Hannah Arendt Center for Politics and Humanities

Political Scientists Bemoan Funding Cuts

Political scientists around the country are in a huff here, and here, and here. The reason has little to do with the upcoming election, the vacuum in political leadership, or the state of the world. No, they are upset because Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake has proposed cutting the National Science Foundation's Political Science Program that awards about $11 Million a year to support political science research.

The anger and posturing are extraordinary. And political scientists are rushing to defend the relevance and necessity of their research. Special anger is directed at Congressman Flake's blindness to the import of a $700,000 NSF proposed study to develop "A multi-level, agent-based model for identifying the factors that enable or constrain international climate change negotiations." I have no doubt such a study has uses. But I do wonder if those writing the study could make those uses more accessible. They write:

The goal of our research is to develop a new tool for international climate policy analysis based on the concept of agent-based modeling (ABM).  ABM facilitates a more realistic and simultaneous treatment of the diverse forces which influence multi-party decisions.  Our model will represent both the international climate negotiation process, as well as the key dynamics of domestic economies relevant to energy and climate change.  Some key questions to be explored with our model include: Are there patterns of innovation, adaptation, or climate damages that emerge from an ABM representation of an economy that are obscured by conventional assessments? ...

The authors then provide this graphic to illustrate what they mean:

I don't want to disparage the research, which I am sure will be of interest to a subset of academic political scientists. This research may even, over years, produce insights that gradually merge with the fruits of other research to change and even improve our understanding of how multiparty negotiations impact complicated international topics.  And, yes, $700,000 is less than a drop in the bucket in the federal budget. But when looking at the Federal Budget, at a time when students are being forced into bankruptcy because they can't repay student debt, is this where the government should be spending its money?

Congressman Flake, who I never have heard of before happens to have a Masters degree in Political Science; he understands that these grants have multiple uses. First, they advance the general knowledge of the social sciences. They also advance the careers of the political scientists who win them.  What is more, the vast majority of the funds dispersed go to subsidize the administrative costs at our nation's colleges and universities. And here is where the proposed funding looks mighty suspect.

The researchers proposing this study are from Dartmouth. Dartmouth is a fine school, also a small school that happens to have an endowment of over $3 Billion dollars. As Congressman Flake notes,

According to the NSF Web site, to date, more than $80 million has been awarded to the program’s nearly 200 active projects. Three-quarters of these awards, totaling over $46 million, were directed to universities with endowments greater than $1 billion.

The outrage of the political science community at these cuts is more than misplaced.

We may wonder why political science and not anthropology. I guess the first answer is that Congressman Flake is a political scientist and thus is beginning to cut in the areas he knows best. But the bigger issue is that these cuts are just the beginning of a desperately needed rethinking of what the federal government should be spending money on at a time of coming austerity.

The beauty of the American system is the dispersion of power. The federal government does not control all the levers of power or all the money in the USA. If the NSF cannot or does not fund a study, those who feel the need for that study have plenty of other pots to dip their hands into. There are a myriad of foundations and universities that support an enormous amount of social science research. The issue is not that necessary research may not get done, but that there will now be one fewer pot. That is sad for political scientists, but not a tragedy. Indeed, political scientists might ask: How has bureaucratic federal grant-making changed and influenced the nature of political science research?


The Hannah Arendt Center
The Hannah Arendt Center at Bard is a unique institution, offering a marriage of non-partisan politics and the humanities. It serves as an intellectual incubator for engaged thinking and public discussion of the nation's most pressing political and ethical challenges.

Comments (5) Trackbacks (2)
  1. When a member of Congress questions any federal funding, it does not represent “political interference”, unless we’ve ceased to be a democracy and elected representatives of the people have no voice in how their money is spent. But I think it’s high time that the academic priesthoods are challenged about the turf they have carved out in federal support for research, particularly in the social sciences, and particularly in political science. I work for a foundation that invests selectively in academic research on various international issues. We stopped attending APSA meetings a few years ago, because of the dominance of the discipline by intellectually narrow interpretations of contemporary events and a deeply embedded structuralist view of political causation, both of which we found among most political scientists. We shifted our focus toward the kind of work that gets greater attention via ISA and ASA meetings, because the creativity and flexibility of academics we’ve met there seemed greater. Every academic field needs to be shaken up from time to time. Perhaps it’s time for a wake up call to political scientists.

    • Indeed, Robert. It is notable that while Eisenhower’s use of “Military/Industrial Complex in his farewell speech is now legendary, his warning in his next paragraph about an Academic/Congressional complex is continually overlooked inside academia. It is not odd at all that these should feed on one another, or that social sciences, most directly affecting ideas about politics, should be an area of attention by politicians.

      To believe otherwise is like saying that Texas politicians of either Party would allow funding to be diverted from Johnson Space Center without protest and intrigue. LBJ’s legacy is their pride and their sustenance at the same time. So it is with the Academic/ Congressional complex, which justifies and solidifies ideas behind so much of what pols want to do anyway. Flake is onto something, again.

  2. It’s great that you are getting thoughts from this article as well as from our argument
    made here.

  3. North London Van Hire undoubtedly works on the
    simple principle of fulfilling the customer’s needs in the
    best possible way at the least expensive and notably reasonable possible costs.

    If you spend lot of time in vehicle it would be better if
    you have a wash room, with a toilet and also a simple
    shower. This week, the former “Real Housewives of New York City” star and her husband, Simon van Kempen, relocated to Australia.

  4. None of the reviews referred to any Nuwave Oven scam.

    Both of these appliances have a good capacity and both offer far more temperature control, though they
    are very different in shape. In your pursuit of a microwave convection oven,
    you would do wise to compare the features
    and prices of a range of models to get the best deal and meet your
    cooking requirements.

Leave a comment