Category Archives: Thomas Barnett

Definitions and Understandings

Major props to Joseph Fouche of the Committee on Public Safety, for a series of great visualizations of the Generations of Modern War, xGW, and other buzzword-heavy systems that are popular around here.

The most humorous:

spec5

The most thought-provoking:

gw10

Joseph’s excellent visualizations made me think of the definition of “Core” or “Functioning Core,” which Tom Barnett adopted from Immanuel Wallerstein to describe those countries at the heart of the global capitalist system.

Tom’s previously given three different definitions for the term, and in the glossary to his new book, Great Powers, offers a fourth.

Readers of my blog know that my definition is different yet, as seen (among other places) in this visualization:

iran_and_the_central_seam

Is there a definition of functioning core around that would allow us to make predictions about whether specific states where inside or outside? Tom once gave an operationalized description, but I think that one is closer to describing states that happen to be rich than states that are interconnected.

Building the Sysadmin-Industrial-Complex

A very good post from Tom on Enterra’s work. Tom’s echoing what I wrote about in describing the need for 5GW — we cannot expect a conscious grand strategy to take us where we need to go. We need to build the conditions such that we win anyway.

“Charlie Wilson’s Peace” with the right ending! (Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog)
And the dream, which Steve helps each other to discover and then Steve implements like some genius “mad man” (see the series) through his stunning efforts in Kurdish Iraq, begins to take real shape.

On that level, I say, f–k grand strategy in the official sense (but God bless Bob Gates for every day he stays in office). Steve and I have decided to have our own foreign policy, not waiting on the USG but wanting it to catch up ASAP.

That’s why both Steve and DiB are major characters in Great Powers. It’s “Charlie Wilson’s Peace” with the right G.D. ending!

The Sysadmin Industrial Complex will do for nation building what the Military-Industrial-Complex did for government-destroying. Tom’s very lucky to be in at the ground floor.

5GW + Shrinking the Gap: The Money/Fantasy Machine

Mountainrunner’s review of Brave New War was greeted thusly by John Robb:

Knew it was going to happen. Oh well. To tell you the truth, I kinda expected more push-back to an outsider like me from the “conference crowd” guarding the walls around the counter-terrorism money/fantasy machine in Washinton. This guy is the only one to do so publicly.

Respondingly publicly, MR wrote:

I don’t know that I am trying to protect the “money/fantasy machine”, mostly because I don’t know what he means (a little help?). However, it does sound bad and I would probably agree the “money/fantasy machine” needs to be whacked based on name alone. Whatever it is, my issue with the book pivots on his failure to include and factor in purposes and support systems into the analysis of his guerrillas. Insight into these two not insignificant data sets can’t be dismissed or ignored, but that is just what BNW does.

At the time, I noted this was a humorous way to turn the other cheek. However, MR is wrong. The “money/fantasy machine” is a vital part of shrinking the Gap.


Earlier, Curtis commented on Tom Barnett’s view of 5GW:

he resolution to the Barnettian paradox is not something Barnett himself has offered: a true 5GW approach. Although he speaks in the language of co-optation, he uses the term when addressing inter-national relations; e.g., that Iran can be co-opted. Barnett does not descend to the street level although he does support improving the lives of the persons on the street; [Tom Barnett] has yet to formulate a clear plan for co-opting the many individuals of which nations and corporations are comprised. For the most part, he seems to assume that nation-states and corporations, if they only do the right things, will be received as benevolent dictators — or, scratch that term, as benevolent superempowered entities.

He may be half right. Many people seek saviors of one sort or another; many are happy to delegate responsibility for the things they themselves cannot touch or do not have the time or motivation to fix themselves — or do not understand, themselves. The crux of the Barnettian paradox involves the manner and method of assigning these delegations so that the general man-on-the-street can rest easily knowing his prosperous future is assured. Even within the Core, much doubt about this process of delegation exists; various superempowerments within and without the Core threaten to upset faith in the systems of the Core.

For his theory of 5GW, Barnett needs to reduce the footprint of his preferred superempowered entities, and this will require a re-think about how they operate — in fact, perhaps also about who they are.

In an unrelated post, Mountainrunner himself says much the same thing:

To this end, when operating in conflict/post-conflict environments were the host state needs to be rebuilt, certain tools are missing from our tooklit that demonstrates our commitment to the mission to the host, facilitates capacity building, and deepens host nation commitment, and capability, to the mission, and perhaps most importantly, enlists the locals into their own success.

Both posts can be summarized like this: America needs to subvert her own population, to enlist Americans, to shrink the Gap. Most thinkers are stuck in a low-G paradigm, so obvious solutions are for “everyone to pitch in” (0GW), “organize everyone to shrink the gap” (1GW), write harshly-worded letters (4GW), etc.

However, a 5GW solution is wiser. If shrinking the Gap is a public policy option, it could be rejected. Shrinking the Gap is a long-term process, and should be insulated from politics as much as possible. We have a model of how to proceed.

The Global War Against Communism was a successful, multigenerational effort by the United States to defeat the Communist world, to spinter the Soviet Union’s support, and ultimately to turn the USSR’s constuent republics against themselves. This was done by institutionalizing the war, building up a military-industria complex for the leviathian … what John Robb describes as a “money/fantasy machine” and Tom Barnett decries a generation after the Cold-War ended.

Think about that.

The anti-Communist 5GW that was built up at the beginning of the Cold War is still functioning in spite of widespread recognition that is has been obsoleted by its own success.

The anti-Disconnectedness 5GW that must be built up at the beginning of this Long War must be similarly durable. Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, globalists and internationalists, they come-and-go. They’re electoral defeats and victories are as rational as which town is hit by which tornado, which Senator uses an anti-asian slur that was current among North African Jews a lifetime ago, and other quirks of fate. Shrinking the Gap is too important to be left to chance.

Rather than decy a “money/fantasy machine” we need to build our own.

We need to build a Military-Industrial-Systems Administration-Complex.

We need a Virtual Department of Everything Else.

We need to Shrink the Gap.

5GW and Ruleset Automation

In a recent post, Tom Barnett synthesizes Coming Anarchy RevG, ZenPundit, and myself on the subject of 5th Generation War. (It’s a timely subject, as Curtis has just launched a blog dedicated to 5GW!) Tom’s post is very kind, and he uses one of my thoughts as a basis for winning, and preventing, 5GWs:

But say we get the SysAdmin up and running, are we entering the realm of 5th Generation Warfare?

I would say yes.

The key phrase from Dan’s analysis that clicked it for me is that once you’re observed doing your thing in 5GW, the gig is up, and that follows nicely with my NASCAR scenario (BTW, Art Cebrowski and I were going to set up a research project on this concept at the Naval War College, but our dual “falls” prevented that–his from disease, mine from whatever it was that got me fired).

But the natural counter to that (much like relying on authoritarian govs in the Gap as the natural counter to 4GW–although it’s a long-time loser strategy) is the notion that you win by extreme transparency: you democratize “observe” for the world, for nations, for individuals.

Here is where the coming wave of ubiquitous sensing shoved through a SOA-enabled IT world gets really interesting (today it’s my MySpace, but tomorrow it’s AllSpace!).

Development-in-a-Box really gets you into 5GW because it alters the observed reality–pre-emptively–in a sort of bribe-the-proles mode that steals the thunder of the 4GW warrior of today in the same way that social welfare nets and trade unions stifled the rise of socialism in Europe.

So, in effect, DiB helps move the Core from the Horatio Alger phase of lecturing the Gap (just pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and try all over again!) to the seriously seductive phase of active recruitment.

..

And that’s why it seems only natural to me that we marry that Chinese model to something better like DiB, turning it from simple raw-material market-capture to serious jump-starting toward emerging market status (remember those hedge funds getting interested in Africa).

So a SysAdmin-DiB approach that strategically allies us with China and hits them where they ain’t (yet strong) would see Core “bribe” Africa pre-emptively with connectivity-leading-to-development (and yes, ultimately pluralism in politics), and perhaps focus with some equal effort on SEAsia and Latin America.

Development-in-a-Box (Steve’s strategy plus Tom’s vision) is how we work the Gap-to-Core journey.

That, to me, is what’s so revolutionary about the SysAdmin-DoEE-AtoZ-DiB toolkit: it says to the world that America’s getting into the business of marketing its own catch-up strategy WRT globalization, instead of leaving that model’s enunciation to either the radical left or right of the Gap (as we did with Marxism, Leninism, fascism, Stalinism, Maoism, Pol Pot-ism, and so on and so on).

Development-in-a-Box is part of the work of Enterra Solutions, Barnett’s (and Steve DeAngelis‘s employer) — a firm that focuses on ruleset automation and other business process services. I general I agree, but as one movie demonstrates, ruleset automation — and thus Development-in-a-Box — has its limitations…

Prosecutor: We’re in luck, then. The Marine Corps Guide for Sentry Duty, NAVY BASE Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. I assume we’ll find the term code red and its definition in this book, am I correct?

Witness: No sir.

Prosecutor: No? Corporal Howard, I’m a marine. Is their no book, no manual or pamphlet, no set of orders or regulations that let me know that, as a marine, one of my duties is to perform code reds?

Witness: No sir. No books, sir.

Prosecutor: No further questions.

Defense Attorney: Corporal, would you turn to the page in this book that says where the enlisted men’s mess hall is?

Witness: Lt. Kaffee, that’s not in the book, sir.

Defense Attorney: I don’t understand, how did you know where the enlisted men’s mess hall was if it’s not in this book?

Witness: I guess I just followed the crowd at chow time, sir.

Defense Attorney: No more questions.

The Long War will not be won by just explicit rulests or implicit rulesets, just horizontal controls or vertical controls. And one is not more important than the other. Both Automated Rulesets (like what Enterra sells) and Internal Rulesets (what people quietly believe) are important. Relying on automated rulesets to the exclusion of intuition destroys “fingertip-feeling” and forces us to make “rational” but sub-optimal decisions. Yet relying on intuition alone would prevent scientific investigations into dangerous types of people and how best to handle them.

What is needed for the Gap is not automated rulesets nor implicit rulesets, but functional ones. Throughout the Arab World, Sharia [Islamic Law] may be a better alternative than what now exists because of its market-orientation. In China, letting the current corrupt growth continue while internal elites import WTO rulesets is probably the best course. In North Korea we should Kill Kim, of course, while at home federalism and states right are the essence of Americanism.

As the founder of the greatest capitalist revolution in human history once remarked, “No matter if it is a white cat or a black cat; as long as it can catch mice, it is a good cat..”

Redefining the Gap 13, Appendix: Computer Code

Note: This is a selection from Redefining the Gap, part of tdaxp‘s SummerBlog ’06

tdaxps_new_map_md

Below is the perl code I used for data smoothing.

use strict;

 my %countries  = {}; my %countries_xml = {};

 run();

 # the grandparent function sub run {  getDVs();  getIVs();  getReports(); }

 # the three parent functions sub getDVs {  getIOs("Nonaligned Movement","Group of 15","Organization of the Islamic Conference","African Union","Group of 77","Group of 24");  getIGs("least developed countries","less developed countries");  getBarnettWorlds(); # barnett and worlds data in one file }

 sub getIVs {  getPoors();  #// "life in the Gap is poor"  getNasties();  #// "life in the Gap is nasty"  getShorts();  #// "life in the Gap is short"  getBrutals();  #// "life in the Gap is brutal"  getSolitaries(); #// "life in the Gap is solitary" }

 sub getReports {  getCountriesXML();  setIV();   setDVs();  getCSVView();  getXMLView(); }

 # the child functions

 # first, the children of getDVs() # specifically, getIOs(), getIGs(), getBarnettWorlds()

 sub getIOs { # get international organizations  my @ios = @_;

  my $io = "";

  my $file = "C:/Downloads/factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html";  my $line = "";

  my @fields = ();  my @nations = ();  my $nation = "";

  open(IOFILE,$file) || die "Couldn't open $file: $!";

  while ($line = ) {   if ($line =~ m/
/) {    foreach $io (@ios) {     if ($line =~ m/$io/ && $line =~ m//) {

      until ($line =~ m/>members/i) {       $line = ;      }      $line =~ s/(/,/g;      $line =~ s/)/,/g;      $line =~ s/

//g;

      @fields = split(/- ,/,$line);      @nations = split(/,/,$fields[$#fields]);      shift(@nations); # first one is junk

      foreach $nation (@nations) {       $nation = trim($nation);       $countries{$io}{$nation} = 1;      }     }         }   }  } }

 sub getIGs { # get international groups  my @igs = @_;

  my $ig = "";

  my $file = "C:/Downloads/factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html";  my $line = "";

  my @fields = ();

  my @nations = ();  my $nation = "";

  open(IOFILE,$file) || die "Couldn't open $file: $!";

  while ($line = ) {   if ($line =~ m/
/) {    foreach $ig (@igs) {     if ($line =~ m/$ig/ && $line =~ m//) {

      until ($line =~ m/are: /i) {       $line = ;      }      $line =~ s/(/,/g;      $line =~ s/)/,/g;      $line =~ s/

//g;

      @fields = split(/are: /, $line);

      $fields[$#fields] =~ s/;.*//g;

      @nations = split(/,/,$fields[$#fields]);

      foreach $nation (@nations) {       $nation = trim($nation);       $countries{$ig}{$nation} = 1;      }

     }         }   }  }  }

 sub getBarnettWorlds {  my $file = "c:/downloads/coregapworlds.csv";

  my @lines = ();  my @fields = ();

  my $line = "";

  open(BARNETT,$file) || die "Couldn't open $file: $!";  @lines = ;  close(BARNETT);

  foreach $line (@lines) {   @fields = split(/t/, $line);   #fields0 name   #fields1 old core new core gap   #fields2: first world second world third world   #fields3 neither g22 g77

   $countries{"CG"}{$fields[0]}  = $fields[1];   $countries{"Worlds123"}{$fields[0]} = $fields[2];   $countries{"Group of 22"}{$fields[0]}  = $fields[3];  }  }

 # second, the children of getIVs() # specifically, getPoors, getNasties, getShorts, getBrutals, getSolitaries

 sub getPoors {  getCIAInfo("poor","C:/Downloads/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.txt",["$",","]); }

 sub getNasties {  my $file = "c:/downloads/FIWrank7305.csv";

  my @fields = ();

  my $line = "";  my $state = "";  my $pr  = 0;  my $cl  = 0;

  open(FREE,$file) || die "Couldn't open $file: $!";  while ($line = ) {   @fields = split(/t/, $line);

   $state = $fields[0];   $pr = $fields[$#fields-2];   $cl = $fields[$#fields-1];

   if ($pr =~ m/[0-9]/ && $cl =~ m/[0-9]/) {    $countries{"nasty"}{$state} = ($pr + $cl) / 2;   }  }  close(FREE);  }

 sub getBrutals {  my $file_war = "c:/downloads/icb2.csv";  my $file_code = "c:/downloads/fields.csv";

  my @codes = ();  my @fields = ();

  my $line = "";  my $name = "";  my $state = "";  my $war  = "";  my $year_start = 0;  my $year_end = 0;

  # get the country codes  open(CODES,$file_code) || die "Couldn't open $file_code: $!";  while ($line = ) {   chomp($line);   $line =~ s/"//g;   @fields = split(/t/,$line);   $fields[0] = trim($fields[0]);   $fields[1] = trim($fields[1]);   $countries{"codes"}{$fields[1]} = $fields[0];   $countries{"wars"}{$fields[1]} = 0; # baseline 0 if country is in db  }  close(CODES);

  # get the wars  open(WARS,$file_war) || die "Couldn't open $file_war : $!";  while ($line = ) {   @fields = split(/t/,$line);   # $fields[4] = Actor   # $fields[5] = Start Year   # $fields[8] .. $fields[13] = war name   # $fields[57] (?) = year term

   $state  = $fields[4];   $year_start = $fields[5];   $year_end = $fields[5];

   $name  = "$fields[8]$fields[9]$fields[10]$fields[11]$fields[12]$fields[13]";

   if ($year_end > 1992) {    if ($year_start < 1992) {     $year_start = 1992;    }    $countries{"wars"}{$state} = $countries{"wars"}{$state} + ($year_end - $year_start + 1)   }  }  close(WARS);

  # now do the math  foreach $war (sort keys %{$countries{"wars"}}) {   $countries{"brutal"}{$countries{"codes"}{$war}} = $countries{"wars"}{$war};   $countries{"wars"}{$countries{"codes"}{$war}} = $countries{"wars"}{$war};  }  delete $countries{"codes"};  #delete $countries{"wars"}; }

 sub getShorts {  getCIAInfo("short","C:/Downloads/factbook/rankorder/2102rank.txt",["$"]); # life expectency }

 sub getSolitaries {  getCIAInfo("hosts","C:/Downloads/factbook/rankorder/2184rank.txt",[","]); # internet hosts  getCIAInfo("population","C:/Downloads/factbook/rankorder/2119rank.txt",[","]); # population

  my $key = "";

  foreach $key (keys %{$countries{"hosts"}}) {   if (exists($countries{"population"}{$key}) && exists($countries{"population"}{$key})) {    $countries{"solitary"}{$key} = $countries{"hosts"}{$key} / $countries{"population"}{$key};   }  } }

 # third, the children of getReports() # specifically, getCountriesXML, setIV, setDVs, getCSVView, getXMLView sub getCountriesXML {  my $file = "c:/downloads/rename.csv";

  my @keys = sort keys %countries;  my @nations = ();  my @lines = ();  my @fields = ();

  my $key  = "";  my $nation = "";  my $line = "";

  # first, simply transform the data structure  foreach $key (@keys) {   #print "Working on key $keyn";   @nations = sort keys %{$countries{$key}};   foreach $nation (@nations) {    if ($nation) {     $countries_xml{$nation}{$key} = $countries{$key}{$nation};    }   }  }

  # then, fix an errors  open(FILE,$file) || die "Couldn't open $file: $!";  @lines = ;  close(FILE);

  foreach $line (@lines) {   chomp($line);   @fields = split(/t/,$line);   # fields0: old name   # fields1: correct name

   if ($countries_xml{$fields[0]}) {    @keys = keys %{$countries_xml{$fields[0]}};    foreach $key (@keys) {     $countries_xml{$fields[1]}{$key} = $countries_xml{$fields[0]}{$key};    }    delete $countries_xml{$fields[0]};   }  }

  # remove countries that shouldn't exist  foreach $nation (sort keys %countries_xml) {   unless (exists($countries_xml{$nation}{"CG"})) {    delete $countries_xml{$nation};   }  }

  # then, back-propagate the changes  %countries = undef;  @nations = sort keys %countries_xml;  foreach $nation (@nations) {   @keys = sort keys %{$countries_xml{$nation}};   foreach $key (@keys) {    $countries{$key}{$nation} = $countries_xml{$nation}{$key};   }  } }

 sub setDVs {  my @nations = sort keys %countries_xml;

  my $nation = "";

  foreach $nation (@nations) {   if (    $countries_xml{$nation}{"African Union"}    == 1 ||    $countries_xml{$nation}{"Organization of the Islamic Conference"} == 1   ) {    $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_AfricanIslam"}    = 0;   } else{    $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_AfricanIslam"}    = 1;   }

   # BarnettCalculation   if ($countries_xml{$nation}{"CG"}      == 1) {    $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_OCNCG"}     = 0;    $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_CG"}     = 0;   } elsif ($countries_xml{$nation}{"CG"}     == 2) {    $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_OCNCG"}     = 1;    $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_CG"}     = 1;   } elsif ($countries_xml{$nation}{"CG"}     == 3) {    $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_OCNCG"}     = 2;    $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_CG"}     = 1;   }

   # Group of 22 / Group of 77   if ( $countries_xml{$nation}{"Group of 77"}     == 1 &&    $countries_xml{$nation}{"Group of 22"}     == 2   )  { # both means G77:0 but G22:1    $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_G77"}     = 0;    $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_G2277"}     = 1;   } elsif ($countries_xml{$nation}{"Group of 77"}     == 1) { # just G00 is 0 for both    $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_G2277"}     = 0;    $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_G77"}     = 0;   } else {    $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_G77"}     = 1;    $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_G2277"}     = 2;   }

   ## developed countries   if ( $countries_xml{$nation}{"least developed countries"}   == 1 &&    $countries_xml{$nation}{"less developed countries"}   == 1   )  {    $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_LDCs"}     = 0;    $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_LDCsLLDCs"}     = 0;   } elsif ($countries_xml{$nation}{"less developed countries"}   == 1) {    $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_LDCs"}     = 0;    $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_LDCsLLDCs"}     = 1;   } else {    $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_LDCs"}     = 1;    $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_LDCsLLDCs"}     = 2;   }

   ## worlds 1 2 3   if ($countries_xml{$nation}{"Worlds123"}     == 1) {    $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_WorldsFreeComNon"}    = 2;   } elsif ($countries_xml{$nation}{"Worlds123"}     == 2) {    $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_WorldsFreeComNon"}    = 1;   } elsif ($countries_xml{$nation}{"Worlds123"}     == 3) {    $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_WorldsFreeComNon"}    = 0;   } 

   # Group of 15 / NAM   if ( $countries_xml{$nation}{"Nonaligned Movement"}) {    $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_Nalign"}     = 0;    if ($countries_xml{$nation}{"Group of 15"}) {      $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_G15Nalign"}    = 1;    } else {     $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_G15Nalign"}    = 0;    }   } else {    $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_Nalign"}     = 1;    $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_G15Nalign"}     = 2;   }  }    } 

 sub setIV {  my @nations = sort keys %countries_xml;  my $nation = "";

  my @keys = ();  my $key  = "";

  scaleDataXML("brutal");  scaleDataXML("nasty");  scaleDataXML("poor");  scaleDataXML("solitary");  scaleDataXML("short");   

  foreach $nation (@nations) {   $countries_xml{$nation}{"IV_brutal"} = 1 - $countries_xml{$nation}{"brutal"};   $countries_xml{$nation}{"IV_nasty"} = 1 - $countries_xml{$nation}{"nasty"};   $countries_xml{$nation}{"IV_poor"} = $countries_xml{$nation}{"poor"};   $countries_xml{$nation}{"IV_solitary"} = $countries_xml{$nation}{"solitary"};   $countries_xml{$nation}{"IV_short"} = $countries_xml{$nation}{"short"};  } }

 sub getCSVView {  my @nations = keys %countries_xml;  my $nation = "";

  @nations = sort @nations;

  open (CSVFILE,">report.csv") || die "Couldn't open report.csv: $!";  print CSVFILE  "Nation;Brutal;Nasty;Poor;Solitary;Short;IV;OCNCG;CG;G77;G2277;AfroIslam;Nalign;G15Nalign;LDCs;LDCsLLDCs;FreeComNonn";  print CSVFILE "BrutalnNastynPoornSolitarynShortnIVnOCNCGnCGnG77nG2277nAfroIslamnNalignnG15NalignnLDCsnLLDCsLDCsnFreeComNonnnn";

  foreach $nation (@nations) {   if (exists($countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_CG"})) {    print CSVFILE (     $nation      . ";" .     $countries_xml{$nation}{"IV_brutal"}   . ";" .      $countries_xml{$nation}{"IV_nasty"}   . ";" .      $countries_xml{$nation}{"IV_poor"}   . ";" .      $countries_xml{$nation}{"IV_solitary"}   . ";" .      $countries_xml{$nation}{"IV_short"}   . ";" .      "calculate IV"      . ";" .          $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_OCNCG"}   . ";" .     $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_CG"}   . ";" .      $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_G77"}   . ";"  .     $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_G2277"}   . ";"  .     $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_AfricanIslam"}  . ";" .     $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_Nalign"}   . ";" .     $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_G15Nalign"}   . ";" .     $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_LDCs"}   . ";"  .     $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_LDCsLLDCs"}  . ";"  .     $countries_xml{$nation}{"DV_WorldsFreeComNon"}  . "n"    );    }  }  close(CSVFILE); }

 sub getXMLView {  my @keys = keys %countries;  my @nations = ();  my @values = ();

  my %names = {};

  my $key  = "";  my $nation = "";  my $value = "";

  open (XMLFILE,">report.xml") || die "Couldn't open report.xml: $!";  print XMLFILE "n";  foreach $nation (sort keys %countries_xml) {   print XMLFILE "tn";   foreach $value (sort keys %{$countries_xml{$nation}}) {    print XMLFILE "tt$countries_xml{$nation}{$value}n";   }   print XMLFILE "tn";  }  print XMLFILE "n";  close(XMLFILE);

 }

 # fourth, the grandchildren go here # specifically, getCIAInfo, scaleDataXML, scaleData, and trim sub getCIAInfo {  my $record = shift(@_);  my $file = shift(@_);  my @to_remove = @{shift(@_)};

  my $remove = "";

  my $line = "";  my @lines = ();  my $linec = 0;

  my $field = "";  my @fields = ();

  open(FILE, $file) || die "Couldn't open $file: $!";  @lines = ;  for ($linec=2;$linec<=$#lines;$linec++) {    @fields = split(/t/, $lines[$linec]);

   if ($fields[1]) { # if the country is named

    # rank order is $fields[0]    # country is $fields[1]    # GDP per capiat is $fields[2]    # year est is $fields[3]

    $fields[1] = trim($fields[1]);

    foreach $remove (@to_remove) {     $fields[2] =~ s/[$remove]//g;    }    #print "Length of temp is $#temp and temp0 is $temp[0]n";    #$fields[2] = join("",@temp);    $fields[2] = trim($fields[2]);

    $countries{$record}{$fields[1]} = $fields[2];;   }  } }

 sub scaleDataXML {  print "Entering scaleDataXMLn";  my $record = shift(@_);

  my @nations = sort keys %countries_xml;  my $nation = "";

  my $min  = $countries_xml{$nations[0]}{$record};  my $max  = $countries_xml{$nations[0]}{$record};

  # first, find min and max  foreach $nation (@nations) {   if (exists($countries_xml{$nation}{$record})) {    if ($max < $countries_xml{$nation}{$record}) {     $max = $countries_xml{$nation}{$record};    }    if ($min > $countries_xml{$nation}{$record}) {     $min = $countries_xml{$nation}{$record};    }   }  }

  print "$record goes from $min to $maxn";

  # second, scale  foreach $nation (@nations) {   if (exists($countries_xml{$nation}{$record})) {    $countries_xml{$nation}{$record} = ($countries_xml{$nation}{$record} - $min) / ($max - $min);   }  } }

 # function from http://www.somacon.com/p114.php sub trim($) {  my $string = shift;  $string =~ s/^s+//;  $string =~ s/s+$//;  return $string; } 

Redefining the Gap, a tdaxp series:
Redefining the Gap 1. Prologue
Redefining the Gap 2. Summary
Redefining the Gap 3. Introduction to Geopolitics
Redefining the Gap 4. First Geopolitical Theories
Redefining the Gap 5. The North and the South
Redefining the Gap 6. Critical Geopolitics
Redefining the Gap 7. The Pentagon’s New Map
Redefining the Gap 8. The Research Design
Redefining the Gap 9. Methods and Operationalizations
Redefining the Gap 10. Limitations and Conclusion
Redefining the Gap 11. Results
Redefining the Gap 12. Bibliography
Redefining the Gap 13. Appendix: Computer Code
Redefining the Gap 14. Appendix: National Codes

Redefining the Gap 12, Bibliography

Note: This is a selection from Redefining the Gap, part of tdaxp‘s SummerBlog ’06

tdaxps_new_map_md

Below is the bibliography for this project. Many of the documents cited can be obtained from JSTOR.


Agnew, John A. 1995. Mastering Space. New York: Routledge.

Ansah, Esi E. 2002. Theorizing the Brain Drain. African Issues 30: 21-24.

Ansley, Fran. 2001. Inclusive Boundaries and Other (Im)possible Paths toward Community Development in a Global World. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 150: 353-417.

Baker, Raymond. 1995. Combative Cultural Politics: Film Art and Political Spaces in Egypt. Alif: Journal of Comparative Poetics 15: 6-38.

Barnett, Clive. 1995. Awakening the Dead: Who Needs the History of Geography?. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 20: 417-419.

Barnett, Thomas P.M. 2003. The Pentagon’s New Map: It Explains Why We’re Going to War, and Why We’ll Keep going to War. Esquire. Stable URL: http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/pentagonsnewmap.htm.

Barnett, Thomas P.M. 2004. The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

Barnett, Thomas P.M. 2005. Glossary. The Newsletter from Thomas P.M. Barnett 1.13. Stable URL: http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/journals/barnett_1aug2005.doc.

Barnett, Thomas P.M. 2006. Blueprint for Action: A Future Worth Creating. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

Barone, Michael. 2005, August 27. Fall Reading. U.S. News & World Report. Stable URL: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneblog/columns/barone_050827a.htm.

Beckstrom, John H. 1974. Handicaps of Legal-Social Engineering in a Developing Nation. The American Journal of Comparative Law 22: 697-712.

Broad, Robin, and Cavanagh, John. 1995-1996. Don’t Neglect the Impoverished South. Foreign Policy 101. 18-35.
Brosius, J. Peter. 1999. Analyses and Interventions: Anthropological Engagements with Environmentalism. Current Anthropology 40: 277-309.

Caprioli, Mary and Boyer, Mark A. Gender, Violence and International Crisis. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 45:503-518.

Center for International Development & Conflict Management (CIDCM). 2006. Actor-Level Primary Data Collections. International Crisis Behavior Project. Stable URL: http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/icb/Data/icb2v6-txt.zip.

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). 2006a. Appendix B – International Organizations and Groups. The World Factbook. Stable URL: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html.

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). 2006b. Rank Order – Internet Hosts. The World Factbook. Stable URL: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2184rank.txt.

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). 2006c. Rank Order – GDP – per capita (PPP). The World Factbook. Stable URL: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.txt.

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). 2006d. Rank Order – Life Expectancy at Birth. The World Factbook. Stable URL: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2102rank.txt.

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). 2006e. Rank Order – Population. The World Factbook. Stable URL: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2119rank.txt.

Chaikivsky, Andrew. 2002, December. [the strategist]. Esquire 163. Stable URL: http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/media/BestandBrightest.htm.

Chichilnisky, Graciela. 1994. North-South Trade and the Global Environment. The American Economic Review 84: 851-874.

Coderre, Dave. 2003. Transforming the Pentagon Vision of the Global Security Environment. The Naval Supply Corps Newsletter. Stable URL: http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/interviews/SupplyCorpsQandA.htm.

Cohen, Saul B. 1991. Presidential Address: Global Geopolitical Change in the Post-Cold War Era. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 81: 551-580.

Davenport, Christian and Armstrong, David A. II. 2004. Democracy and the Violation of Human Rights: A Statistical Analysis from 1976 to 1996. American Journal of Political Science 48:538-554.

Dawson, Marc H. 1987. The Many Minds of Sir Halford J. Mackinder: Dilemmas of Historical Editing. History in Africa 14:27-42.

Demeny, Paul. 2003. Population Policy Dilemmas in Europe at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century. Population and Development Review 29: 1-28.

Dodds, Klaus-John. 1994. Geopolitics in the Foreign Office: British Representations of Argentina 1945-1961. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 19: 273-290.

Dodds, K. and Sidaway, J.D. 2004. Halford Mackinder and the ‘Geographical Pivot of History’: A Cententnial Retrospective. The Geographical Journal 170:292-297. Stable URL: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/j.0016-7398.2004.00131.x/abs/.

Edwards, Michael, Hulme, David and Wallace, Tina. 1999. NGOs in a Global Future: Marrying Local Delivery to Worldwide Leverage. Public Administration and Development 19:117-136. Stable URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-162X(199905)19:2<117::AID-PAD70>3.0.CO;2-S.

Eisenstein, Zillah. 1997. Women’s Publics and the Search for New Democracies. Feminist Review 57:140-167.

Enterline, A. J. 1998. Regime Changes, Neighborhoods, and Interstate Conflict, 1816-1992. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 42:804-829.

Erb, Guy F. 1977. “North-South” Negotiations. Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science 32: 106-119.

Evans, Carolyn L. 2003. The Economic Significance of National Border Effects. The American Economic Review 93:1291-1312.

Fisher, Charles A. 1971. Containing China? II. Concepts and Applications of Containment. The Geographical Journal 137: 281-310.

Fox, William T. R. 1948. American Foreign Policy and the Western European Rimland. Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science 22: 71-78.
Freedom House. 2006. Table of Independent Countries. Freedom in the World 2006. Stable URL: http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/Chart33File36.pdf.

Froehling, Oliver. 1997. The Cyberspace “War of Ink and Internet” in Chiapas, Mexico. Geographical Review 87: 291-307.

Geldart, Carol, and Lyon, Peter. 1980-1981. The Group of 77: A Perspective View. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-) Vol. 57: 79-101.

Gilbert, E. W., and Parker, W.H. 1969. Mackinder’s Democratic Ideals and Reality after Fifty Years. The Geographical Journal 135:228-231.

Goldstein, Joshua S., Huang, Xiaoming, and Akan, Burcu. 1997. Energy in the World Economy, 1950-1992. International Studies Quarterly 41: 241-266.

Griswold, A. Whitney. 1940. The Influence of History Upon Sea Power: A Comment on American Naval Policy. The Journal of the American Military Institute 4: 1-7.

Guins, George C. 1964, Challenge to the Soviets in Asia and Africa. Russian Review 23:341-351.
Hall, Arthur R. 1955. Mackinder and the Course of Events. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 45:109-126.

Harkavy, R. 2001. Strategic Geography and the Greater Middle East. Naval War College Review August 54:37-54. Stable URL: http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/review/2001/autumn/pdfs/art2-au1.pdf.

Hayes, Denis. 1975. Solar Power in the Middle East. Science 188: 1261.

Herod, Andrew. 2001. New Developments in Trade Union Internationalism, Labor Internationalism and the Contradictions of Globalization: Or, Why the Local is Sometimes Still Important in a Global Economy. Antipode 33:407. Stable URL: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/1467-8330.00191/abs/.

Hentz, James J. 1997. Economic Stagnation in Sub-Sahara Africa and Breaking the “Implicit Bargain”. Issue: A Journal of Opinion 25: 32-34.

Holm, Hans-Henrik. 1990. The End of the Third World?. Journal of Peace Research 27: 1-7.

Horowitz, Irving Louis. 1985-1986. The “Rashomon” Effect: Ideological Proclivities and Political Dilemmas of the International Monetary Fund. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 27: 37-55.

Hooson, David J.M. 1962. A New Soviet Heartland? The Geographical Journal 128:19-29.

Ignatius, David. 2004, December 14. Winning a War for the Disconnected. Washington Post, p. A27. Stable URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62351-2004Dec13.html.

Ignatius, David. 2005, May 18. A Quiet Transformation. Washington Post, p. A17. Stable URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/17/AR2005051701327.html.

Israel, Jerry. 1978. Rule Americana: America Rules the Waves. Reviews in American History 6:370-372.
Karsten, Peter. 1971. The Nature of “Influence”: Roosevelt, Mahan and the Concept of Sea Power. American Quarterly 23: 585-600.

Kaufman, Stuart J. 1999. Approaches to Global Politics in the Twenty-First Century: A Review Essay. International Studies Review 1: 193-221.

Kearns, Gerry. 1997. The Imperial Subject: Geography and Travel in the Work of Mary Kingsley and Halford Mackinder. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 22:450-472.

Keddie, Nikki R. 1998. The New Religious Politics: Where, When, and Why Do “Fundamentalisms” Appear?. Comparative Studies in Society and History 40: 696-723.

Kiss, George. 1942. Political Geography into Geopolitics: Recent Trends in Germany. Geographical Review 32: 632-645.

Kristof, L. K. D. 1983. Perspective on Ratzel’s Political Geography. The American Political Science Review 79:1178-1179.

LaFeber, Walter. A Note on the “Mercantilistic Imperialism” of Alfred Thayer Mahan. The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 48:674-685.

Lennox, Malissia. 1993. Refugees, Racism, and Reparations: A Crique of the United States’ Haitian Immigration Policy. Stanford Law Review 45:687-724.

Mayell, Peter. 2004. Beyond the ‘Outer Crescent’: The Mackinder Century in New Zealand Politics. The Geographical Journal 170:386. Stable URL: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.0016-7398.2004.00138.x.

Mazrui, Ali A. 2002. Brain Drain between Counterterrorism and Globalization. African Issues 30: 86-89.

Mazzetti, Mark. 2003, October 6. Pax Americana: Dispatched to Distant Outposts, U.S. Forces Confront the Perils of an Unruly World. U.S. News & World Report. Stable URL: http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/media/PaxAm.htm.

Meinig, Donald W. 1956. Heartland and Rimland in Eurasian History. The Western Political Quarterly 9: 553-569.

Menon, Rajan. 1995. In the Shadow of the Bear: Security in Post-Soviet Central Asia. International Security 20: 149-181.

Midlarsky, Manu I. 1995. Environmental Influences on Democracy: Aridity, Warfare, and a Reversal of the Causal Arrow. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 39:224-262.

Moon, Graham, and Brown, Tim. 2000. Governmentality and the Spatialized Discourse of Policy: The Consolidation of the Post-1989 NHS Reforms. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 25: 65-76.

Moxham, Ben. 2003. The US Military: Brining Hope “to Every Corner of the World.” Focus on the Global South. Stable URL: http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2003/1119bringing.htm.

Niva, Steve. Alternatives to Neolibralism. Middle East Report 210:16.
Oneal, John R. and Bryan, Anna Lillian. The Rally ‘Round the Flag Effect in U.S. Foreign Policy Crises, 1950-1985. Political Behavior 17:379-401.

Osterud, Oyvind. 1988. The Uses and Abuses of Geopolitics. Journal of Peace Research 25:191-1999.

Owens, Mackubin T. 2004. Review of The Pentagon’s New Map. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University. Stable URL: http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/owens/04/newmap.html.

Parker, Geoffrey. 1998. Geopolitics: Past, Present, and Future. Washington, DC: Pinter.

Partem, Michael Greenfield. 1983. The Buffer System in International Relations. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 27:3-26.

Pletsch, Carl E. 1981. The Three Worlds, or the Division of Social Scientific Labor, Circa 1950-1975. Comparative Studies in Society and History 23: 565-590.

Richards, Chet. 2005. Neither Shall the Sword: Conflict in the Years Ahead. Washington, DC: Center for Defense Information.

Roberts, Susan, Secor, Anna and Sparke, Matthew. Neoliberal Geopolitics. Antipode 35: 886-897. Stable URL: http://faculty.washington.edu/sparke/neoliberalgeopolitics.pdf.

Russell, W. H. 1956. Mahan’s Doctrine and the Air Age. Military Affairs 20: 227-229.

Sayigh, Yezid. 1991. The Gulf Crisis: Why the Arab Regional Order Failed. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-) Vol. 67: 487-507.

Semmel, Bernard. 1958. Sir Halford Mackinder: Theorist of Imperialism. The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science 24:554-561.

Shulman, Mark R. 1998. Inventing Grand Strategy and Teaching Command: The Classic Works of Alfred Thayer Mahan Reconsidered. The Journal of Military History 62:407-408.

Sidaway, James Derrick, and Pryke, Michael. 2000. The Strange Geographies of ‘Emerging Markets’. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 25: 187-201.

Simon, David. 1996. Restructuring the Local State in Post-Apartheid Cities: Namibian Experience and Lessons for South Africa. African Affairs 95: 51-84.

Slater, David. 1993. The Geopolitical Imagination and the Enframing of Development Theory. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 18: 419-437.

Slater, David. 1994. Reimagining the Geopolitics of Development: Continuing the Dialogue. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 19: 233-238.

Smith, Graham. 1999. The Masks of Proteus: Russia, Geopolitical Shift and the New Eurasianism. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 24: 481-494.

Smith, Jackie. 2000. Globalizing Resistance: The Battle of Seattle and the Future of Social Movements. Mobilization: An International Journal 6:1-19. Stable URL:

Smith, Tony. 1977. Changing Configurations of Power in North-South Relations since 1946. International Organization 31: 1-27.

Sparke, Matthew. 1998. A Map that Roared and an Original Atlas: Canada, Cartography, and the Narration of Nation. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 88: 463-495.

Spkyman, Nicholas J. 1938. Geography and Foreign Policy, I. The American Political Science Review 32:28-50.

Tunander, Ola. 2005. Swedish Geopolitics: From Rudolf Kjellen to a Swedish ‘Dual State’. Geopolitics 10:546-566. Stable URL: http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?id=m34u298p3373hu94.

Tuathail, Gearoid O., and Luke, Timothy W. 1994. Present at the (Dis)Integration: Deterritorialization and Reterritorialization in the New Wor(l)d Order. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 84: 381-398.

Tuathail, Gearoid O. 1994. Problematizing Geopolitics: Survey, Statesmanship and Strategy. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 19: 259-272.

Tuathail, Gearoid O. 1998. The Geopolitics Reader. New York: Taylor & Francis Books.

Tuathail, Gearoid O. 2000. The Postmodern Geopolitical Condition: States, Statecraft, and Security at the Millennium. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90: 166-178.

Tyner, James. 1999. The Geopolitics of Eugenics and the Exclusion of Philippine Immigrants from the United States. The Geographical Review, Vol. 89:. Stable URL: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5001868409.

Tuson, Ann Scott Tyson. 2005, October 19. A Brain Pentagon Wants to Pick: Despite Controversy, Strategist is Tapped as Valuable Resource. Washington Post, p. A19. Stable URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/18/AR2005101801461.html

Tyson, Brady, and Said, Abdul Aziz. 1993. Human Rights: A Forgotten Victim of the Cold War. Human Rights Quarterly 15: 589-604.

Unstead, J.F. 1949. H. J. Mackinder and the New Geography. The Geographical Journal, Vol. 113:47-57.

Vanhanen, Tatu. 2000. A New Dataset for Measuring Democracy, 1810-1998. Journal of Peace Research 37:251-265.

Venier, Pascal. 2004. The Geographical Pivot of History and Early Twentieth Century Geopolitical Culture. The Geographical Journal 170:330. Stable URL: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/j.0016-7398.2004.00134.x/full/.

Wanandi, Jusuf. 1983. Pacific Economic Cooperation: An Indonesian View. Asian Survey 23: 1271-1280.

Wells, Samuel F. Jr. 1981. The Mitterrand Challenge. Foreign Policy 44. (Autumn: 57-69.

Weber, S. and Bussell, J. 2005. Will Information Technology Reshape the North-South Asymmetry of Power in the Global Political Economy? Studies in Comparative International Development 40:62-84. Stable URL: http://socs.berkeley.edu/~tboas/weber.pdf.

Wikipedia contributors. 2006A, April 23. Group of 77. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Stable URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Group_of_77&oldid=47365545.

Wikipedia contributors. 2006b, April 23. Non-Aligned Movement. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Stable URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Non-Aligned_Movement&oldid=49486349.

Wikipedia contributors. 2006C, April 23. Third World. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia Stable URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Third_World&oldid=49345039.

Williams, Whiting. 1927. Geographic Determinism in Nicaragua. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 132:142-145.

Young, Baroness J. 1987. Geography and Politics. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 12: 391-397


Redefining the Gap, a tdaxp series:
Redefining the Gap 1. Prologue
Redefining the Gap 2. Summary
Redefining the Gap 3. Introduction to Geopolitics
Redefining the Gap 4. First Geopolitical Theories
Redefining the Gap 5. The North and the South
Redefining the Gap 6. Critical Geopolitics
Redefining the Gap 7. The Pentagon’s New Map
Redefining the Gap 8. The Research Design
Redefining the Gap 9. Methods and Operationalizations
Redefining the Gap 10. Limitations and Conclusion
Redefining the Gap 11. Results
Redefining the Gap 12. Bibliography
Redefining the Gap 13. Appendix: Computer Code
Redefining the Gap 14. Appendix: National Codes

Redefining the Gap 11, Results

Note: This is a selection from Redefining the Gap, part of tdaxp‘s SummerBlog ’06

tdaxps_new_map_md
Nation Brutal Nasty Poor Sol. Short IV
OCNCG -0.16 0.47 0.73 0.64 0.43 0.65
CG -0.14 0.46 0.68 0.56 0.41 0.61
G77 -0.04 0.52 0.5 0.45 0.51 0.65
G2277 -0.09 0.48 0.47 0.42 0.51 0.61
AfroIslam 0.05 0.6 0.34 0.31 0.63 0.67
Nalign – 2 0.01 0.58 0.43 0.4 0.55 0.67
Nalign – 3 0.001 0.57 0.41 0.38 0.56 0.66
LDC – 2 -0.08 0.31 0.55 0.44 0.41 0.49
LDC – 3 -0.08 0.38 0.54 0.4 0.62 0.59
Worlds -0.14 0.42 0.7 0.59 0.48 0.64


The tables you see above are the coefficients of correlations for the models described in this series to the measures Barnett describes. This study looked at the population of all states, not a sample of states, so the margin of error is +/-0%. These numbers are completely internally valid — they describe carefully derived measures. The difference between them is significant. However, the greater question of whether or not the correct measures were used is a different subject.

Chirol from Coming Anarchy suggested that I look at the Four Flows instead of brutality, nastiness, etc. It may be that I misconstrued what Barnett meant in the passages of Pentagon’s New Map where he gives the definitions.

Regardless of the meaning of these numbers, a short discussion of the results is included below.

Brutality. This was the biggest surprise. For most measures, including Barnett’s Core-Gap and Old Core – New Core – Gap, brutality decreases in the Core. This is because the University of Maryland’s ICBP database that I used measures the countries involved in wars. Besides ignoring some sub-state conflicts, the project would this could the Kosovo War as mostly a “Core” war. After all, nearly all the combatants — America, England, etc, – are Core states.

Still, the Afroislamic Gap is the best predictor of brutality. Afromuslim countries go to war more often than any other states. The worst predictor was the Old Core – New Core – Gap model.

Nastiness. Measured through lack of political freedoms and human rights, Afromuslim states fail again. The worst measure is merely defining Lesser Developed Countries (LDCs) as the Gap.

Poverty. Here, Barnett’s economic determinist model shines through. The very best measure is Old Core – New Core – Gap, and the second best is a more general Core – Gap. Interestingly, here the Afroislam model scored the worst — a reversal of our experience with Brutality — though here at least, both show a positive correlation between being in a “Gap” and general badness.

Solitude. I modified Barnett’s measure, from internet hosts in a country to internet hosts per capita. It would make little sense to call a very populous state the most connected state if only a small fraction of its population had access to the internet. The results here are the similar to the ones for poverty — Old Core – New Core – Gap the best gauge, Afroislam the worst. Interestingly, here a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world model of the globe does better than Barnett’s simpler Core-Gap model.

Shortness. Want to die early? Move to an African or Islamic country. Only looking at the world from t he point of view of Developed — Lesser Developed — Least Developed states comes close to this. The very worst predictor is Barnett’s Core – Gap model, though Barnett’s Old Core – New Core – Gap model is only slightly better.

All in All. Averaging these scores together, the AfroIslam model remains the best for describing the Hobbesian states we fight against and for. All in all, however, the ups in one Hobbesian measure seam to compensate for the downs in others, making all of these pretty good. Still, this shows a danger of just looking at an agregate measure instead of more specific measures.

A Note on the Result. I’m not a statistician. I have advanced training in predicate calculus and relational algebra, but the pseudo-math of statistics is not my forte. I would much rather have my analysis short to pieces than for it to just sit here. Likewise, I used an extremely simple tool to run these numbers.

Please, correct me. Show me where I am wrong. And then, let’s shrink the Gap — Afroislamic or not.


Redefining the Gap, a tdaxp series:
Redefining the Gap 1. Prologue
Redefining the Gap 2. Summary
Redefining the Gap 3. Introduction to Geopolitics
Redefining the Gap 4. First Geopolitical Theories
Redefining the Gap 5. The North and the South
Redefining the Gap 6. Critical Geopolitics
Redefining the Gap 7. The Pentagon’s New Map
Redefining the Gap 8. The Research Design
Redefining the Gap 9. Methods and Operationalizations
Redefining the Gap 10. Limitations and Conclusion
Redefining the Gap 11. Results
Redefining the Gap 12. Bibliography
Redefining the Gap 13. Appendix: Computer Code
Redefining the Gap 14. Appendix: National Codes

Redefining the Gap 10, Limitations and Conclusion

Note: This is a selection from Redefining the Gap, part of tdaxp‘s SummerBlog ’06

tdaxps_new_map_md

Halford Mackinder said that “every century has its own geographical perspective,” and it may even be true that “every century has its own geographical stereotype” (Meinig 1956:553). Geopolitical analysis is necessarily limited to some conception of the world. This research design seeks to test a geopolitical view of the present world. It is not a test throughout time. It makes no claim to be. That makes this study no less valuable.


The effects of this study depend on the truth or falsity of the hypothesis. In each case, the most interesting results would be if the hypothesis is false.

A failure of the first hypothesis — that is, negative or no correlations for the binary Core-Gap value — is very unlikely. It is doubtful that life in in the “Core” is more brutal, nastier, shorter, poorer, and more solitary than life in the Gap. However, given the broad definition of “Core” here, negative or no correlation for at least some of the variables is possible. This raises a more delicate point: if just one of the categories has a negative correlation with the Core-Gap variable, there will be a temptation to simply say it was poorly defined. Regardless of the ultimate conclusion, though, such a result would pave the way to future research.

In general, the same conclusions will hold true if hypothesis two is demonstrated false. However, a negative results here would be somewhat less surprising. If in general “new core” states are more livable than old core states, which seems somewhat reasonable (is “Old Core” Spain truly better than “New Core” South Korea?), this would skew the results.

Even if hypothesis one and two hold true, however, the utility of Barnett’s “new map” will be undermined if hypothesis three or four are shown to be negative. If for instance a geopolitical categorization based on the G77 or the Nonaligned movement are more accurate that Barnett’s concept, then PNM’s goal as a grand strategy for the United States is unlikely to be fulfilled. After all, why go with something new and strange when something old and familiar does the job better? Likewise, if defining the Gap simply as the Organization of the Islamic Conferences and the African Union gives better values than Barnett’s current summary, This is not just an academic concern, but may in turn effect base closings and even how and when to go to war.

If disproving the third and fourth hypotheses would be the most interesting, disproving the fifth would be the most boring. The New Core – Old Core divide naturally seems somewhat artificial, leaving Australia and New Zealand in the “new” world while confining Spain and Greece to the “Old.”

On the flip side, finding all five of the hypotheses true would help validate Barnett’s claims. More work would have to be done. After all, a study that uses the data suggested by the theorist might be suspect, but it would be a good first step.


Redefining the Gap, a tdaxp series:
Redefining the Gap 1. Prologue
Redefining the Gap 2. Summary
Redefining the Gap 3. Introduction to Geopolitics
Redefining the Gap 4. First Geopolitical Theories
Redefining the Gap 5. The North and the South
Redefining the Gap 6. Critical Geopolitics
Redefining the Gap 7. The Pentagon’s New Map
Redefining the Gap 8. The Research Design
Redefining the Gap 9. Methods and Operationalizations
Redefining the Gap 10. Limitations and Conclusion
Redefining the Gap 11. Results
Redefining the Gap 12. Bibliography
Redefining the Gap 13. Appendix: Computer Code
Redefining the Gap 14. Appendix: National Codes

Redefining the Gap 9, Methods and Operationalizations

Note: This is a selection from Redefining the Gap, part of tdaxp‘s SummerBlog ’06

tdaxps_new_map_md

Poverty will be measured by GDP per capita, measured by purchasing power parity (CIA 2006c). Estimates are recent, with most being from 2004 or 2005. The information is listed in US Dollars. My study will scale GDP per capita so that poorest value is 0 and the richest value is 1. For each state, it’s value will be calculated by taking the difference between that state’s value and the lowest state’s value, divided by the difference between the highest state’s value and the lowest state’s value. The logic to read in and scale this data is included in the appendix, particularly in the function scaleData().


Nastiness will be measured by a state’s Freedom in the World measure (Freedom House 2006). Freedom House uses two 7-point scales for political freedoms and civil rights. The most repressive, and thus “nastiest,” regimes would score a 7 on both counts, while the least nasty would score 1. This study will take the mean of the two values and scale them, with the most free state having a score of “1” and the least free state having a score of “0.” The logic to read in and scale this data is included in the appendix.

Shortness will be measured by life expectancy (CIA 2006d). Estimates are recent, with all dating from 2006. The information is listed in years. The study will scale life expectancy so that shortest value is “0” and the longest value is “1.” The logic to read in and scale this data is included in the appendix.

Brutality will be calculated from the International Crisis Behavior project (CIDCM 2006). Wars which have been fought at least in part after 1992 will be considered. Wars are considered dyadic. Brutality will be measured as the sum of wars per year. For example, a state that is involved in two wars each against two states that each last two years would have a brutality score of “8.” The study will then scale the scores, with the least brutal state having a score of 0 and the most “brutal” state having a score of 1. The logic to read and scale this data is included in the appendix.

Solitariness will be measured by the number of Internet hosts in a country per capita. This will be derived from two different measures: the number of Internet hosts per country divided by each country’s population (CIA 2006b; CIA 2006e). The population of Internet hosts and people are both estimated down to individual hosts and persons. All estimates of Internet hosts date form 2005 while all estimates of population date are for July 2006. The result will then be scaled, with the state with the highest number of Internet hosts per capita as “1,” and the state with the lowest number as “0.” The logic to read and scale this data is included in the appendix.

The model will contain eight dependent variables, with two of them relating directly to Barnett’s “new map.” All will be ordinal values, with the lowest values referring to the Gap (or its supposed equivalent), and the highest values referring to the Functioning Core (or its supposed equivalent). Three of the variables will have two possible variables, while the other five will have three.

The first dependent variables look at are Barnett’s models. Barnett has described his cartography in two different ways: as comprising a “Functioning Core” and a “Non-Integrating Gap,” as well as of comprising an “Old Core,” a “New Core,” and the “Gap.” The difference is that the more detailed model separates peripheral or newly developed economies — Argentina, South Africa, South Korea, etc. – from the Cold War pillars of North America, Western Europe, and Japan. The binary variable will rate the Gap as 0 and the Core as 1. The ternary variable will rate the Gap as 0, the New Core as 1, and the Old Core as 2.

As Barnett’s PNM model is essentially a critical North-South view of the world, most of the other dependent variables for rival hypotheses will be taken from other concepts that are analogous to the Global South – the Non-Aligned Movement and the Third World (Holm 1990:2). Additionally, one more will be added to address a cultural and race based criticism of Barnett’s map.

800px-Map_Non-Aligned_Movement_md
The Nonaligned Movement

The next four variables relate to an International Organizational definition of the global south. It relies on two NGOs, the G77 and the G24. The G77 is an organization of undeveloped countries, and the G24 is its executive steering committee. G77 nations are assumed to be similar to Barnett’s “Gap,” while G24 to his “New Core.” Therefore, the binary variable for this shall map the G77 to 0 and the rest of the world to 1. The ternary variable will rate nations only in the G77 as 0, states in the G77 and G24 as 1, and all other states as 2. Dependent variables for the Non-Aligned Movement and its executive steering committee, the G-15, will be calculated in the same fashion. The G77 and the Nonaligned Movement are of about the same age, though the G77 traditionally has a broader membership (Geldart and Lyon 1980-1981:80), so it makes sense to examine both of these alternatives.

g77_map_md
The Group of Seventy-Seven

An “international group” perspective will be used to divide countries into Least Developed Nations, Less Developed Nations, and the rest of the world (CIAa 2006a). The measures of Least Developed Countries (LLDCs) and Less Developed Countries (LDCs) originate at the United Nations. The distinction is meant to separate countries which have a reasonable chance of developing with those facing severe structural maladies (Horowitz 1985-1986:47).The same ternary and binary divisions will be used for these are as predicted. When viewed binarily, LLDc and LDCs will both be valued at 0, with other states valued at 1. Viewed as ternary, LLDCs will have the value of 0, LDCs of 1, and all other states of 2.

The term Global South originated in part as a reaction against the fading “Third World” model that was born in the 1950s. This model will use this model, taking as its definition of “worlds” from a map. Formerly and currently Communist states, from Poland to Vietnam, are in the Second World and labeled “2.” The United States and other “free” states are in the First World and labeled 1. The rest of the world, which closely matches traditional views of the Global South, is measured at 3.
One more possible dependent variable, this one binary, will calculated. This addresses the concern that the “new map” is essentially just an encirclement of Africa and majority Muslim states, with the rest of the “Gap” (the Caribbean, South-East Asia, etc) as more-or-less superfluous. An earlier version of Barnett’s work made this explicit, “with only Central Asia, the Middle East, and Africa trapped on the outside, noses pressed to the glass” (Barnett 2004:109). This variable will label as “0” any state in either the Organization of Islamic States or the African Union, and label all other states as 1. The often culturally destructive actions of newly independent African states (Beckstrom 1974:698) and their stagnating economies (Hentz 1997:32), as well as increasing instability through much of the Arab (Sayigh 1991:487) and Muslim (Menon 1995:154) world, argue that this alternative is a reasonable one.

The following specific predictions are made:

1.The Core-Gap binary variable will have have a positive correlation to each of the individual variables.
2.The Old-Core-New-Core-Gap ternary variable will have a positive correlation to each of the independent variables.
3.The Core-Gap binary variable will have a higher correlation to each of the independent variables than any of the other binary dependent variables.
4.The Old-Core-New-Core-Gap ternary variable will have a higher correlation to each of the independent variables than any of the other ternary dependent variables.
5.The Old Core-New Core-Gap ternary variable will have a higher correlation to each of the independent variables than the Core-Gap binary variable.


Redefining the Gap, a tdaxp series:
Redefining the Gap 1. Prologue
Redefining the Gap 2. Summary
Redefining the Gap 3. Introduction to Geopolitics
Redefining the Gap 4. First Geopolitical Theories
Redefining the Gap 5. The North and the South
Redefining the Gap 6. Critical Geopolitics
Redefining the Gap 7. The Pentagon’s New Map
Redefining the Gap 8. The Research Design
Redefining the Gap 9. Methods and Operationalizations
Redefining the Gap 10. Limitations and Conclusion
Redefining the Gap 11. Results
Redefining the Gap 12. Bibliography
Redefining the Gap 13. Appendix: Computer Code
Redefining the Gap 14. Appendix: National Codes

Redefining the Gap 8, The Research Design

Note: This is a selection from Redefining the Gap, part of tdaxp‘s SummerBlog ’06

tdaxps_new_map_md

Yet in spite of the potential consequences of Barnett’s work, little has been done to test it. For instance, do the measures he gives for the “Gap” actually correlate with being in the Gap? Does another accepted model work better?


This model predicts that Barnett’s more granular summary, divided into the Old Core, New Core, and Gap, is both positive for each of the measures he defines as well as superior to alternate ternary models of the Global South. Likewise, this model predicts that his simpler version, with a united Core and the Gap, is both positive for each of those measures as well as superior to alternate binary measures. Last, this paper predicts that the more granular version is superior on these same counts to the less granular one.

This model will contain five independent variables, and a sixth which is a composite of the five. The five independent variables are the measures of poverty, nastiness, shortness, brutality, and solitariness previously described. All independent variables will come form Barnett’s first measurement of the Gap.

All data for this study will come from the CIA’s World Factbook, Freedom House’s Freedom in the World study, or the University of Maryland’s International Crisis Behavior Project. The World Factbook has been used in academic studies down the decades (Evans 2003:1311; Lennox 1993:705; Partem 1983:8). Freedom House is a leader in measuring democratic rights in countries, and is a standard on which other measures are judged (Davenport and Armstrong 2004 541; Vanhanen 2000 251). The University of Maryland’s database is also a leading statistical resource, but of war instead of rights (Caprioli and Boyer 2001 504; Oneal and Bryan 1995 380).


Redefining the Gap, a tdaxp series:
Redefining the Gap 1. Prologue
Redefining the Gap 2. Summary
Redefining the Gap 3. Introduction to Geopolitics
Redefining the Gap 4. First Geopolitical Theories
Redefining the Gap 5. The North and the South
Redefining the Gap 6. Critical Geopolitics
Redefining the Gap 7. The Pentagon’s New Map
Redefining the Gap 8. The Research Design
Redefining the Gap 9. Methods and Operationalizations
Redefining the Gap 10. Limitations and Conclusion
Redefining the Gap 11. Results
Redefining the Gap 12. Bibliography
Redefining the Gap 13. Appendix: Computer Code
Redefining the Gap 14. Appendix: National Codes