Good Authority

In episode 2 of Chalkboard Politics, the team continues the conversation from our last episode about how political science professors conduct research. Moving beyond the American politics and political theory subfields, this episode focuses on international relations and comparative politics. In conversations with professors from these subfields, the podcast considers how the evolving political landscape demands flexibility and dynamic thinking from political science scholars. 
In the first interview, the team sat down with Professor Thomas Christensen, the James T. Shotwell Professor of International Relations at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs and the Director of the China and the World Program at Columbia. He is an expert on China, East Asian relations, and international security. In his interview, he discusses how China’s strengthening authoritarianism, Xi Jinping’s succession challenges, and the US commitment to Taiwan. He also discusses how China’s increasing government oversight has impacted his approach to researching the country. 
The team then shifts to Russia in their conversation with Professor Timothy Frye. Professor Frye is the Marshall D. Shulman Professor of Post-Soviet Foreign Policy. His research focuses on comparative politics and political economy, with a regional specialization in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. In his interview, he outlines his journey of studying the Soviet Union as it transitioned to Russia. He further discusses how Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and sanctions have led scholars of Russia to rely on indirect research methods that measure variables such as marriage rates and banking activity. 
In both interviews, the team investigates how scholars researching foreign governments from abroad must consider different factors than those studying their own countries. They demonstrate how professors and students across subfields must use dynamic approaches to studying ever-changing global and domestic politics. 
 
Episode Themes:
Researching countries with increasing government oversight: 
Professor Christensen highlights how the Chinese government’s oversight is more extensive and powerful than it was 20 years ago. As a result, the research materials have become more limited, and interlocutors inside the country are less willing to engage in dialogue with him. When individuals are willing to talk, he emphasizes the importance of being cautious when quoting your sources and protecting their identities. Professor Frye also shared how being banned from Russia after publishing his book shifted his perspective on research.  Key words: academic freedom, authoritarian regimes, government oversight. 
Considering other factors connected to available data: 
Professor Frye discussed how studying Russia during wartime limits available data on factors he may have previously considered. For this reason, he and other Russia scholars have considered new variables that can be measured through available data.  He discussed marriage rates as an example of a new factor scholars outside Russia are considering to understand mobilization during the war. Key words: mobilization, wartime, sanctions, marriage rates. 
The role of personal anecdotes in political science research: 
Professor Frye highlights how research can also draw on experiences with people a scholar might encounter while working in the field. In his interview, he discussed how personal anecdotes can help scholars understand how Russians understand government propaganda and their broader views of Russian politics. In this case, personal anecdotes can help debunk simplistic assumptions about Russians and their attitudes towards their government. Key words: personal anecdotes, propaganda. 
Indirect research methods: 
Both Professor Christensen and Professor Frye have included indirect research methods in their studies of China and Russia. Professor Christiansen discusses how, rather than relying solely on Chinese interlocutors in the US and China, he has also expanded his network to influential Chinese individuals in other countries. In our discussion with Professor Frye, he shares how he has had to rely on public opinion surveys and digital data. Key words: public opinion, digital data, wartime, sanctions.  
Suggested Readings and Videos for Professor Thomas Christensen:
Christensen, Thomas J. (2026). “Will China Overplay Its Hand? How Beijing’s Confidence Could Shake Up the Trump-Xi Summit.” Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/will-china-overplay-its-hand
Lin, Bonny, Brian Hart, Thomas J. Christensen, John Culver, Jonathan A. Czin, Suyash Desai, M. Taylor Fravel, Allie Matthias, and Joel Wuthnow. (2026). “Assessing Xi’s Unprecedented Purges of China’s Military: Key Developments and Potential Implications.” Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://www.csis.org/analysis/assessing-xis-unprecedented-purges-chinas-military-key-developments-and-potential
Christensen, Thomas J. (2026). “Not Just an Island: Why Geography Should Not Drive U.S. Taiwan Policy.” Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://www.csis.org/analysis/not-just-island-why-geography-should-not-drive-us-taiwan-policy
Notre Dame Keough School of Global Affairs. (2025). Dean's Forum: Thomas Christensen on U.S.-China Rivalry and East Asia’s Future. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b0NQ3_1q5M
Suggested Readings for Professor Frye: 
Frye, T. (2021). Weak Strongman: The Limits of Power in Putin’s Russia. Princeton University Press.
Frye, T., & Shleifer, A. (1996). “The Invisible Hand and the Grabbing Hand” (NBER Working Paper No. 5856). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w5856  
Frye, T., Reuter, O. J., & Szakonyi, D. (2014). “Political Machines at Work: Voter Mobilization and Electoral Subversion in the Workplace.” World Politics 66(2), 195–228. https://doi.org/10.1017/S004388711400001X  
Horbyk, R. (2026). “Dark Legitimacy: What Russia and Ukraine Reveal about Authoritarianism.” Communication and Democracy 60(1), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/27671127.2026.2641731  
Hosen, I., & Jasmin, I. A. (2026). “The Rise of Authoritarian Alliances and Shifting Global Power Dynamics During the Russia-Ukraine War.” New Perspectives. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2336825X261477935
 
Follow the Chalkboard Politics Podcast:
This episode of Chalkboard Politics comes to you via the Good Authority podcast feed. Listen, rate, and subscribe to the Good Authority Podcast. The Good Authority podcast is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Podcast Addict, and wherever you listen to podcasts. You can also follow Chalkboard Politics on Instagram and Bluesky.
Contact the Chalkboard Politics Team:
If you have any comments or questions about today’s episode, or ideas for future segments, please email us at chalkboardpolitics@columbia.edu.

In this episode of Chalkboard Politics, the team sits down with two political science professors to gain insight into how political scientists conduct research. By speaking with scholars of American politics and political theory, this episode investigates where empirical and theoretical research methods may converge and examines the utility of dividing the study of political science into distinct subfields. 
Our first guest is Justin Phillips, the Eaton Professor of Political Science as well as Director of Undergraduate Studies for Columbia University’s Political Science department. Professor Phillips is a scholar of state and sub-national American politics with current research interests in the emergence of abortion politics in the United States. In our conversation, he discusses how he leverages sub-national data to measure government responsiveness to public opinion, his use of archival data to research abortion politics, and his interests in breaking down the subfield barriers in the study of political science.
Our second guest is Nadia Urbinati, who serves as the Kyriakos Tsakopolous Professor of Political Theory at Columbia University. Professor Urbinati investigates various forms of popular decision-making, including democratic representation and populism. She discusses the issues that political representation attempts to overcome, the importance of engaging with each of the subfields as a student of political science, and why she believes it is important to write for public audiences.
These discussions shed light on unexpected connections between two different areas of political science research. In addition to dealing with historical and archival data, both professors are interested in the evolution and mobilization of public opinion. More than that, they agree that the study of political science benefits greatly from broad engagement with each of the subfields.
This episode is the first of two parts.  In our next episode, we will hear from professors in the two other subfields of political science: comparative politics and international relations. 
 
Research Themes: 
Using Sub-National Data to Analyze American InstitutionsProfessor Phillips explains how state-level variation in political institutions make them the perfect site for detailed comparative analysis of institutional design. He uses this data to investigate the factors that influence government responsiveness to public opinion. Key terms: sub-national politics, responsiveness, public opinion
Emergence and Polarization of Abortion Politics in the U.S.In the late 1960s, pro-abortion views migrated from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party. Professor Phillips traces the origins of this phenomenon to a Democratic party overhaul in 1968 and the consequent polarization of abortion politics. He proposes federalism as a solution that would afford state governments to adopt more nuanced stances. Key terms: partisan politics, depolarization, political salience, federalism
Using Empirical Data in Political TheoryWhile political theory may be thought of as a discipline that deals with abstractions, Professor Urbinati denies the misconception that political theorists are uninterested in empirical data. She details how she uses archival data to understand certain political regimes and discusses how political theory aims to extract conceptual consistency from current and historical events. Key terms: empirical, social science
The Role of Representation in DemocracyProfessor Urbinati discusses the role of representation as a vehicle of democracy. Representation, she argues, makes unified decision-making possible in pluralistic societies where people disagree with one another. She points to populism as a novel form of representation and argues that it is not a distinct regime, but in fact a form of democracy. Key terms: pluralism, democracy, representation, populism
 
Suggested Reading: 
 
Justin Phillips
Gamm, G., Phillips, J. H., Carr, M., & Auslen, M. (2024). “The Culture War and Partisan Polarization: State Political Parties, 1960–2018.” Studies in American Political Development, 38(2), 117–137. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898588X2400004X. 
Kousser, T., & Phillips, J. H. (2012). The Power of American Governors: Winning on Budgets and Losing on Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139135542. 
Lax, J. R., & Phillips, J. H. (2012). “The Democratic Deficit in the States.” American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 148–166. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23075149.
Phillips, J. H. (2008). “Does Direct Democracy Weaken Party Government in the U.S. States?” State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 8(2), 127–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/153244000800800202.
 
Nadia Urbinati
Urbinati, N. (2019). Me the People: How Populism Transforms Democracy. Harvard University Press.
Urbinati, Nadia. “Representation as Advocacy: A Study of Democratic Deliberation.” Political Theory 28, no. 6 (2000): 758–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591700028006003.
Urbinati, N. (2006). Representative Democracy: Principles and Genealogy. University of Chicago Press.
Articoli e commenti di Nadia Urbinati. (n.d.). Domani. https://www.editorialedomani.it/autore/nadia-urbinati-lxlgjmrr
 
Follow the Chalkboard Politics Podcast:
This episode of Chalkboard Politics comes to you via the Good Authority podcast feed. Listen, rate, and subscribe to the Good Authority Podcast. The Good Authority podcast is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Podcast Addict, and wherever you listen to podcasts. You can also follow Chalkboard Politics on Instagram and Bluesky.
Contact the Chalkboard Politics Team:
If you have any comments or questions about today’s episode, or ideas for future segments, please email us at chalkboardpolitics@columbia.edu. 

In this episode of Chalkboard Politics, the team examines the growing pressures facing civil-military relations in the United States amid rising polarization, institutional distrust, and debates over executive authority in war and security policy. The conversation explores how democratic systems manage the relationship between civilian leaders and military institutions, particularly during moments of political crisis and heightened conflict.
Our guest is Peter Feaver, Professor of Political Science and Public Policy at Duke University and one of the leading scholars of civil-military relations, civilian control, and national security decision-making. Drawing on both academic research and government experience, Feaver discusses the norms, institutions, and constitutional tensions that shape the American civil-military system.
The episode begins by examining the “ideal” relationship between civilian leaders and the military within the American constitutional framework. Feaver explains how the Constitution intentionally creates “shared” civilian control across branches of government, producing what he describes as an “invitation for struggle” that is designed to prevent concentrated power while still maintaining democratic accountability.
The discussion then turns to the increasing politicization of the military in an era of polarization and social media. Feaver distinguishes between military institutions becoming genuinely partisan and civilian political actors using the military symbolically within partisan conflict. The conversation explores how public trust in the military, partisan rhetoric, and media ecosystems can complicate norms of military professionalism and democratic legitimacy.
The episode further addresses debates surrounding leaks, resignations, legality, and dissent within the military chain of command. Feaver reflects on when military officials should “speak up but not out,” how legal authority is interpreted inside the executive branch, and the tensions between professional obligation, constitutional restraint, and political pressure.
Finally, the conversation considers broader democratic implications, including Congress’s oversight role, nuclear decision-making procedures, and whether American institutions remain resilient under mounting stress. Throughout the episode, Feaver warns against treating constitutional guardrails as permanent or indestructible.
Altogether, this episode explores how democracies preserve civilian control of the military while navigating polarization, war powers, and institutional distrust, as well as what is at stake when those norms begin to erode. 
Episode’s Main Themes:
Civilian Control and Constitutional Tension:
Feaver argues that the United States cannot achieve a perfectly frictionless civil-military relationship because the Constitution deliberately disperses civilian authority across institutions. Rather than eliminating conflict, the system depends on trust, self-restraint, and negotiation between civilian leaders and military actors. Key terms: civilian control, checks and balances, constitutional design, institutional trust
Polarization and the Politicization of the Military:
The discussion distinguishes between an inherently partisan military and civilian political leaders drawing the military into partisan conflict. Social media, polarization, and symbolic political performances increasingly risk turning the military into a participant in broader culture wars, threatening norms of nonpartisanship and public trust. Key terms: politicization, polarization, nonpartisan military, culture wars
Professionalism, Resignation, and Institutional Norms:
Feaver reflects on expectations surrounding military resignation, dissent, and professionalism. Senior military officials are expected to reinforce civilian control by avoiding public confrontation unless extraordinary circumstances demand otherwise. The conversation considers how highly publicized firings, resignations, and leaks can undermine institutional legitimacy and blur civil-military boundaries. Key terms: professionalism, quiet resignation, institutional legitimacy, leaks
Legality, War Powers, and Executive Authority:
The episode examines who determines whether military action is lawful and how legal advice functions within the executive branch. Feaver explains how lawyers, military officials, the Department of Justice, and the courts each play roles in interpreting legality, particularly in contested areas such as military strikes and executive war powers. Key terms: legality, executive power, Office of Legal Counsel, constitutional authority
Military Advice, Obedience, and the Chain of Command:
A central tension explored in the episode is the obligation of military officers to advise civilian leaders honestly while ultimately remaining subordinate to civilian authority. Feaver emphasizes that military professionals are trained not to carry out illegal orders and cannot simply defend actions by claiming they were “following orders.” Key terms: chain of command, professional ethics, illegal orders, military obedience
Democratic Resilience and Institutional Guardrails:
The conversation concludes with a broader reflection on whether American democratic institutions remain resilient under contemporary political strain. Feaver warns against both complacency and overcorrection, arguing that democratic norms are fragile and depend on citizens, political leaders, and institutions exercising restraint. Key terms: democratic norms, institutional resilience, constitutional safeguards, democratic stability
Suggested Reading:
Cohn, L., D. Coletta, and P. Feaver. “Civil-Military Relations.” In Oxford Handbook of International Security, 711–25, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198777854.013.48. 
Feaver, P. D. “Afterword: Trust in the Military and the Legitimacy of the All-Volunteer Force.” Bend but Do Not Break Shaping the Future of the All Volunteer Force, January 1, 2026, 249–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197821114.003.0016. 
Feaver, P. D. “Right or Wrong? The Civil–Military Problematique and Armed Forces & Society’s 50th.” Armed Forces and Society 51, no. 2 (April 1, 2025): 507–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X241255642. 
Feaver, P. D. Thanks For Your Service: The Causes and Consequences of Public Confidence in the US Military, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197681121.001.0001. 
Lee, Carrie. “What The Jan. 6 Hearings Did and Didn’t Say About the Military.” Good Authority, July 22, 2022. https://goodauthority.org/news/what-the-jan-6-hearings-did-and-didnt-say-about-the-military/.
Lupton, Danielle, Jessica Blankshain, David T. Burbach, Lindsay P. Cohn, and Theo Milonopoulos. “Can the President Deploy the Military Inside the United States?” Good Authority, December 3, 2024. https://goodauthority.org/news/can-the-president-deploy-the-military-inside-the-united-states/.
 
Follow the Chalkboard Politics Podcast:
This episode of Chalkboard Politics comes to you via the Good Authority podcast feed. Listen, rate, and subscribe to the Good Authority Podcast. The Good Authority podcast is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Podcast Addict, and wherever you listen to podcasts. You can also follow Chalkboard Politics on Instagram and Bluesky.
Contact the Chalkboard Politics Team:
If you have any comments or questions about today’s episode, or ideas for future segments, please email us at chalkboardpolitics@columbia.edu. 

In this episode of Chalkboard Politics, the team examines the causes, escalation, and aftermath of the 2025 India-Pakistan crisis, as well as its broader implications for regional and global politics. The discussion also highlights Pakistan’s unexpected role on the world stage as the main mediator of diplomatic negotiations between Iran and the United States in their 2026 war. Our guests are Professor Niloufer Siddiqui, Associate Professor of Political Science at Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy, SUNY Albany, whose research focuses on political violence, religion, and electoral politics, and Professor Sushant Singh, lecturer in South Asian Studies at Yale University’s MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies and a journalist with extensive experience covering the region’s political and military dynamics.
The episode begins by revisiting the Pahalgam attack and the rapid escalation that followed, including India’s retaliatory strikes and the unprecedented nature of the conflict between the two nuclear-armed states. Both guests reflect on how nationalism, domestic political incentives, and competing narratives shaped the trajectory of the crisis and heightened fears of wider war.
The discussion then turns to the unexpected ceasefire, which emerged quickly despite high tensions and expectations of prolonged conflict. Niloufer Siddiqui and Sushant Singh explore how the “fog of war,” media environments, and external actors—including the Trump administration—contributed to both escalation and the eventual ceasefire.
The episode then considers the broader geopolitical consequences of the conflict, including India’s doctrine of strategic autonomy, shifting U.S.-India and U.S.-Pakistan relations, and Pakistan’s growing diplomatic role in the region, particularly in mediation efforts related to the U.S.-Iran war. The conversation also addresses key flashpoints such as the Indus Waters Treaty, Pakistan’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, and the current conflict between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Altogether, this episode analyzes whether the 2025 crisis reflects a continuation of long-standing patterns in India-Pakistan relations or a turning point in regional order—and what it reveals about escalation risks in a nuclearized and increasingly unstable geopolitical environment.
Episode’s Main Themes:
Escalation, Narratives, and Domestic Incentives:Both guests emphasize how quickly narratives formed after the initial attack, shaping public perception and political response. Competing claims about responsibility, combined with nationalism and “rally around the flag” effects, created strong domestic incentives for leaders in both India and Pakistan to escalate. Key terms: nationalism, narrative framing, domestic politics, “rally around the flag effect”
Crossing Red Lines and Escalation Dynamics:The 2025 conflict was particularly dangerous due to strikes on densely populated areas, aerial losses, and the expansion of targets. These developments raised concerns about shifting military and diplomatic thresholds and the weakening of established red lines. Key terms: red lines, escalation dynamics, deterrence
The Ceasefire and the “Fog of War”:Despite expectations of prolonged conflict, a ceasefire emerged quickly and unexpectedly. Siddiqui and Singh highlight how misinformation and heightened rhetoric communicated through social media and domestic news sources fueled expectations of continued escalation. However, these same mediums were also useful in facilitating the ceasefire by enabling both countries to control the narrative and portray themselves as “winners” as they exited the conflict. Key terms: fog of war, crisis management, mediation
Strategic Autonomy and Shifting Global Alignments:India’s strategy of maintaining flexible relationships with major powers is increasingly under strain, potentially leaving it without reliable allies in moments of crisis. At the same time, shifting U.S. relations with both India and Pakistan reflect broader changes in global alignment and influence. Key terms: strategic autonomy, alliances, geopolitical positioning
Pakistan’s New Roles on the World Stage:Pakistan has emerged as a more active diplomatic and strategic player, positioning itself as a mediator in regional conflicts. We analyze Pakistan’s defense pact with Saudi Arabia and its unexpected role in the diplomatic negotiations for a ceasefire in the Iran war. These developments reflect both strategic opportunism and longer-standing ideological ambitions. Key terms: mediation, regional leadership, Islamic world
Structural Flashpoints and Future Risks:Ongoing tensions over issues like the Indus Waters Treaty highlight deeper structural risks, particularly around resource competition. Combined with the absence of clear guardrails, new military technologies, and heightened nationalism, these dynamics increase the risk of rapid and potentially catastrophic escalation in future crises. Key terms: resource conflict, nuclear deterrence, security dilemma
Suggested Reading:
Chotiner, Isaac. “The Dynamics Behind the India-Pakistan Clash” (Q &A with Sushant Singh). The New Yorker, May 9, 2025. https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/the-dynamics-behind-the-current-india-pakistan-clash.
Clary, Christopher. The Difficult Politics of Peace: Rivalry in Modern South Asia. Modern South Asia. Oxford University Press, 2022.
Clary, Christopher, Sameer Lalwani, and Niloufer Siddiqui. “Public Opinion and Crisis Behavior in a Nuclearized South Asia.” International Studies Quarterly 65, no. 4 (2021): 1064–76. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqab042.
Clary, Christopher, and Asfandyar Mir. “Pakistan Is Waging Its Own War in Afghanistan.” Good Authority, March 17, 2026. https://goodauthority.org/news/pakistan-is-waging-its-own-war-in-afghanistan/.
Siddiqui, Niloufer. Under the Gun: Political Parties and Violence in Pakistan. Cambridge University Press, 2022.
Singh, Sushant. “India Faces Down New Security Calculus.” Foreign Policy, October 9, 2025. https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/10/09/pakistan-saudi-arabia-defense-pact-india-security-calculus/.
 
Follow the Chalkboard Politics Podcast:
This episode of Chalkboard Politics comes to you via the Good Authority podcast feed. Listen, rate, and subscribe to the Good Authority Podcast. The Good Authority podcast is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Podcast Addict, and wherever you listen to podcasts. You can also follow Chalkboard Politics on Instagram and Bluesky.
Contact the Chalkboard Politics Team:
If you have any comments or questions about today’s episode, or ideas for future segments, please email us at chalkboardpolitics@columbia.edu.

In this episode of Chalkboard Politics, the team explores the evolving challenges facing international institutions in a period of populist backlash and shifting global power. In the first conversation,  professors Allison Carnegie and Richard Clark discuss how international organizations – from the European Union to the IMF and WTO – navigate growing populist resistance, funding withdrawals, and declining hegemonic support. They explain how institutions respond strategically, sometimes appeasing critics, sometimes quietly working around them, while increasingly seeking new coalitions and sources of legitimacy.
The episode then turns to an interview with Professor Anjali Dayal, who examines the changing role of the United Nations in peacekeeping, humanitarian coordination, and global governance. Dayal traces how U.N. peacekeeping missions have evolved from neutral observers between countries to complex operations dealing with civil wars, counterterrorism, and regime stabilization. The conversation also explores the consequences of declining U.S. commitment to international institutions, Security Council gridlock, and growing tensions around international law.
Together, this podcast episode considers whether international institutions can adapt to populist pressure and declining hegemonic leadership, or whether the global order is entering a more fragmented and uncertain era.
Episode’s Main Themes: 
Populism and Institutional Pushback: Populist leaders increasingly challenge international organizations through funding withdrawals, rhetorical attacks, and institutional obstruction. Carnegie and Clark emphasize that these pressures are not entirely new, but they are reshaping how institutions operate and defend their legitimacy. Key terms: populism, institutional legitimacy, multilateralism
How International Organizations Adapt: International institutions are strategic actors that can respond to political pressure by appeasing critics, working around populist leaders, or finding alternative funding sources. Examples include states creating alternative dispute mechanisms like the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) to preserve WTO dispute resolution functions. Key terms: institutional adaptation, strategic behavior, dispute resolution
Shifts in Global Leadership: Declining U.S. support for multilateralism raises questions about whether middle powers or rising states can fill leadership gaps in global governance. Countries like Canada and China have increased contributions in certain areas, though institutional rules and consensus requirements often limit collective action. Key terms: hegemonic decline, middle powers, global governance
The Changing Role of UN Peacekeeping: UN peacekeeping has evolved from monitoring ceasefires between states to complex missions that include civilian protection and state stabilization. While peacekeeping operations often help reduce violence, their success depends heavily on whether underlying political conflicts have been resolved. Key terms: peacekeeping, civil wars, civilian protection
The Human Stakes of Multilateral Withdrawal: When major powers reduce funding or political support for international institutions, vulnerable populations—such as refugees and those dependent on humanitarian assistance—often bear the greatest costs. Funding cuts can disrupt health programs, food aid, and long-standing humanitarian partnerships. Key terms: humanitarian aid, development assistance, global health
The Future of Multilateral Order: Growing Security Council gridlock and declining respect for international law raise concerns about the durability of the post-1945 international system. Dayal suggests that coalitions of smaller and middle powers may play an increasingly important role in sustaining multilateral institutions. Key terms: international law, Security Council veto, multilateralism
Suggested Reading: 
Carnegie, Allison, and Richard Clark. Global Governance Under Fire: How International Organizations Resist the Populist Wave. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2026.
Carnegie, Allison and Austin Carson. Secrets in Global Governance: Disclosure Dilemmas and the Challenge of International Cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.
Clark, Richard. Cooperative Complexity: The Next Level of Global Economic Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2025. 
Dayal, Anjali V. Incredible Commitments: How UN Peacekeeping Failures Shape Peace Processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.
Dayal, Anjali K., and Natalie Samarasinghe. “Can the United Nations Prevent Wars?” Doha Debates Podcast, hosted by Joshua Johnson. Season 1, Episode 18. January 9, 2024. Doha Debates and FP Studios.
Follow the Chalkboard Politics Podcast: 
This episode of Chalkboard Politics comes to you via the Good Authority podcast feed. Listen, rate, and subscribe to the Good Authority Podcast. The Good Authority podcast is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Podcast Addict, and wherever you listen to podcasts. You can also follow Chalkboard Politics on Instagram and Bluesky.
Contact the Chalkboard Politics Team: If you have any comments or questions about today’s episode, or ideas for future segments, please email us at chalkboardpolitics@columbia.edu.

In this episode, Paul and Gulnaz sit down with Professor Jeffry Frieden, author of Global Capitalism: Its Fall and Rise in the Twentieth Century, to unpack what tariffs are, how they work, and their role in U.S. policy and abroad. Frieden describes how tariffs are some of the oldest tools of statecraft, tracing their history of domestic impacts through the British Corn Laws and showing how they raise prices for consumers while protecting favored producers. The conversation addresses the Trump administration’s expansive use of tariffs, operating not just as economic policy tools, but as instruments of foreign policy, bargaining, and national security. Overall, this episode asks whether Trump’s tariffs will ultimately decenter the U.S. in the global economy, and what a potential re-ordering could look like.
 
Episode’s Main Themes: 
Tariffs as Economic and Political Power
Tariffs are tools that redistribute costs and benefits within societies, project power internationally, and shape domestic politics and foreign relations.
Key terms: domestic industry protection, import/export, geoeconomics
The Break from the Postwar Trade Order
The Trump administration’s tariff policy is a sharp departure from long-standing economic norms, including multilateralism and Most Favored Nation (MFN) rules that have structured global trade since 1945.
Key terms: MFN, multilateralism, “Liberation Day,” international institutions, trade diversion
Domestic Costs and Global Consequences
While tariffs are often framed as protecting national interests, their costs are largely borne by domestic consumers and firms.
Abroad, tariffs motivate trade diversion, uncertainty, and new alliances that bypass the United States.
Key terms: Consumers, producers, free trade, protectionism, trade agreements
An Uncertain Transition in Global Leadership
Current trade conflicts are part of a larger shift away from the U.S.-led economic integration.
This move towards retrenchment by the U.S. raises the question of whether the world is moving toward a reordered system or risking instability and fragmentation.
Key terms: Global order, great power competition, isolationism, trade wars
Suggested Reading: 
Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. Crown Publishers. ISBN: 0307719219.
Frieden, Jeffry. (2020). Global Capitalism: Its Fall and Rise in the Twentieth Century. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN: 1324004207. 
Engerman, S. L., & Sokoloff, K. L. (2011). Economic Development in the Americas since 1500: Endowments and Institutions. Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 9781107009554. 
Follow the Chalkboard Politics Podcast: 
This episode of Chalkboard Politics comes to you via the Good Authority podcast feed. Listen, rate, and subscribe to the Good Authority Podcast. The Good Authority podcast is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Podcast Addict, and wherever you listen to podcasts. You can also follow Chalkboard Politics on Instagram and Bluesky.
Contact the Chalkboard Politics Team: 
If you have any comments or questions about today’s episode, or ideas for future segments, please email us at chalkboardpolitics@columbia.edu.

The second Trump administration has aggressively disrupted climate policy and politics, both domestically and internationally. Trump has prioritized domestic oil and coal interests, gutting  the Biden administration’s main climate policy and withdrawing permits for major wind and solar projects. In recent weeks, he has withdrawn the United States from several major international climate institutions –  and some argue that he has used oil as an explicit motivation for using force in Venezuela.
 
To discuss what all of this means for the ongoing global effort to combat climate change, I spoke with two experts who have written extensively about energy and climate politics. Jeff D. Colgan is the Richard Holbrooke Professor in the Department of Political Science and the Watson School at Brown University. He is also the founding director of the Climate Solutions Lab. He recently contributed a piece on Venezuela for Good Authority. Federica Genovese is professor of political science and international relations at the University of Oxford and a recent winner of the prestigious Philip Leverhulme Prize. 
 
Our conversation was based in part on a short open access article that Jeff and Federica wrote for International Organization on “Global Climate Politics after the Return of Trump.” We talked about both the domestic and international implications of the Trump administration’s actions for climate change.
You can also subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts.

In this episode of Chalkboard Politics, students sit down with Professors Eduardo Moncada, Sarah Daly, and Elizabeth Saunders to unpack how concepts like narco-terrorism, criminal governance, and credible commitment have, and continue to, shape U.S. policy toward Venezuela. Drawing on the legacy of the War on Drugs, the conversation challenges the argument that militarized intervention or leadership removal can dismantle illicit economies. Instead, our guests explore the relevance and role of patronage systems, the “balloon effect,” and the political incentives behind spectacular uses of force, while asking what all of this means for Venezuelan citizens, democracy, and regional sovereignty, and whether the Trump administration can actually get what it wants.
Episode’s Main Themes and Concepts: 
1. Narco-terrorism as a political label
How the term emerged, why it is analytically imprecise when applied to Venezuela, and how it shapes the range of policy responses.
Key terms: narco-terrorism; political labeling; securitization
2. Criminal governance vs. terrorism
Why most cartels and illicit networks lack ideology, and how illicit economies function through governance, corruption, and regime survival rather than political violence.
Key terms: illicit economy; criminal governance; patronage politics
3. Why military intervention is likely to fail 
Why military intervention is unlikely to stop drug flows or democratize Venezuela, and how repression often displaces rather than eliminates illicit activity.
Key terms: balloon effect; militarization; credible commitment, principal-agent problem
References and Suggested Reading: 
References:
Andreas, Peter. 2022. Border Games: The Politics of Policing the U.S.-Mexico Divide. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Berman, Eli, and David A. Lake, eds. 2019. Proxy Wars: Suppressing Violence through Local Agents. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Further Reading: 
Andreas, Peter. 2025: The Illicit Global Economy: What Everyone Needs To Know. New York: Oxford University Press.
Daly, Sarah Zukerman. Organized Violence after Civil War: The Geography of Recruitment in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Daly, Sarah Zukerman. Violent Victors: Why Blood-Stained Parties Win Postwar Elections. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2022.
Daly, Sarah Zukerman, and Elena Barham. “A Bargaining Theory of Criminal War.” International Studies Quarterly68, no. 3 (2024): sqae083. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqae083.
Moncada, Eduardo. Cities, Business, and the Politics of Urban Violence in Latin America. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2016.
Moncada, Eduardo. Resisting Extortion: Victims, Criminals, and States in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.
Follow the Chalkboard Politics Podcast: 
This episode of Chalkboard Politics comes to you via the Good Authority podcast feed. Listen, rate, and subscribe to the Good Authority Podcast. The Good Authority podcast is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Podcast Addict, and wherever you listen to podcasts. You can also follow Chalkboard Politics on Instagram and Bluesky.
Contact the Chalkboard Politics Team: 
If you have any comments or questions about today’s episode, or ideas for future segments, please email us at chalkboardpolitics@columbia.edu.

How will artificial intelligence reshape global power? And what can past technological revolutions tell us about today’s U.S.-China rivalry? In this episode of Good Authority, I spoke with Jeffrey Ding, assistant professor of political science at George Washington University and a leading scholar at the intersection of technology and international politics.
Ding’s award-winning book, Technology and the Rise of Great Powers, argues that technological leadership depends less on breakthrough inventions and more on a country’s ability to diffuse new technologies widely across its economy and society. Drawing on historical cases from Britain, the United States, Germany, and Japan, he shows how diffusion capacity helps determine which countries translate innovations into lasting geopolitical advantage. 
The book has drawn a lot of attention, including from leading AI companies like Microsoft, and from politicians, including former British prime minister Rishi Sunak. Our conversation explores what this diffusion-centered perspective means for the current race over AI, how China and the United States compare in their technological ecosystems, and what historical analogies can – and cannot – reveal about the future of global politics. And we tackle the big questions about the real constraints facing governments attempting to harness emerging technologies for national power.

Stacie Goddard and Abe Newman explain how cliques are ruling the world
The journal International Organization has just published a new online open access edition with short accessible essays written by prominent scholars about the future of international order. One of the more provocative essays is by Good Authority editor and Wellesley College professor Stacie Goddard together with Georgetown professor Abe Newman. 
In this new article, Goddard and Newman argue that we may be witnessing the emergence of a neo-royalist world order—one that looks less like the liberal, rules-based system many of us grew up studying, and more like a world dominated by powerful patrons, loyal clients, and informal hierarchies and cliques.
We talk about what they mean by “neo-royalism,” how it connects to debates about U.S. power, China’s rise, and the politics of global interdependence. We also discuss some examples of how this new order works, such as the authorization of the sale of large quantities of advanced Nvidia chips to the UAE and Saudi Arabia and other cases where the interests of the cliques appear to prevail over national security interests. We also discuss royal wannabes, like FIFA President Gianni Infantino, how this new order competes with other orders and whether it is likely to survive beyond Donald Trump’s Presidency.