Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs comprises more than 70 full-time faculty and more than 200 adjunct faculty, scholars, and practitioners. All have distinguished themselves in research and leadership in the policy world, and have produced scholarship in a wide variety of subjects, including international relations, democratization, elections, demography, and social policy.

July 2017|Journal of Labor Economics|Cristian Pop-Eleches, James Bisbee, Rajeev Dehejia, Cyrus Samii
July 2017|Foreign Affairs|Christopher Sabatini
July 2017|Ester R. Fuchs

Promoting a Cleaner and Healthier Harlem: Reducing Street Litter in the 125th Street Business Improvement District

July 2017|Economic Inquiry|Thomas Groll, Christopher J. Ellis
July 2017|American Economics Journal: Applied Economics|Bentley MacLeod, Miguel Urquiola, Evan Riehl, Juan Saavedrea
July 2017|Shang-Jin Wei, Rodolphe Desbordes
July 2017|World Politics Review|Christopher Sabatini
June 2017|Journal of International Affairs|Dirk Salomons

The worst is yet to come. Populism is trumping international solidarity. Nothing less than fundamental reforms can turn the tide: framing humanitarian crises as threats to national security, consolidating the separate humanitarian fiefdoms of the UN system, reorienting the so-called humanitarian values toward human rights, taxing all UN member states for their share to meet the UN's global humanitarian appeals, and linking the humanitarian response efforts to development. It is not just about saving lives, but about giving people their lives back.

June 2017|Climate Policy|Ruben Lubowski, Alexander Golub, Sabine Fuss, Jake Hiller, Nikolay Khabarov, Nicolas Koch, Andrey Krasovskii, Florian Kraxner, Timothy Laing, Michael Obersteiner, Charles Palmer, Pedro Piris-Cabezas, Wolf Heinrich Reuter, Jana Szolgayová, Luca Taschini, Johanna Wehkamp

Climate policy uncertainty significantly hinders investments in low-carbon technologies, and the global community is behind schedule to curb carbon emissions. Strong actions will be necessary to limit the increase in global temperatures, and continued delays create risks of escalating climate change damages and future policy costs. These risks are system-wide, long-term and large-scale and thus hard to diversify across firms. Because of its unique scale, cost structure and near-term availability, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation in developing countries (REDD+) has significant potential to help manage climate policy risks and facilitate the transition to lower greenhouse gas emissions. ‘Call’ options contracts in the form of the right but not the obligation to buy high-quality emissions reduction credits from jurisdictional REDD+ programmes at a predetermined price per ton of CO2 could help unlock this potential despite the current lack of carbon markets that accept REDD+ for compliance. This approach could provide a globally important cost-containment mechanism and insurance for firms against higher future carbon prices, while channelling finance to avoid deforestation until policy uncertainties decline and carbon markets scale up.

June 2017|Journal of Economic Literature|Miguel Urquiola, Dennis Epple, Richard E. Romano

Pages