Booklist | What to Read on Global Policy Analysis” in IR via Stephen M. Walt

Walt’s crowdsourcing a reading list–but also identifying the gap in goodreads for global policy analysis.  He also explains why process matters so much for international policymaking, and the importance of implementation via diplomacy and military power:

In global affairs, by contrast, the rule of law is far weaker and there are often competing power centers with very different interests. Strategic interactions loom much larger, and the success of a given policy choice often depends not just on the intrinsic merits of the specific initiative but on how other key actors will respond to it. (Among other things, this is why simple game theoretic models are often useful for analyzing certain international policy problems). To the extent that the issues are truly global, the correct policy choice depends far more on bargaining, persuasion, in some cases coercion, and on developing solutions that either elicit others’ voluntary compliance or achieve the objective in the face of opposition. Such features are not entirely absent in domestic policy discussions, but they play a larger role in interactions between states, corporations, and non-state actors operating in the anarchic world of international politics.

via Is There a Good Book or Article on “Policy Analysis” in IR? | Stephen M. Walt.

Some of the commenter suggestions are worth considering:

• Maarten Hajer’s article, “Policy without Polity: policy analysis and the institutional void”
• John Mearsheimer, Why Leaders Lie
• Dan Drezner, All Politics is Global; Avoiding Trivia
• Being useful: policy relevance and international relations
• Managing Strategic Surprise, Ian Bremmer and Paul Bracken, eds.
• Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, The Practioneer’s Game
• Bob Jervis, Why Intelligence Fails
• Policy analysis papers from Bernard Brodie, Tom Schelling and Raymond Garthoff
• Graham Allison and Zelikow, Essence of Decision
• Jeffrey Pfeffer, Managing with Power: Politics and Influence in Organizations

Why A Teen Who Talks Back May Have A Bright Future – NPR

It pays to argue.  Really.

Allen says almost all parents and teenagers argue. But its the quality of the arguments that makes all the difference.

“We tell parents to think of those arguments not as nuisance but as a critical training ground,” he says. Such arguments, he says, are actually mini life lessons in how to disagree — a necessary skill later on in life with partners, friends and colleagues on the job.

Teens should be rewarded when arguing calmly and persuasively and not when they indulge in yelling, whining, threats or insults, he says.

via Why A Teen Who Talks Back May Have A Bright Future : Shots – Health Blog : NPR.

Inside the Security Council deliberations on Palestine – By Colum Lynch | Turtle Bay

Will the Palestinians continue to press the case at the Security Council?  Meanwhile play the game that Colum Lynch suggests–and try to figure out whether each of the 15 members is vote yes, no, or abstain:

In the meantime, Turtle Bay, decided to post a copy of the latest report on the Security Council’s deliberations on Palestinian statehood. The report, which will be officially issued tomorrow, was first reported by Al Hurra….

A hint: Britain, Colombia, and France revealed they would abstain on the resolution. The United States, meanwhile, argued that Palestine could not be considered a “peace-loving” state so long as Palestinian militants were firing rockets across the border at Israeli communities.

via Inside the Security Council deliberations on Palestine – By Colum Lynch | Turtle Bay.

Anglican church struggles with occupy response | FP Passport

Across the pond, OCW has wreaked havoc on the consciences of Anglican Church leaders who must decide how to deal with the encampments:

In fact, the iconic St. Pauls Cathedral closed its doors to worshippers and tourists last week due to safety concerns for the first time since WWII and joined the CLCs lawsuit last Friday. But since the court action could lead to the forceful removal of protesters, and ultimately violence, the cathedral proceeds without three of its clergymen who have already resigned in protest. One of them, Canon Chancellor Giles Frase, explained his decision to the Guardian:

St. Paul was a tentmaker. If you looked around and you tried to recreate where Jesus would be born — for me, I could imagine Jesus being born in the camp. It is not about my sympathies or what I believe about the camp. I support the right to protest and in a perfect world we could have negotiated. But our legal advice was that this would have implied consent. The church cannot answer peaceful protest with violence.

via Anglican church struggles with occupy response | FP Passport.

Transparency – Always A Good Thing?

The UN runs–or so it seems–on the frequent mentioning of the concept of “transparency”–even when meetings aren’t open to NGOs, the media and other global citizens.  But isn’t there a role for closed meetings in politics and diplomacy?  The program On The Media explores this question as it relates to U.S. government negotiations on the debt:

The “super committee” on deficit reduction is meeting in advance of their Thanksgiving deadline, and critics claim they have not been transparent enough about the progress of their negotiations.  Bob spoke with Matthew Yglesias of Think Progress and Donny Shaw of the Participatory Politics Foundation about the pros and cons of meeting behind closed doors.

via Is Transparency Always A Good Thing? – On The Media.

The West Wing episode “Ellie” is referenced above and here, for any Aaron Sorkin fans out there - WNYC’s Politics Site Discusses Secret Committees on “The West Wing”.  But the deeper arguments warrant serious conversation.

Lawrence Lessig challenges the “naked transparency” movement, asking “how could anyone be against transparency?”

Its virtues and its utilities seem so crushingly obvious. But I have increasingly come to worry that there is an error at the core of this unquestioned goodness. We are not thinking critically enough about where and when transparency works, and where and when it may lead to confusion, or to worse. And I fear that the inevitable success of this movement–if pursued alone, without any sensitivity to the full complexity of the idea of perfect openness–will inspire not reform, but disgust. The “naked transparency movement,” as I will call it here, is not going to inspire change. It will simply push any faith in our political system over the cliff. via TNR.com

 

The Freakonomics guys weighed in somewhat helpfully in 2008, referring to reporting by NYT reporter Adam Liptak on how judges favor contributors in their decisions.  They  suggesting that perhaps we should require a “non-transparency” rather than a simple pro or con.

Philo Dibble, Diplomat and Iran Expert, Dies at 60 – NYTimes.com

Interesting obit on the diplomat Philo Dibble–who played an outsized role in the release of American hikers in Iran.

Philo L. Dibble, 60, a career Foreign Service officer who completed one of his most sensitive and visible diplomatic assignments — helping negotiate the release of two U.S. hikers who had been imprisoned in Iran — 10 days before his death, died Oct. 1 at his home in McLean.

via Philo Dibble, diplomat who helped free U.S. hikers from Iran, dies at 60 – The Washington Post.

Great story in the NYT obit:

He arrived in Beirut, Lebanon, on April 18, 1983, the day a suicide bomber killed more than 60 people in the American Embassy. No one met him at the airport. “He grabbed a cab,” his wife said. “He had a carton of Marlboros — paid the fare in Marlboros.”

When he arrived at the embassy, “it was just smoldering,” Ms. Dibble said. “He got out with his suitcases and people said: ‘You must be the new vice consul. We need you.’ ”

via Philo Dibble, Diplomat and Iran Expert, Dies at 60 – NYTimes.com.

Negotiation Academy Ep. 1 – Slate Magazine

A short course in negotiation via Slate:

Journalists Jill Barshay and Seth Stevenson recently studied the art and science of deal-making alongside budding MBAs at Columbia Business School. And it inspired them to create a series of short podcasts designed to teach you a few simple but invaluable rules for how to come out ahead when you haggle. AdvertisementIn Episode 1, Jill and Seth discuss a crucial starting question: Who should throw out the first number, you or your opponent? Along the way they get some advice from Duke behavioral economist Dan Ariely, author of the bestselling Predictably Irrational. We promise you’ll feel better armed for your next negotiation after this one segment, or your money back did we mention it’s free?.

via Negotiation academy: Slates course on the art of haggling. – Slate Magazine.

Some key takeaways:

1. Who should name the asking price or number first?  Research shows that the best way to play mind games is to state the number first and repeat it because you define/control the conversation.  This changes the nature of the negotiation.
2. Chose your first asking price or offer by putting yourself in the other person’s shoes.  What is the lowest number they would accept?  Then pick a number that’s even lower.
3. Avoid the “winner’s curse” by holding back and not giving in too quickly.

Disagreements at U.N. Stall Sanctions on Syria – NYTimes.com

Consensus at the United Nations doesn’t mean everyone has to agree–but in this case, they don’t.

Despite new resolve to issue a Security Council resolution addressing violence in Syria, the first negotiations on Wednesday among all 15 members of the Council over the wording bumped along an old rut.

Western nations rejected what they called a Russian attempt to equate government attacks on civilians with violent acts fomented by the opposition, while Russia disparaged what it called a stealth attempt to bring about regime change.

via Disagreements at U.N. Stall Sanctions on Syria – NYTimes.com.

Insights Into Negotiating Like the FBI

High stakes make for good strategies, at least that what these two features show.  First, negotiating for something like a salary based on the FBI publication “Crisis Intervention: Using Active Listening Skills in Negotiation” as referenced in the Career section of WSJ online:

So let’s say the HR person says, “We think you’re a great fit for the job, and we’d like to offer you a starting salary of $75,000.” Say something like: “I see. So you’re saying that the salary for this position would be $75,000.” Then be silent.

In doing so, you’ve listened attentively, paraphrased what the interviewer has said, mirrored back the last few words, and left an effective pause in the conversation to allow the interviewer to fill the gap. Most people hate awkward silence in conversation, and will rush to fill it, and what can happen in this scenario is they fill it with a higher offer.

via How to Negotiate Your Salary Like an FBI Agent .

And a longer interview worth exploring on hostage negotiations with founder of the FBI Crisis Negotiation Unit–via a Bob Edwards interview (previously available as a podcast via his iTunes channel) or Terri Gross Fresh Aire.   (You can find Noesner’s book and website, as well as see another summary.)

“Negotiations requires a lot of patience,” Noesner says. “You typically don’t create that relationship of trust by the specific words that you articulate. You have to earn the right to be of influence with someone, and you do that by projecting sincerity and genuineness. And those are great qualities for a good, successful negotiator.”  via NPR

People Argue Just to Win, Scholars Assert – NYTimes.com

If this theory works, then reasoned, cooperative discussions–focused on consensus–work best at producing the acceptance of sound arguments.  Sounds like education.

What is revolutionary about argumentative theory is that it presumes that since reason has a different purpose — to win over an opposing group — flawed reasoning is an adaptation in itself, useful for bolstering debating skills.

Mr. Mercier, a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, contends that attempts to rid people of biases have failed because reasoning does exactly what it is supposed to do: help win an argument.

“People have been trying to reform something that works perfectly well,” he said, “as if they had decided that hands were made for walking and that everybody should be taught that.”

Think of the American judicial system, in which the prosecutors and defense lawyers each have a mission to construct the strongest possible argument. The belief is that this process will reveal the truth, just as the best idea will triumph in what John Stuart Mill called the “marketplace of ideas.”

via People Argue Just to Win, Scholars Assert – NYTimes.com.