A Brookings Institution Press and Centre for International Governance Innovation publication The global order is shifting. Even though no major war has intervened to reshape the architecture of the international order, the global financial crisis has accentuated the emergence of an enlarged global leadership. It is clear that change is afoot. The United States may be hanging on as the world's leading power, as the European Union remains an independent force in global politics, but a host of rising states—including China, India, and Brazil—clamor to be heard and take on bigger roles in world forums. Rising States, Rising Institutions features a panel of distinguished scholars who examine the forces at work: Gregory Chin (York University), Daniel W. Drezner(Tufts University), Thomas Hale (Princeton University), Andrew Hurrell (Oxford University), G. John Ikenberry (Princeton University), John Kirton (University of Toronto), Flynt Leverett (New America Foundation), Steven E. Miller (Harvard University), Andrew Moravcsik (Princeton University), Amrita Narlikar (Cambridge University), and Anne-Marie Slaughter (U.S. State Department). Together they analyze different models of international cooperation, the states that have most actively challenged the existing order, and leading and emergent international institutions such as the G-20, the nascent regime for sovereign wealth funds, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the entities organized to foster cooperation in the war on terror.

"Constructive engagement" became a catchphrase under the Clinton administration for America's reinvigorated efforts to pull China firmly into the international community as a responsible player, one that abides by widely accepted norms. Skeptics questioned the effectiveness of this policy and those that followed. But how is such socialization supposed to work in the first place? This has never been all that clear, whether practiced by the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), Japan, or the United States. Social States is the first book to systematically test the effects of socialization in international relations--to help explain why players on the world stage may be moved to cooperate when doing so is not in their material power interests. Alastair Iain Johnston carries out his groundbreaking theoretical task through a richly detailed look at China's participation in international security institutions during two crucial decades of the "rise of China," from 1980 to 2000. Drawing on sociology and social psychology, this book examines three microprocesses of socialization--mimicking, social influence, and persuasion--as they have played out in the attitudes of Chinese diplomats active in the Conference on Disarmament, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban, the Convention on Conventional Weapons, and the ASEAN Regional Forum. Among the key conclusions: Chinese officials in the post-Mao era adopted more cooperative and more self-constraining commitments to arms control and disarmament treaties, thanks to their increasing social interactions in international security institutions.

A long-dominant reading of American politics holds that public policy in the United States is easily captured by special interest groups. Countering this view, Adam Sheingate traces the development of government intervention in agriculture from its nineteenth-century origins to contemporary struggles over farm subsidies. His considered conclusion is that American institutions have not given agricultural interest groups any particular advantages in the policy process, in part because opposing lobbies also enjoy access to policymakers. In fact, the high degree of conflict and pluralism maintained by American institutions made possible substantial retrenchment of the agricultural welfare state during the 1980s and 1990s. In Japan and France--two countries with markedly different institutional characters than the United States--powerful agricultural interests and a historically close relationship between farmers, bureaucrats, and politicians continue to preclude a roll-back of farm subsidies. This well-crafted study not only puts a new spin on agricultural policy, but also makes a strong case for the broader claim that the relatively decentralized American political system is actually less prone to capture and rule by subgovernments than the more centralized political systems found in France and Japan. Sheingate's historical, comparative approach also demonstrates, in a widely useful way, how past institutional developments shape current policies and options.

Before the Second World War, few universities in the United States had earned high respect among the international community of scholars and scientists. Since 1945, however, the distinctive attributes of American higher education—decentralized administration, pluralistic and research-minded faculties, and intense competition for government funding—have become world standard. Whether measured by Nobel and other prizes, international applications for student admissions and faculty appointments, or the results of academic surveys, America's top research universities are the best in the world. The Rise of American Research Universities provides a fresh historical interpretation of their ascendancy and a fresh, comprehensive estimate of their scholarly achievement. Hugh Davis Graham and Nancy Diamond question traditional methods of rating the reputation and performance of universities; they offer instead an empirical analysis of faculty productivity based on research grants received, published research, and peer approval of that work. Comparing the research achievements of faculty at more than 200 institutions, they differ with most studies of higher education in measuring performance in every academic field—from medicine to humanities—and in analyzing data on research activity in terms of institutional size. In this important and timely work, Graham and Diamond reassess the success of American universities as research institutions and the role of public funding in their developmentfrom the expansionist "golden years" of the 1950s and '60s, through the austerity measures of the 1970s and the entrepreneurial ethos of the 1980s, to the budget crises universities face in the 1990s.

China's extraordinarily rapid economic growth since 1978, driven by market-oriented reforms, has set world records and continued unabated, despite predictions of an inevitable slowdown. In The State Strikes Back: The End of Economic Reform in China?, renowned China scholar Nicholas R. Lardy argues that China's future growth prospects could be equally bright but are shadowed by the specter of resurgent state dominance, which has begun to diminish the vital role of the market and private firms in China's economy. Lardy's book arrives in timely fashion as a sequel to his pathbreaking Markets over Mao: The Rise of Private Business in China, published by PIIE in 2014. This book mobilizes new data to trace how President Xi Jinping has consistently championed state-owned or controlled enterprises, encouraging local political leaders and financial institutions to prop up ailing, underperforming companies that are a drag on China's potential. As with his previous book, Lardy's perspective departs from conventional wisdom, especially in its contention that China could achieve a high growth rate for the next two decades—if it reverses course and returns to the path of market-oriented reforms.

Migration has become a top priority for politicians and policy makers around the world, but most writing on the topic covers only half the issue, wrongly assuming that migration policy equals immigration policy where, in reality, the majority of states care more deeply about emigration and the transnational involvements of emigrants and their descendants in the diaspora. Liberal democratic states have long considered emigration controls off-limits, for fear that they violate individual freedom of exit at the same time as interfering in the domestic affairs of other states. But these norms are changing fast: in the past 25 years, more than half of all United Nations member states have established some form of government department devoted to their people living0in other countries. What explains the rise of these 'diaspora institutions', and how does it relate to the political geographies of decolonisation, regional integration, and global governance since World War II? 0This book addresses these questions, based on quantitative data covering all UN members from 1936-2015, and fieldwork with high-level policy makers across 60 states. The book shows how, in many world regions, the unregulated spread of diaspora institutions is unleashing a wave of 'human geopolitics': a kind of geopolitics involving claims over people rather than territory. It argues for the development of principles to guide the future development of state-diaspora relations in an era of unprecedented global interdependence.

Examines how federal and state governments have assumed ever-greater control over the education process since the 1960s.