A world free of extreme poverty by 2030: a historic milestone that the World Bank President Jim Yong Kim recently proclaimed is feasible and imperative. Over a billion people today, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, live in absolute poverty, that is, on less than $1.25 per capita per day. This Task Force focused on the role of state and nonstate actors in the global campaign against extreme poverty. What can the United States and other developed countries do individually and in partnership with key players in the global community to advance this ambitious agenda? What lessons can they learn from recent successes in reducing poverty in Asia? And how can they promote inclusive economic growth that does not leave behind the more vulnerable sectors of society? This Task Force utilized information gathered from reports by the US government, USAID, UN, WHO, and other nonstate organizations to produce a set of comprehensive recommendations on how USAID may work to eliminate extreme poverty by 2030.

Slavery is commonly conceptualized as a limited form of chattel slavery that existed in the pre-Emancipation antebellum South. However, the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery also includes a clause that permits enslavement as an "appropriate punishment for a crime”. It is through this lens that I examine the disproportionate rise of racialized incarceration, and the subsequent privatization and profiteering that has exploded in recent years, as a form of contemporary slavery. Using an analysis of immigrant detention on the US-Mexico border, I argue that our immigration system acts as a form of racial control and neoslavery, and that such a conclusion necessitates a radical restructuring of national dependence on criminalization and enslavement.

This 2014 Jackson School Task Force project focuses on the renewal of a European Grand Security Strategy, which emphasizes the necessity of regional prioritization, global engagement, and internal capacity. In depth analysis of current EU policy instruments and previous engagement acts as a point of departure - culminating in strategic policy recommendations which advocate for comprehensive engagement, regionalization of cooperation, and regionally segmented, thematically driven policy packages to comprehensively address instability in Europe's 'neighborhood(s)'. The overall Grand Strategy is divided regionally; our task was to update the European Union’s security policy towards the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). The focus of this report was to examine the level of efficiency and strategic calculation within the EU's approach to the broader region. It is argued here that although economic integration between Europe and its extended neighborhood has been successful, its political influence in the region is in decline as a result of its shortcomings in crisis management and political reform. As a result, the probability of intensified instability in the MENA presents Europe's most pressing security concern. Our findings conclude that the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) framework would function more effectively if the task of economic integration is confined to the ENP; while other components - crisis management, political reform, and civil society engagement - are removed from its agenda and reorganized into a broader MENA regional policy package. This strategic remapping of the EU's MENA neighborhood - to include the Gulf States, and Iran -would allow Europe to more comprehensively and holistically address the region’s common security concerns. Provided in this paper are clear strategic priorities for the EU and the means to operationalize them despite the ambiguity of an emerging multipolar global order.

The 2007-2009 financial crisis and subsequent recession has brought the looming unsustainable debt and deficits of the United States to the forefront of the minds of people everywhere.  This paper will delve into the puzzle of why neither dominant political party has been able to take the large legislative action needed to implement the recommendations of four well regarded institutions (Office of Management and Budget, The Federal Reserve, the Simpson-Bowles Commission, and the Domenici-Rivlin Debt Reduction Task Force) in light of their general consensus regarding goals that need be met in order to avoid a budget/currency crisis.  I ask the question: Why has the Congress of the United States failed to enact the large scale budgetary reforms necessary to bring the US debt/deficit in line with the recommendations?  My hypothesis is that there is some threshold of power balance that must be achieved over the opposing political party to achieve a strong enough majority in order to pass legislation that makes large program or budgetary changes.  I will investigate legislation before the floor of the House and Senate in the areas of Social Security, and Medicare.  First, I discuss the various recommendations regarding the debt and deficit.  Second, I review the literature regarding theories of legislative gridlock.  Third, I research and analyze the passage or failure of bills before the House and Senate floor in terms of size of the legislative change in budget and program, as well as compare this to the party balance of power present.  Finally, I speculate as to what would be necessary for Congress to pass the large budget/programmatic changes recommended.  Having done so, it is our hope that we can provide policy makers and constituents with a deeper understanding of the debt/deficit problem that the country faces.

If there is one point of consensus in this era of divided and dysfunctional government, it is the U.S. Constitution. However, some scholars attribute institutional paralysis in government to the founding document, such as a Senate with equal representation of states. If this is the case, then improving government will require reforming the Constitution. Whether the American public supports reform will be influenced by preexisting attitudes towards the document. These split on how the Constitution should be interpreted; some support a “living” document and others prefer preserving the original content. To see with which Americans agree, I model public support towards the Constitution based on government job performance from responses to Time Magazine survey from 2011. I find that people who are more dissatisfied with the government’s handling of its jobs are neither more nor less likely to support constitutional reform. This suggests that Americans do not agree with the institutional explanation and are unlikely to support reform based on poor government job performance.

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is currently working to develop a domestic nuclear power capability, to which they are entitled under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement that they signed in 1970. Jordan’s economy is rapidly expanding and their current path of importing energy is costly and unsustainable. While nuclear politics in the Middle East are complicated, and efforts to build nuclear power plants that do not produce weapons are viewed with suspicion by the world, Jordan generally occupies a favorable view among the Western world, following decades of security cooperation with the United States and their signing of the 1994 peace treaty with neighboring Israel. However, Jordan’s bold advances have been led by a strict monarchy that has been criticized for not representing the people. Furthermore, regional conflict has led to an enormous refugee influx which now makes up the majority of the population. Political upheavals in the region has made others worried if the country has enough stability to insure that nuclear infrastructure always remains in trusted hands. My research includes extensive firsthand experience from a semester in Amman, where I surveyed Jordanians, both inside and outside the nuclear profession, regarding their opinions of progressing nuclear energy in the country, taking into account the regional challenges. The rapid change in Jordan’s demographics and in the security situation of it’s neighbors makes it necessary to constantly reexamine this country. Given the overwhelming focus of Western attention towards hostile regimes, such as Iran, and their nuclear ambitions, this research covers an often overlooked area of global nuclear development.

The Occupy Movement represented the American contingent of the populist uprisings of Spain and Egypt. It adeptly deployed popular, personalized political involvement with mobilization of networking tools and crowd tactics to create the ubiquitous meme “We Are The 99%”. The emerging, novel form of protest embodied by Occupy suggests the possible trajectory of contemporary social movements but it has been criticized for failing to assert demands and institute changes. The divergence with traditional social movements who make claims on the state extends to the realm of rights. This raises the question of whether the absence of rights-talk reflects a broader ‘exhaustion of rights.’ To investigate this claim I drew on activists’ accounts as well as academics studying the mechanisms behind movement formation and development. I sought to establish a framework to understand activist’s choices to reject demands and whether this logic was consciously extended to rights. I also incorporated academic works to understand and situate the movement in the neoliberal state to which the movement was, in part, a response. I found that activists were limited by the movement’s internal structure created out of a desire to instantiate horizontality, the absence of leadership, and inclusivity, broad participation, that were crucial to its legitimacy. More importantly, the perceived dominance of neoliberalism made activists wary of institutionalizing or making demands on a system that disproportionately favored the 1%. Consequences of the neoliberal project have intensified the critique of rights, leaving rights-talk perilous or powerless for activists. This view of rights delimits rights to state-claims and ignores their unintended and potentially transformative capacities. Consequently, although rights existed within the movement, they were not extant in broader discussions, missing an opportunity to seize upon the platform created by the movement to contextualize novel rights claims giving them political salience.

My research considers the importance of the universal values expressed in international human rights as crucial means to protect individual equality around the world, to affirm a country’s sovereignty in international relations, and evaluate the legitimacy of a domestic political system. The view that human rights are universal values has been rejected in many countries as an “idea of the West”, which has made it difficult for them to be accepted in other countries that do not share the same cultural backgrounds. However, in order to pursue peace in this anarchic world system and deal with problems of global inequality, it is crucial to develop mutual understanding among nations through the establishment of transnational laws and agreement on moral values. As a key to this process, this research will focus on the concepts of “mutual respect” and “understanding among peoples” and propose that “culture tolerance” is necessary to successfully establish and propagate universal values across borders. As example, I present both successful and non-successful cases of the US's attempt to promote democracy in the Middle East and North African countries by analyzing their policies and reactions to these paternalistic efforts to address violations of human rights. Finally, I mention the idea of “cultural tolerance” and explain how this idea can play a key role in the promotion of values that can be globally accepted.