote better economic outcomes for their children.  If this is true, then children born into poor families never reach their full potential because of a lack of household resources. 

A second possible mechanism is often referred to as the “nature” hypothesis.  Economically successful parents might be more likely to have successful children.  Such an account hinges on the idea that there are heritable biological traits or abilities that more successful parents “pass on” to their children.

To complicate the matter further, the mechanisms of nature and nurture almost certainly operate at the same time.  Moreover, it is likely that abilities and investments interact in complicated ways. For example, a particular investment might do more to improve the outcomes of a lower-ability child than a higher-ability child, or vice versa.  Understanding this process, and how it affects intergenerational mobility, is notoriously difficult.  However, greater clarity is precisely what is needed to guide effective policy. 

If a lack of investment is the dominant mechanism explaining intergenerational persistence in economic outcomes, then we as a society may be wasting human potential.  Policies correcting under-investments in human capital could therefore be justified as economically efficient. In contrast, if the intergenerational transmission of ability plays a role, then investments in poor children’s human capital may not be enough.  To clarify, it is critical to state that the distinction we make here between “high-ability” and “low-ability” individuals should not be interpreted as a claim that some people are naturally or biologically superior to others.  We use “ability” as shorthand to describe those traits that are rewarded in the existing labor market.  Even if these abilities are linked to heritable biological factors, this does not mean that their impact on life outcomes is immutable or fixed.  Modifying environments could substantially affect genetic disparities. The case of vision and eyeglasses offer one classic example.  There may well be biological factors that explain variation in eyesight “ability,” but these biological differences will matter more or less for life outcomes depending on the availability of glasses and other medical interventions.  In short, it is very possible that the consequences of biological differences can be moderated by appropriate changes in the environment.     

Until now, researchers have typically used variables such as cognitive test scores to measure ability endowments related to human capital.  Yet, these traditional measures are subject to the critique that they are the products of earlier investments in human capital. This makes it difficult to distinguish between the “nature” and “nurture” hypotheses using such data.  Two individuals with similar ability endowments but different levels of household resources are likely to exhibit different cognitive test scores, for example. 

Using genetic information to measure ability endowments can help us better understand the intergenerational transmission of human capital.  As a measure, genetic information has a clear advantage over cognitive test scores because it is fixed at conception. Advances in measuring differences in DNA across individuals, together with very recent advances in behavioral genetics research, now make it possible to link genetic differences across people to behavioral traits.  These new discoveries have even extended to educational attainment, which was once thought to be too complicated and removed from direct biological processes for genetic analysis.

In a recent research paper, we use genetic information to better understand the nature of intergenerational mobility.  We follow the cutting edge in behavioral genetics research, which guides us in computing a type of genetic “score” for any individual.  We compute this so-called “polygenic score” for each person in a sample of over 8,000 individuals from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS). The score, which appears to be related to cognition, personality, and facility with learning, has some predictive power for educational attainment. In particular, it explains between 3.2 percent and 6.6 percent of the variation across individuals (depending on the specification). Thus, knowing the exact value of an individual’s score will tell you very little about that person (over 90 percent of the variation is explained by other factors).  However, the average relationship in the population between the score and human capital outcomes can offer some important lessons.  

Using the polygenic score, we believe we can gain new insights into how ability endowments interact with an individual’s environment to generate economic outcomes.  There is a long-standing debate in the economics literature about how ability and investments interact.  One idea is that both ability and investments are needed for success, i.e., that they complement one another. Though our findings show evidence of this type of interaction, the story that emerges from our analysis is somewhat more nuanced.  We show that ability and the environment (measured by parents’ socioeconomic status or SES) complement one another for generating higher degrees, such as college completion, but substitute for one another in generating lower levels of educational attainment such as a high school degree.  In other words, our findings suggest that ability or being born into a well-off family are enough to get an individual through high school.  For college, however, ability and a well-off family are important predictors of success.

"In other words, our findings suggest that ability or being born into a well-off family are enough to get an individual through high school. For college, however, ability and a well-off family are important predictors of success."

Another set of results concerns the wages of high-ability individuals.  We show that individuals who completed college earned substantial returns on their ability starting in the early 2000s.  Individuals without a college degree did not. The post-2000 rise in returns may be driven in part by “skill-biased technological change.”   As new technologies are adopted in the workplace, the people who benefit most are those with the skills required to adapt to and master new ways of working.  It is not difficult to imagine that people with genetic variants associated with higher education may have found it easier to adapt to computers and other new technologies.  However, we also find that a higher polygenic score was not helpful for individuals who did not complete college, likely because the lack of a college degree shut them out of careers that would have allowed them to creatively use new technologies.  This is a troubling finding given the role of childhood SES in predicting college completion.  It means that poor children with high abilities are less likely to attend college and, subsequently, are less likely to benefit from their ability.  Again, these findings suggest wasted human potential.

Using genetic data to compare individuals from different socioeconomic backgrounds, we also find that children from lower SES backgrounds systematically acquire less education when compared to similarly capable individuals from high SES backgrounds.  Among other things, this suggests that access to education may be an important obstacle, even for the highest ability children.  Our analysis offers some suggestive evidence regarding which environments are especially harmful. For example, acute negative events like physical abuse in childhood can lead to a dramatic loss of economic potential—reducing financial wealth in late adulthood for the highest ability individuals by over 50 percent.

Of course, one must be very cautious when interpreting any genetic association.  In particular, it is important to think carefully about correlation versus causality.  The same parents that pass along genetic material predicting educational attainment may also be more likely to have the resources to invest in their children.  Still, since we base our comparisons on individuals from different socioeconomic backgrounds, but with similar polygenic scores, we offer evidence that economic disparities are not solely due to nature.

In summary, recent advances in behavioral genetics have identified specific genetic variants that predict educational attainment.  The fact that such genes exist confirms previous work (largely using data on twins) showing that “nature” matters for economic outcomes.  Our research demonstrates that “nurture” matters, too.  Perhaps more importantly, our research demonstrates that the roles of “nature” and “nurture” are intertwined and that understanding the role of “nurture” (in the form of human capital investments over the life-cycle) is key to understanding how “nature” (in the form of ability endowments) operates.  In particular, we show that similarly apt individuals with different childhood SES see very different returns to their ability.  This means that policies helping children born into disadvantaged circumstances may be justified not solely for ethical reasons rooted in social justice, but perhaps also as an economically efficient way to mitigate wasted human potential.

Finally, we believe that continued progress in understanding the mechanisms underlying how “nature” affects economic outcomes will eventually lead to policies that help people who are born with different abilities.  For example, our findings suggest that some individuals had more difficulty than others in adapting to new workplace technologies, such as computers. With a fuller understanding of this process, policymakers may be able to devise better training programs or improved school curricula that help individuals of all levels of ability to better respond to a changing technological environment.  In other words we believe that our research shows that learning more about the specifics of “nature” may help us to better “nurture” all individuals in society to help them to reach their full potential.      

Editor’s note: The authors contributed equally to this posting and to the research upon which the posting is based. They are listed alphabetically by last name.

       

Although a few political analysts have been focusing on the white working class for years, it is only in response to the rise of Donald Trump that this large group of Americans has begun to receive the attention it deserves. Now, thanks to a comprehensive survey that the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) undertook in collaboration with the Brookings Institution, we can speak with some precision about the distinctive attitudes and preferences of these voters.

There are different ways of defining the white working class. Along with several other survey researchers, PRRI defines this group as non-Hispanic whites with less than a college degree, with the additional qualification of being paid by the hour or by the job rather than receiving a salary. No definition is perfect, but this one works pretty well. Most working-class whites have incomes below $50,000; most whites with BAs or more have incomes above $50,000. Most working-class whites rate their financial circumstances as only fair or poor; most college educated whites rate their financial circumstances as good or excellent. Fifty-four percent of working-class whites think of themselves as working class or lower class, compared to only 18 percent of better-educated whites.

The PRRI/Brookings study finds that in many respects, these two groups of white voters see the world very differently. For example, 54 percent of college-educated whites think that America’s culture and way of life have improved since the 1950s; 62 percent of white working-class Americans think that it has changed for the worse. Sixty-eight percent of working-class whites, but only 47 percent of college-educated whites, believe that the American way of life needs to be protected against foreign influences. Sixty-six percent of working-class whites, but only 43 percent of college-educated whites, say that discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities. In a similar vein, 62 percent of working-class whites believe that discrimination against Christians has become as big a problem as discrimination against other groups, a proposition only 38 percent of college educated whites endorse.

This brings us to the issue of immigration. By a margin of 52 to 35 percent, college-educated whites affirm that today’s immigrants strengthen our country through their talent and hard work. Conversely, 61 percent of white working-class voters say that immigrants weaken us by taking jobs, housing, and health care. Seventy-one percent of working-class whites think that immigrants mostly hurt the economy by driving down wages, a belief endorsed by only 44 percent of college-educated whites. Fifty-nine percent of working-class whites believe that we should make a serious effort to deport all illegal immigrants back to their home countries; only 33 percent of college-educated whites agree. Fifty-five percent of working-class whites think we should build a wall along our border with Mexico, while 61 percent of whites with BAs or more think we should not. Majorities of working-class whites believe that we should make the entry of Syrian refugees into the United States illegal and temporarily ban the entrance of non-American Muslims into our country; about two-thirds of college-educated whites oppose each of these proposals.

Opinions on trade follow a similar pattern. By a narrow margin of 48 to 46 percent, college-educated whites endorse the view that trade agreements are mostly helpful to the United States because they open up overseas markets while 62 percent of working-class whites believe that they are harmful because they send jobs overseas and drive down wages.

It is understandable that working-class whites are more worried that they or their families will become victims of violent crime than are whites with more education. After all, they are more likely to live in neighborhoods with higher levels of social disorder and criminal behavior. It is harder to explain why they are also much more likely to believe that their families will fall victim to terrorism. To be sure, homegrown terrorist massacres of recent years have driven home the message that it can happen to anyone, anywhere. We still need to explain why working-class whites have interpreted this message in more personal terms.

The most plausible interpretation is that working-class whites are experiencing a pervasive sense of vulnerability. On every front—economic, cultural, personal security—they feel threatened and beleaguered. They seek protection against all the forces they perceive as hostile to their cherished way of life—foreign people, foreign goods, foreign ideas, aided and abetted by a government they no longer believe cares about them. Perhaps this is why fully 60 percent of them are willing to endorse a proposition that in previous periods would be viewed as extreme: the country has gotten so far off track that we need a leader who is prepared to break so rules if that is what it takes to set things right.

       

On June 23, Brookings hosted the release of the Immigrants, Immigration Reform, and 2016 Election Survey, a joint project with the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI). The associated report entitled, How immigration and concern about cultural change are shaping the 2016 election finds an American public anxious and intensely divided on matters of immigration and cultural change at the forefront of the 2016 Election.

Dr. Robert Jones, CEO of PRRI, began the presentation by highlighting Americans’ feelings of anxiety and personal vulnerability. The poll found, no issue is more critical to Americans this election cycle than terrorism, with nearly seven in ten (66 percent) reporting that terrorism is a critical issue to them personally. And yet, Americans are sharply divided on questions of terrorism as it pertains to their personal safety. Six in ten (62 percent) Republicans report that they are at least somewhat worried about being personally affected by terrorism, while just 44 percent of Democrats say the same. 

On matters of cultural change, Jones painted a picture of a sharply divided America. Poll results indicate that a majority (55 percent) of Americans believe that the American way of life needs to be protected from foreign influence, while 44 percent disagree.  Responses illustrate a stark partisan divide:

74 percent of Republicans and 83 percent of Trump supporters believe that foreign influence over the American way of life needs to be curtailed.  Just 41 percent of Democrats agree, while a majority (56 percent) disagrees with this statement. Views among white Americans are sharply divided by social class, the report finds. While 68 percent of the white working class agrees that the American way of life needs to be protected, fewer than half (47 percent) of white college-educated Americans agree.

Jones identified Americans’ views on language and “reverse discrimination” as additional touchstones of cultural change. Americans are nearly evenly divided over how comfortable they feel when they encounter immigrants who do not speak English: 50 percent say this bothers them and 49 percent say it does not. 66 percent of Republicans and 77 percent of Trump supporters express discomfort when coming into contact with immigrants who do not speak English; just 35 percent of Democrats say the same.

 

Americans split evenly on the question of whether discrimination against whites, or “reverse discrimination,” is as big of a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities (49 percent agree, 49 percent disagree). Once again, the partisan differences are considerable: 72 percent of Republicans and 81 percent of Trump supporters agree that reverse discrimination is a problem, whereas more than two thirds (68 percent) of Democrats disagree.

On economic matters, survey results indicate that nearly seven in ten (69 percent) Americans support increasing the tax rate on wealthy Americans, defined as those earning over $250,000 a year. This represents a modest increase in the share of Americans who favor increasing the tax rate relative to 2012, but a dramatic increase in the number of Republicans who favor this position.

 

The share of  Republicans favoring increasing the tax rate on wealthy Americans jumped from 36 percent in 2012 to 54 percent in 2016—an 18 point increase. Democrats and Independents views on this position remained relatively constant, increasing from 80 to 84 percent and 61 to 68 percent approval respectively.

Finally, on matters of immigration, Americans are divided over whether immigrants are changing their communities for the better (50 percent) or for the worse (49 percent). Across party lines, however, Americans are more likely to think immigrants are changing American society as a whole than they are to think immigrants are changing the local community. This, Jones suggested, indicates that Americans’ views on immigration are motivated by partisan ideology more than by lived experience. 

At the conclusion of Dr. Jones’s presentation, Brookings senior fellow in Governance Studies, Dr. William Galston moderated a panel discussion of the poll’s findings. Karlyn Bowman, a senior fellow and research coordinator at the American Enterprise Institute, observed that cultural anxiety has long characterized Americans’ views on immigration. Never, Bowman remarked, has the share of Americans that favor immigrants outpaced the share of those who oppose immigrants. Turning to the results of the PRRI survey, Bowman highlighted the partisan divide influencing responses to the proposition that the United States place a temporary ban on Muslims. The strong level of Republican support for the proposal--64 percent support among Republicans--compared to just 23 percent support among Democrats has more to do with fear of terrorism than anxiety about immigration, she argued.

Henry Olsen, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, remarked that many Americans feel that government should do more to ensure protection, prosperity, and security -- as evidenced by the large proportion of voters who feel that their way of life is under threat from terrorism (51%), crime (63%), or unemployment (65%).  In examining fractures within the Republican Party, Olsen considered the ways in which Trump voters differ from non-Trump voters, regardless of party affiliation. On questions of leadership, he suggested, the fact that 57% of all Republicans agree that we need a leader “willing to break some rules” is skewed by the high proportion of Trump supporters (72%) who agree with that statement. Indeed, just 49% of Republicans who did not vote for Trump agreed that the country needs a leader willing to break rules to set things right.

Joy Reid, National Correspondent at MSNBC, cited the survey’s findings that Americans are bitterly divided over whether American culture and way of life has changed for the better (49 percent) or the worse (50 percent) since the 1950s. More than two-thirds of Republicans (68 percent) and Donald Trump supporters (68 percent) believe the American way of life has changed for the worse since the 1950s. Connecting this nostalgia to survey results indicating anxiety about immigration and cultural change, Reid argued that culture—not economics—is the primary concern animating many Trump supporters.

       

Event Information

Register for the Event

With a number elections now underway in Europe and the United States, populist politicians are gaining support by tapping into frustration with the lingering effects of the global financial crisis and the eurocrisis, mounting fears of terrorism, concerns surrounding record levels of migration, and growing doubt over political elites’ abilities to address these and other crises. The global economic order is already beginning to be impacted by the mounting political pressure against it. Trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership that form the cornerstone of the global economic order have met with significant resistance. Brexit’s reverberations have already been felt in international markets. Fissures within the European Union and American anxiety towards a U.S. global role could have a pronounced impact on the international economic system.

On July 14, the Brookings Project on International Order and Strategy (IOS) hosted an event tied to the recent publication of Nonresident Senior Fellow Daniel Drezner’s new paper, “Five Known Unknowns about the Next Generation Global Political Economy.” The event was an opportunity to discuss the future of the global economic order given rising populism and discontent with globalization. Panelists included Nonresident Senior Fellow Daniel Drezner, professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University; Caroline Atkinson, head of Google’s global public policy team and former White House deputy national security advisor for international economics; and David Wessel, director of the Brookings Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy.

Thomas Wright, director of IOS, provided brief opening remarks and moderated the discussion.

Video

• The future of the global economic order in an era of rising populism

Audio

• The future of the global economic order in an era of rising populism

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20160714_global_economic_order_transcript

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

There is a lively debate today over whether or not campaign finance reforms have weakened the role of political parties in campaigns. This seems an odd argument in an era of historically high levels of party loyalty — on roll calls in Congress and voting in the electorate. Are parties too strong and unified or too weak and fragmented? Have they been marginalized in the financing of elections or is their role at least as strong as it has ever been? Does the party role in campaign finance (weak or strong) materially shape the capacity to govern?

In addition, the increasing involvement in presidential and congressional campaigns of large donors – especially through Super PACs and politically-active nonprofit organizations – has raised serious concerns about whether the super-wealthy are buying American democracy. Ideologically-based outside groups financed by wealthy donors appear to be sharpening partisan differences and resisting efforts to forge agreement across parties. Many reformers have advocated steps to increase the number of small donors to balance the influence of the wealthy. But some scholars have found evidence suggesting that small donors are more polarizing than large donors. Can that be true? If so, are there channels other than the ideological positioning of the parties through which small donors might play a more constructive role in our democracy?

In this paper, Thomas Mann and Anthony Corrado attempt to shed light on both of these disputed features of our campaign finance system and then assess whether campaign finance reform offers promise for reducing polarization and strengthening American democracy. They conclude that not only is campaign finance reform a weak tool for depolarizing American political parties, but some break in the party wars is probably a prerequisite to any serious pushback to the broader deregulation of campaign finance now underway.

Downloads

• Download the paper