Environment

Professional economists may be dismayed, but scholars and students of international politics should be delighted by the decision to award this year's Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences (aka the "Nobel Prize in Economics") to Elinor Ostrom of Indiana University.  She is not only the first woman to win the economics prize, she's also the first political scientist.  She holds a Ph.D. in the subject from UCLA and is a past president of the American Political Science Association.

Ostrom's main research is pretty far from my own concerns, but I did list her book Governing the Commons on one of my "top-ten" lists earlier this year.  She is primarily known for her work on institutional solutions to collective action problems, most notably in the area of resources and environment.  Via a combination of "soft" rational choice theory and careful empirical work, she shows that common resources can be shared and managed through various institutional mechanisms, but also shows that there is nothing inevitable about this outcome, due to familiar dilemmas of collective action (that's why we call them dilemmas!), and the complex interactions of humans, institutions, and larger ecosystems.

Ostrom (and the co-winner, organization theorist Oliver Williamson) join a group of recent winners chosen more for theoretical insight and real-world relevance than for mathematical scholasticism.  Others in this same group would include economic historians Douglass North and Robert Fogel, behavioral economist Daniel Kahneman, game theorist/strategist Thomas Schelling, and economist-philosopher Amartya Sen.  Scholars with an international orientation have been doing pretty well in recent years too: Schelling was awarded for game-theoretic work on international conflict, Paul Krugman for his work on international trade, and Sen's work on poverty and famines has clear international implications.  Kudos to the prize committee for their eclectic approach to the award--if only more economics departments thought this way.

One more thing: need I mention that Ostrom received the award for work she had already done, as opposed to some other Nobel Prize winners I can think of?

Photo: Indiana University via Getty Images

The British statesman Lord Salisbury famously warned that "if you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the soldiers, nothing is safe."

I was reminded of Salisbury's comment when I read the Times' story on a recent study of the national security implications of climate change. So I went online and read the actual report (by CNA Corporation, a DoD-funded think tank). It concludes that "climate change poses a serious threat to America's national security," describes it as a "threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world," and recommends integrating the national security consequences of climate change into existing defense and national security strategies (along with a number of other measures).

This is a bit of a "dog bites man" story, of course: when was the last time a DoD study concluded that some new global development was leaving us more secure? But as Salisbury cautioned, we need to take such warnings with a "very large admixture of insipid common sense."

If the purpose of the study is to highlight the need to take climate change seriously and to rally public support for doing something about it, then OK.  The Times quotes retired general Anthony Zinni in this fashion, where he warns that we will either spend the money now to try to slow or halt climate change, or we will spend the money (and lives) later to deal with the consequences. This is a familiar political tactic: when you want to do something expensive, try to convince people that it is a critical national security imperative. That's one of the ways we got the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, (aka the Interstate Highway System) back in the 1950s: it was justified as a critical element in our national defense infrastructure.

Similarly, there's no question that climate change could affect certain defense operations. For example, rising sea levels could affect access to overseas bases like Diego Garcia, and affect operations at key U.S. naval bases here at home. So there's clearly good reason for DOD to think about these issues and start planning ahead.

But as Matt Yglesias noted yesterday, the CNA study reads like an exercise in threat-inflation (he called it "hubristic imperialism"). It is entirely possible that climate change could provoke major refugee movements in certain areas (e.g., Bangladesh), and that such a development could have powerful effects on neighboring countries (e.g., India). But instead of immediately concluding that American interests are at stake, isn't this first and foremost India's problem? And if the United States starts devoting a lot of time and attention to figuring out how to mitigate such developments, won't that reduce India's incentive to reach a meaningful climate change agreement?  

Climate change might also foster instability in various "volatile areas," but it does not immediately follow from that observation that U.S. interests will necessarily be affected in any significant way. Overall, the CNA study illustrates what might be called the Albright Doctrine: "Because we are the indispensable power, every global problem has to have an American solution."

But the more closely you look at the report, the clearer it is that the actual national security implications of climate change are modest, at least for the United States. The likely demands on U.S. military forces will be for humanitarian relief, not for the protection of vital U.S. interests. I have no problem with humanitarian relief, by the way, but let's call it what it is -- a form of global philanthropy -- and not try to sell it as a defense of the American people.

ASIT KUMAR/AFP/Getty Images

Safely here in Singapore, reconnecting with friends and associates at the S Rajaratnam School, as well as several international visitors. A few quick, if slightly jet-lagged impressions:

1. The economic meltdown is The Big Story here, for obvious reasons. Singapore has the highest trade/GNP ratio in the world, and has been very hard hit by the overall decline in world trade. According to the Straits Times former Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yew has warned that Singapore's economy could shrink by as much as 10 percent this year (though other estimates are not quite as gloomy) which would be unprecedented. The political ramifications have been limited by the fact that job losses have been concentrated on the sizeable expatriate community (life's no better for former financial wizards here than on Wall Street), but the effects of a prolonged recession could be more worrisome.

2. Like everyone else, Singaporeans with whom I've spoke are fascinated by Obama's ascendancy and intensely curious about what it will mean. So far, most think he's been terrific in changing the tone of America's engagement with other states, but whether he can deliver on substance remains to be seen. One call this is a friendlier version of Ayatollah Khameini's message to Obama: they'll judge him by his acts, not just by his words. But they like the words. And nobody seems to miss George W. Bush very much, if at all.

3. As one would expect, Singapore's security concerns are primarily focused on the local neighborhood (Indonesia, China’s growing role, maritime security, etc.) They chide us Americans for neglecting Asia over the past eight years, and think it will take some time and effort to do the deferred diplomatic maintenance. I agree, and cannot help thinking about how different our situation would be had we not squandered all that time, money, attention, and manpower and all those lives in the sands of Iraq. 

4. Final thought: I found myself wondering today whether Singapore might be something of a canary in the coal mine on the issues of energy security and adaptation to climate change. The city-state achieved its phenomenal growth by taking a very far-sighted and disciplined approach to economic development, and its leaders continue to venerate those qualities. Singapore ranks very high in per capita CO2 emissions and per capita energy consumption (it takes a lot of energy to run a modern economy in the tropics), and a rise in global sea levels would be a BIG problem for them. So I'd expect Singapore to be among the leaders in going green (both to reduce energy costs and to encourage get bigger countries to reduce emissions) and to be on the cutting edge in preparing for the environmental consequences that it may be too late to avoid. Worth watching...

ROSLAN RAHMAN/AFP/Getty Images