Joseph S. Nye Jr is the University Distinguished Service Professor, Emeritus, and former Dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. He has served as US Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Chair of the National Intelligence Council, and Deputy Under Secretary of State for Security Assistance, Science, and Technology. In addition to his practical accolades, Professor Nye is one of the foremost theorists in the discipline of International Relations.

Panel discussion with Rangoonwalla Visiting Fellows

We know that flourishing communities and good work sits at the heart of good lives and wealthy societies.

At the start of the digital revolution, in the 1970s, there was an expectation that people and places could transition to a new economy. Today we are reaping the grim rewards in terms of social deprivation and unbalanced economies. Levelling Up is an acknowledgement that transitions must be managed.

Independent central banks have come to invest increasingly in two-way engagement with citizens. Yet, we know little about whether any ‘learning’ takes place at the side of the organisations. As they are insulated from political and public preferences, central banks are unlikely to follow citizen input in their policy choices. Yet, it is possible that their agendas take into account societal issue priorities.

Investing in state capacity presents a dilemma to politicians in developing democracies. While increased capacity can facilitate social and economic advancement, steps that enhance state capacity often result in decreased bureaucratic loyalty. Decreased loyalty can constrain politicians’ ability to use the state to satisfy their personal and political goals. Faced with the above dilemma, I argue that politicians engage in a mixed strategy in which they invest in bureaucratic capacity while retaining tools to enforce (individual) bureaucratic loyalty when needed.

While persistence and change have long been central in the study of politics, we do not yet fully understand the criteria by which claims of persistence can be made. What is the dividing line between continuity with the past and change from the past? This paper addresses that question through an examination of how social scientists discuss and assert persistence of social phenomena even in the presence of change. It identifies different logics of persistence, each of which specifies a different set of criteria for distinguishing between identity-preserving and identity-destroying change.

More than a year after Russia’s unprovoked and illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Ukrainians remain committed to Ukrainian victory and optimistic about the country’s future despite significant hardships. According to NDI polling, 89 percent of Ukrainians report being optimistic about Ukraine’s future. Ukrainians remain resolute and united, and it is clear that Russia’s strategy to divide the country, undermine its resilience, and erode its Western ties has proven a failure.

These are tumultuous times, yet again: populists challenging democratic norms everywhere, a pandemic upending lives and supply chains, a senseless war on Europe’s doorsteps, and global warming threatening our very planet. What makes understanding our present so challenging is its constantly changing and hence historical nature. History not only transforms our world but also our research agendas. History thus requires close attention.

A moderated panel discussion on UN peacekeeping transitions in light of recent empirical evidence and analysis provided by Prof. Andrea Ruggeri and Dr. Maline Meiske.

Panellists:
Andrea Ruggeri, Professor of Political Science and International Relations and Coordinator Conflict, Peace and Security Hub University of Oxford,