PLEASE NOTE THIS EVENT WILL NOW RUN FROM 4:45-6:00 PM

What explains variation in access to citizenship rights in China? Why do some governments extend citizenship to migrants while others do not? This talk details the structural barriers to accessing citizenship rights in China through the household registration system, hukou, which treats domestic migrant workers as foreigners in their own country. Over the last twenty years, city governments erected local citizenship regimes, controlling who is allowed to become full citizens locally while keeping unwanted populations out. In this talk, Prof. Vortherms details the sub-national variation in these policies and explains the connection between economic growth and citizenship acquisition. When the local economy is exposed to foreign market forces, local governments are incentivized to open citizenship to high-skilled workers, who have greater marginal benefits for the local economy in the presence of foreign production. Protectionism leads to stricter policies for low-skilled and chain migrants, while lower local fiscal capacity can increase opportunities for buying citizenship through investment. This talk tests these hypotheses on an original database of local naturalization policies in 249 cities in China, and concludes with a discussion of the prospects and implications of recent reforms to the household registration system.

Image

With the UK on the brink of exiting the European Union, prominent British voices are calling for the country to reconsider its decision to leave. A crucial parliamentary vote later this year will be the key moment, heralding either a last stand in favour of Britain's place in Europe or the unravelling of the country's forty-year membership of the world's most sophisticated supranational entity. In this lecture the former British deputy Prime Minister explores the origins of the UK’s troubled relationship with the EU, explains the current deep divisions in British politics, and charts an alternative course for the UK within a reformed Europe.

Image

Prior to his entry into British politics, he served as a leading Member of the European Parliament on trade and industry affairs and as an international trade negotiator in the European Commission dealing with the accession of China and Russia into the World Trade Organization.

As Deputy Prime Minister, Sir Nick occupied the second highest office in the country at a time when the United Kingdom was recovering from a deep recession following the banking crisis of 2008, and hugely controversial decisions were needed to restore stability to the public finances. During that time, he oversaw referenda on electoral reform and Scottish independence, and extensive reforms to the education, health and pensions systems. He was particularly associated with landmark changes to the funding of schools, early years’ education and the treatment of mental health within the NHS. His book, ‘Politics: Between the Extremes’, is a reflection on his time in Government and the place of liberalism in the current political landscape.

Sir Nick is one of the most high-profile pro-European voices in British politics, and has played an influential role in the debate leading up to and since the EU referendum in June 2016. His insight into the most senior levels of UK government, combined with an integral understanding and experience of European politics, contacts at the highest levels of government across the EU, and fluency in five European languages, mean that his views and analysis on the current Government’s Brexit negotiations continue to be in high demand. He published his second best-selling book - ‘How to Stop Brexit - and Make Britain Great Again’ - in October 2017.

As well as leading his small think tank, Open Reason, Sir Nick is a Global Commissioner for the Global Commission on Drugs Policy, Chairman of the Social Mobility Foundation and a Visiting Professor in Practice at the LSE’s School of Public Policy. He remains an outspoken advocate of civil liberties and center ground politics, of radical measures to boost social mobility, and of an internationalist approach to world affairs. He received a knighthood in the 2018 New Years Honours list, for his political and public service.

Organized by the Media & Democracy program at the Social Science Research Council, in collaboration with the Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society and the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University. 

The 2016 American elections intensified popular as well as scholarly interest in the relationship between media and democracy. The role of social media has featured particularly prominently in debates over fake news, information bubbles, and algorithmic propaganda. Increased scholarly interest is manifested in the numerous conferences that have been held over the last year or so, jointly exploring technological changes in the media, social interactions online, and their relationship to the quality of our democracy.  
 
Social Media and Democracy: Assessing the State of the Field and Identifying Unexplored Questions will convene researchers to take stock and look ahead. In a format of brief remarks and panel discussions, we seek to assess the current literature on social media and democracy together, and to set a research agenda for the field moving forward.  
 
Format: Each panelist will be asked to speak for up to ten minutes. In lieu of preparing traditional research presentations, we encourage attendees to reflect on the field as a whole, and ask themselves where they would like to see scholars go next. After hearing prepared remarks from panelists, each panel will have allotted time for a discussion with audience participation.
 
Panel-specific prompts are included below, geared toward key connecting themes: What gaps exist in current research? What studies would we like to see that do not exist right now? What do we not yet know about the impact of social media on democracy? What partnerships are needed to pursue research that can answer these questions?
 
 

Thursday, April 19   8:30-9:00am             Registration and Breakfast

 
9:00-9:30am             Opening Remarks: Diana Mutz and Nate Persily  Overview of the Literature on Misinformation: Josh Tucker     
 
9:30-11:00am           Inflammatory Speech and Incivility Online
 
Panelists: Susan Benesch Bryan Gervais Diana Mutz Monica Stephens
 
Is social media a medium on which inflammatory speech and uncivil discourse are particularly prevalent? Online incivility may take a range of expressions, from unusually aggressive statements of individual political views to coordinated campaigns of harassment and intimidation. The targets may include out-partisans, professionals such as journalists, politicians, or government employees, and minority or underrepresented groups such as women and ethnic/religious minorities.
 
What, if anything, is different about inflammatory speech in the social media environment? What do we not yet understand about the origins, spread, and consequences of inflammatory speech online? Should we distinguish between different forms of incivility (e.g. direct threats vs. slurs, individual vs. coordinated harassment)? To what extent is online incivility related to real world actions (including, but not limited to, real world violence)?  
 
11:00-11:30am      Coffee Break   
11:30am-1:00pm  Distribution and Effects of Fake News
 
Panelists: Renee DiResta Kelly Garrett David Rand Josh Tucker
 
The distribution of false information - intentional and unintentional - through social media has  become a significant source of anxiety in the media, politics, and public discourse. Exposure to false information can lead to mistaken impressions about the world, and may also deepen partisan divisions.  
 
What do we need to learn about how misinformation spreads online? We already have some research that quantifies exposure to misinformation online; what do we need to learn next about the effects of such exposure (on the individual level and in the aggregate)? Has the spread of social media raised new, unanswered questions about how people process information and classify it as true or false?  
 
1:00-2:00pm       Lunch   2:00-3:30pm            Correcting Disinformation
 
Panelists: Jonathan Albright Matthew Baum Adam J. Berinsky Matthew Gentzkow Emily Thorson
 
Once a person has been exposed to, and accepted as true, an inaccurate piece of information, how can the information be successfully corrected? What do we need to understand next about the possibilities and pitfalls for correcting misinformation?  
 
Do we have reason to suspect that social media changes the difficulty of correcting misperceptions? What do we not yet know about how corrections of factual information lead to changes in political attitudes or behavior? If we want to correct false beliefs, what do we need to learn about who should go about making corrections, and how?   
 
 
 
Friday, April 20th   8:30-9:00am  Breakfast
 
9:00am-10:30am Homophily in the Social Media Sphere
 
Panelists: Damon Centola Annie Franco Shanto Iyengar Jaime Settle
 
Concern about online political discourse taking place in self-selected or algorithmically supported “information bubbles” is common, though there are differing views on how serious this problem is.  
 
Do we know whether social media is exceptional in enabling or limiting exposure to politically heterogeneous information? How do algorithms affect how much political content users see and/or the kind of political content to which they are exposed? What do we not yet understand about the frequency and consequences of political homophily on social media, as distinct from other types of media? What study would you like to see next on the prevalence and consequences of homogeneous political information? 

10:30-10:45am         Coffee Break   10:45am-12:15pm Globalization of the Marketplace of Ideas
 
Panelists: Nina Jankowicz Linda Kinstler Jennifer Pan

The use of social media for political ends is not limited to the United States, nor to traditional state actors. Narratives about politics are circulated online to influence domestic audiences, to drive political perceptions abroad, and to organize as well as suppress citizen unrest.
 
What do we need to learn next about the effectiveness of using social media to push the political interests of state- or non-state actors? What do we not yet understand about the dynamics at play when nation-states get involved in one another’s media ecosystems? How is this any different from when they previously did so using other media? What can we learn from studying the intersection of media and democracy in comparative perspective?
 
12:15-1:30pm Concluding Discussion Over Lunch (to-go available per request

Please note the venue change to the Bechtel Conference Center

Encina Hall, 1st floor. We have reached venue capacity. RSVPs are closed.

Peter Baker is the chief White House correspondent for The New York Times covering President Donald J. Trump. He previously covered the presidencies of Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

Mr. Baker joined The Times in 2008 after 20 years at The Washington Post. He began writing about Mr. Obama at the inception of his administration, through health care and economic debates, the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, the re-election campaign and decisions over war and peace in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. During his first tour at the White House, Mr. Baker was a co-author of the original story breaking the Monica Lewinsky scandal and served as The Post’s lead writer on the impeachment battle. During his next White House assignment, he covered the travails of Mr. Bush’s second term, from the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina to Supreme Court nomination fights and the economy.

In between stints at the White House, Mr. Baker and his wife, Susan Glasser, spent four years as Moscow bureau chiefs, chronicling the rise of Vladimir V. Putin, the rollback of Russian democracy, the second Chechen war and the terrorist attacks on a theater in Moscow and a school in Beslan. Mr. Baker also covered the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He was the first American newspaper journalist to report from rebel-held northern Afghanistan after Sept. 11, 2001, and he spent the next eight months covering the overthrow of the Taliban and the emergence of a new government. He later spent six months in the Middle East, reporting from inside Saddam Hussein's Iraq and around the region before embedding with the United States Marines as they drove toward Baghdad.

Baker is the author of four books, most recently “Obama: The Call of History,” an illustrated history of the 44th president.

A native of the Washington area, Mr. Baker attended Oberlin College.

The Payne Lectureship is named for Frank E. Payne and Arthur W. Payne, brothers who gained an appreciation for global problems through their international business operations. Their descendants endowed the annual lecture series at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies in order to raise public understanding of the complex policy issues facing the global community today and to increase support for informed international cooperation.

The Payne Distinguished Lecturer is chosen for his or her international reputation as a leader, with an emphasis on visionary thinking; a broad, practical grasp of a given field; and the capacity to clearly articulate an important perspective on the global community and its challenges.

This event is closed.

Speaker Bio:

[[{"fid":"230390","view_mode":"crop_870xauto","fields":{"style":"margin: 3px; float: left;","class":"media-element file-crop-epsa-crop-portret","data-delta":"4","format":"crop_870xauto","field_file_image_description[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_credit[und][0][value]":"","field_caption[und][0][value]":"","thumbnails":"crop_870xauto","alt":"","title":""},"type":"media","field_deltas":{"4":{"style":"margin: 3px; float: left;","class":"media-element file-crop-epsa-crop-portret","data-delta":"4","format":"crop_870xauto","field_file_image_description[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_credit[und][0][value]":"","field_caption[und][0][value]":"","thumbnails":"crop_870xauto","alt":"","title":""}},"link_text":null,"attributes":{"style":"margin-right: 6px; margin-left: 6px; float: left; height: 176px; width: 150px;","class":"media-element file-crop-870xauto","data-delta":"4"}}]]

The 12th and 13th President (2008-2016) of the Republic of China (Taiwan)                          

Ma Ying-jeou was born in 1950 in Hong Kong, and emigrated in 1951 with his family to Taiwan, where he grew up. He graduated from National Taiwan University’s Department of Law in 1972, then served in the Marines and Navy for two years before earning an LL.M from New York University (1976) and an S.J.D. from Harvard University (1981). Dr. Ma began his political career as the deputy director of the Presidential Office’s First Bureau, and doubled as President Chiang Ching-kuo’s personal English interpreter. After President Chiang passed away in 1988, he held a series of other positions in government, including the Chairman of the Research, Evaluation, and Development Commission, Senior Vice Chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council, and Minister of Justice. In 1998, he was elected mayor of Taipei, an office he held until 2006. In 2008, he was elected President of the Republic of China (Taiwan) with 58% of the vote, the highest in history, and he was re-elected in 2012. 

During President Ma’s two terms in office, Taiwan’s per-capita GDP (on a PPP basis) rose from US$34,936 to $48,095, passing the U.K., France, Denmark, Italy, Canada, Japan, and South Korea and advancing 10 places in eight years. Taiwan was able to maintain peaceful relations with the Chinese mainland, friendly relations with Japan, and close relations with the United States; relations with all three countries were the best they had been in many decades. In November 2015, President Ma met with the mainland Chinese leader Xi Jinping in Singapore, the first face-to-face meeting between leaders of the two sides in 70 years. President Ma left office on May 20, 2016.    

Hate propaganda has been a feature of politics in India, Indonesia, and other Asian democracies long before the recent surge in interest in so-called “fake news” and intolerant populism in the West. This presentation dissects the political strategy of “hate spin,” which includes not only the use of hate speech or incitement, but also the creative manufacture of righteous indignation and popular mobilization framed as responses to victimhood. Examples include the “love jihad” conspiracy theory in India and blasphemy allegations in Indonesia, which have been used to devastating effect by religious nationalists. Existing religious-offense laws have backfired, while incitement laws, though necessary, are systemically incapable of dealing with hate propagandists’ highly sophisticated and distributed disinformation campaigns.  The speaker's book on this topic, Hate Spin, will be available for sale at his talk.

Image

Abstract:

In 2002 and 2003, Americans pointed to Japan after the Second World War as a model which proved that enemy countries could be remade into stable democratic allies through short military occupation. Planners and politicians drew on their understanding of events in Japan to learn "lessons" for a post-Saddam Iraq. In the years since, it has become common to blame the failures of intervention in Iraq on American ignorance and insufficient planning. But is that popular characterization correct? This talk discusses whether and how the planning phases for Japan and Iraq differed, and with what implications for the occupied countries.

Speaker Bio:

Image