Dissertação (mestrado)—Universidade de Brasília, Instituto de Relações Internacionais, 2017. / Texto parcialmente liberado pelo autor. Conteúdo liberado: resumos e introdução. / Submitted by Raquel Almeida (raquel.df13@gmail.com) on 2017-10-10T19:54:36Z No. of bitstreams: 1 2017_LeonardoDinizLameiras_PARCIAL.pdf: 895898 bytes, checksum: d819309bdf12b96bd63f3e8145ba45b4 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Raquel Viana (raquelviana@bce.unb.br) on 2018-02-09T20:02:26Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 2017_LeonardoDinizLameiras_PARCIAL.pdf: 895898 bytes, checksum: d819309bdf12b96bd63f3e8145ba45b4 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-02-09T20:02:26Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 2017_LeonardoDinizLameiras_PARCIAL.pdf: 895898 bytes, checksum: d819309bdf12b96bd63f3e8145ba45b4 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-02-08 / Esta dissertação analisa a política de comércio exterior que foi concebida ao longo dos dois governos de Barack Obama (2009 – 2017) na Presidência dos Estados Unidos, com o objetivo de revelar suas potenciais implicações para o regime internacional de comércio. No curso desses oito anos, busca-se explicar o processo histórico que fez com que os Estados Unidos transitassem do imobilismo a um engajamento mais assertivo no que se refere à inserção internacional pela via do comércio. Ademais, faz-se uso do enfoque analítico-metodológico que Susan Strange desenvolve na obra States and markets, a fim de melhor elucidar os objetivos estratégicos, para além da liberalização comercial, que estão associados à escolha dos mega acordos regionais como os principais instrumentos da política de comércio exterior do governo democrata. De acordo com a hipótese central deste estudo, por intermédio dessa política, os Estados Unidos promoveriam modificações no arcabouço normativo do sistema multilateral de comércio, submetendo o atual regime internacional que disciplina as trocas comerciais entre os países a significativas transformações. / This dissertation analyses the foreign trade policy conceived throughout the Obama administration (2009 – 2017) with the purpose of revealing the policy´s potential implications for the international trade regime. The aim of this study is to explain the historical process that led the United States to move from immobilism to a more assertive engagement during these eight years, with regard to its international insertion through trade. Moreover, the analytical-methodological approach that Susan Strange presents in States and markets is here employed to better clarify strategic objectives beyond trade liberalization, which are associated with the preference for mega-regional agreements as the main tools of the Democratic administration’s foreign trade policy. According to the central hypothesis of this study, by adopting that trade policy, the United States would bring about changes in the normative framework of the multilateral trade system, further subjecting the current international regime that regulates trade between countries to significant transformations.

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / The impact of new technology on the current presidential campaign has prevailed. A small but fundamental change quietly took place in the candidate’s website—Barack Obama’s official campaign blog. The campaign is now operating two sub-blogs at the same time, the Obamablog (also known as the Obama HQ blog) and the Community Blog. The former becomes a must-have tool in a political campaigner’s strategy, whereas the latter, which allows visitors to actually write, publish, and manage posts, is novel. This new function seems an audacious step up from the rest of the blogs of this kind since the 2004 presidential election because it gives citizen users freedom to express their own ideas that could put the campaign on an impromptu situation to respond.

In 2012, President Barack Obama used prosecutorial discretion to initiate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that deferred deportation and provided employment authorization for a two-year renewable period to undocumented immigrant persons that came to the U.S. as children. Under former President Donald Trump’s administration, DACA was rescinded in 2017. A review of the literature suggests this is the only study to explore the perceived impact of a policy shift in DACA status, given the critical time of interviews conducted from April 2016 to October 2018. Thus, substantially advancing the literature, qualitative data on a diverse group (N=10) of young adult DACA beneficiaries revealed positive and negative impacts. The sample included 60% currently gainfully employed, 40% attending college—while 80% had experienced emotional distress by having an unauthorized legal status and facing obstacles to pursuing higher education. Of note, 40% rated themselves as currently relatively healthy, while 60% indicated having experienced a decline in their physical or mental health since entering the United States. As significant sources of stress, 90% had experienced anxiety centered around having to wait to renew their DACA status and having to pay for their status renewals. Given the rescinding of the DACA program in 2017, many were ill-prepared, as 90% had never experienced being undocumented without a DACA status as an adult in the United States. The main body of qualitative data generated six categories that encompassed 51 emergent themes: 1-Participants’ health trajectory across their lifespan; 2-Participants’ experiences of barriers to seeking care and having their health and mental health needs addressed; 3-Participants Living at the Intersection of Contemporary Immigration; 4-The impact of other family members’ immigration status; 5-From enjoying benefits of the DACA program, to having a false sense of normalcy, to feeling ambivalence, and experiencing detriments; and, 6-Potential DACA policy shifts and anticipated impacts ranging from negative (fear, loss, suffering) to positive (relief). These six broad categories suggest how, despite the benefits of their DACA status, substantial barriers and sources of anxiety and stress still impacted the lives of the young adults and their families. Implications of the findings are discussed.

University of Macau / Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities / Department of English

À travers un cadre poststructuraliste, ce mémoire cherche à évaluer l'impact sur la durée et l'ampleur de la guerre en Afghanistan du discours de contre-insurrection (COIN) ainsi que celui des « manœuvres de palais » entrepris par des penseurs stratégiques influents au sein des Forces armées américaines dans la période 2008-2011. Nous verrons qu'au sein des institutions américaines de la sécurité nationale, il existe deux doctrines en compétition parmi les penseurs stratégiques : celle du contre-terrorisme, et celle plus récente de contre-insurrection. Chacune d'entre-elle propose une méthode différente pour faire la guerre en Afghanistan. Par une série de manœuvres de palais, c'est-à-dire des actions entreprises au sein des institutions du pouvoir afin d'influencer les décideurs, les promoteurs de la doctrine de contre-insurrection on progressivement réussit à faire appliquer leur doctrine en Afghanistan, avec comme conséquences, un accroissement de la présence militaire dans ce pays, et une hausse marqué de la violence. Pour le démontrer, nous procéderons d'une part à une mise en contexte afin de tracer l'origine de cette guerre et une généalogie qui permet de comprendre le régime de vérité qui structure les discours de ces penseurs stratégiques. D'autre part, nous évaluons le déroulement de trois séries de manœuvres de palais décisives : celles qui ont eu lieu pendant les trois premiers mois de la présidence d'Obama; celles de l'été 2009; et celles qui se sont produits pendant l'été et l'automne 2010. À travers ce récit, nous verrons en détails les conséquences de ces manœuvres. ______________________________________________________________________________

Title from first page of PDF document. Includes bibliographical references (p. 47-53).

Orientador: Paulo César Souza Manduca / Tese (doutorado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-24T13:01:37Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Finguerut_Ariel_D.pdf: 5310440 bytes, checksum: a62805584c2733e3720571a13b6ee36f (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014 / Resumo: Neste trabalho procuramos entender a efetividade da Nova Direita na política norte-americana. Para tanto, foi preciso conhecer o papel do conservadorismo, destacando a função dos Think Tanks enquanto espaço de formação e circulação das ideias. Ao estudar a Nova Direita, sua estrutura, dinâmica de ação e articulação político-social, discutimos este conceito propondo uma nova leitura. Como resultado apresentamos um panorama do conservadorismo americano contemporâneo e a percepção da Nova Direita sobre os governos de George W. Bush e Barack H. Obama / Abstract: The central proposal of this work is to understand the effectiveness of the New Right in American politics. Therefore, it was necessary to know the role of conservatism and in this regard it was highlighted the role of Think Tanks as an area of training and the dissemination of ideas. By studying the New Right, its structure, dynamic action and political-social articulation, we discussed this concept by proposing a new reading. As a result we present an overview of the contemporary conservatism in U.S and the perception of the New Right on the governments of George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama / Doutorado / Ciencia Politica / Doutor em Ciência Política

This dissertation consists of three essays in the field of environmental economics. The first chapter provides the first causal evidence that hostile activities online lead to physical violence. Given the recently documented relationship between pollution and social media, I exploit exogenous variation in local air quality as the first step to instrument for online aggression. In an event study setting, I find volatile organic compounds (VOCs) increase by 7% when refineries experience unexpected production outages. Together with higher air pollution, I find more aggressive behaviors both online and offline, as well as worse health outcomes near refineries. A one standard deviation increase in surrounding VOCs leads to 0.16 more hate crimes against Black people and 0.23 more hospital visits per thousand people each day. Second, I consider how emotional contagion spreads through social networks. On days with pollution spikes, surrounding areas see 30% more offensive and racist tweets and 12% more crimes; those geographically distant but socially networked regions also see offensive and racist tweets increase by 3% and more crimes by 4.5%. Nationally, overlooking spillovers would underestimate crime effects of pollution by 24%. My findings highlight the consequences of social media hostility and contribute to the public debate on cyberspace regulation. The second chapter, which is coauthored with Andrew Wilson, analyzes the relationship between weather and railway accidents. Rail thermal expansion and contraction are key considerations in rail design and construction; rail operators and rolling stock may likewise exhibit vulnerability to temperature changes. We quantify the sizes of these effects by leveraging a comprehensive dataset of railway malfunctions in the United States spanning 1997-2019. We find that both heat and cold cause elevated rates of railway malfunctions, with relatively larger increases in the number of incidents leading to a casualty as well as the number of injuries and deaths resulting from these incidents. We find that exposure to daily temperatures averaging over 30°C (86°F) leads to a 16% increase in the number of rail malfunctions, a 13% increase in the number of incidents leading to a casualty, and 18% and 36% increases injuries and deaths-effects net of any operational adjustments made to mitigate these effects. Further, while we also find that warmer locations exhibit a weaker relationship between heat and railway malfunctions, we find no evidence that companies are learning, year-over-year, how to reduce accidents. Finally, we note that effects of heat are strongest for derailments (versus other types of malfunctions) and freight trains (versus passenger trains). Our findings highlight the vulnerability of the railway system to the climate. The number of injuries and deaths associated with weather exposure-especially in comparison to operators' reported private costs of equipment failure-suggests a role for enhanced rail safety regulations and adaptation funding to protect critical heat-exposed infrastructure. The third chapter, which is a joint work with Douglas Almond and Muye Ru, explores the impact of federal policy rollback on methane leakage. Improvements in satellite measurement enable independent assessment of regulatory and climate policy. In August 2020, the Trump Administration lifted Obama-era requirements that oil and gas firms detect and repair methane leaks. We merge geo-identified data from the European TROPOMI (satellite instrument) to the specific locations of the US oil and gas infrastructure. Using a difference-in-differences design, we find a prompt increase in US methane emissions following the summer 2020 rollback. The number of high-methane emission events from the oil and gas sector more than doubled after the rollback relative to the coal sector, which did not experience the same regulatory rollback. While the oil and gas industry claims it faces a persistent, profit-making incentive to stem natural gas leaks and emissions, we find a large and nimble response by industry to changes in federal policy. Public policies that reduce methane externalities are critical given that global methane concentrations are rising at an increasing rate.

Notre étude relève d’une analyse exploratoire fondée sur une étude de cas. En partant d’un exemple de débat articulé autour d’un enjeu public, en l’occurrence la responsabilité sociale d’entreprise (RSE), nous appréhendons le discours comme un instrument de pouvoir déployé par des acteurs en position conflictuelle. Nous prenons comme un cas d’étude la crise écologique provoquée par British Petroleum (BP) au large du Golfe de Mexique le 20 avril 2010. Pour sélectionner notre corpus, nous avons désigné deux populations cibles de discours, en l’occurrence le discours tenu par le gouvernement américain (discours d’Obama) et le discours représentant l’avis officiel de BP (communiqués de presse de BP). Nous avons analysé les discours publics d’Obama et de BP datant du 20 avril 2010 jusqu’au 19 septembre 2010. Nous avons considéré tout discours produit dans un contexte conflictuel travaillé par une crise comme un instrument porteur symboliquement des signes de pouvoir et mobilisant des rapports de force entre les acteurs impliqués. Nous partons de l’hypothèse suivante : les discours organisationnel et gouvernemental étudiés et produits dans un contexte de crise, sont forcément des discours conflictuels au sens de Windisch (1987). Et nous avons utilisé la grille d’analyse élaborée par Windisch (1987) pour mettre en exergue le fonctionnement interne d’un discours conflictuel envisagé comme un vecteur du pouvoir et de légitimation. Nous avons précédé l’analyse de discours, méthode principale dans notre étude, par une analyse de contenu qualitative. Le recours à l’analyse de contenu se justifie par notre souci de déterminer les divers thèmes développés dans le discours, d’examiner comment les acteurs imprègnent de sens le thème de la RSE et de poser le corpus dans sa réalité propre, en ayant recours au logiciel d’analyse de contenu qualitative HYPERRESEARCH. En outre, en mobilisant les présupposés théoriques et les outils méthodologiques issus de l’analyse de discours, nous avons ausculté le potentiel performatif légitimateur des discours construits et élaborés dans un contexte de communication conflictuelle. Pour ce faire, nous avons utilisé le logiciel d’analyse textuelle TROPES reconnu comme un outil d’analyse textuelle capable de générer des modèles représentatifs de la structure du corpus et de son organisation thématique. NOTIONS-CLÉS Discours conflictuel, stratégies discursives, RSE, légitimité, pouvoir, tandem État/firme. / Our study is intended to be an exploratory analysis based on a case study. Starting from a sample debate articulated around a public issue, namely the corporate social responsibility (CSR), we apprehend the discourse as an instrument of power deployed by actors in a conflict position. We take the ecological crisis caused by British Petroleum (BP) in the Gulf of Mexico since April 20, 2010 as a case study, and the reaction of the U.S. administration to intervene and reassure the public opinion alarmed by this crisis. In order to select our corpus, we have identified two target populations of discourse, in this case the speech given by the U.S. government (Obama's speech) and discourses representing the official opinion of BP (BP's press releases) dated April 20, 2010 until September 19, 2010. We considered any discourse occurring in a context of conflict symbolically as a power signs carrier and a mobilizing instrument of power relations between the involved actors. We start from the hypothesis stating that organizational and governmental discourses, studied and produced in a crisis context, are necessarily conflictual discourses within the meaning of Windisch (1987). And we used the analytical framework developed by Windisch (1987) to highlight the internal functioning of a confrontational speech seen as a vector of power and legitimacy. In our research, we preceded the discourse analysis, the main method in our study, by a qualitative content analysis. The use of content analysis aims to determine the various themes developed in the discourse, examine how actors define the CSR topic and put the corpus in its own reality, by using the HYPERRESEARCH qualitative content analysis software. In addition, by implementing the theoretical assumptions and methodological tools from discourse analysis, we auscultated the performative legitimating potential of discourses constructed and developed in a conflict communication context. We used the TROPES text analysis software recognized as a textual analysis tool able to generate representative models of the corpus structure and its thematic organization. KEY CONCEPTS Confrontational discourse, discursive strategies, CSR, legitimacy, power, tandem of government and enterprise.

Notre recherche a comme sujet la lutte contre le terrorisme aux États-Unis depuis le 11 septembre 2001. Notre problématique aborde les changements et les continuités dans la lutte contre le terrorisme menée par les États-Unis durant le premier mandat du président Barack Obama par rapport à son prédécesseur, au niveau des discours et des pratiques. Pour cette recherche, nous employons la théorie de la sécurisation développée par l'École de Copenhague. D'après celle-ci, énoncer un enjeu comme un « problème de sécurité » permet d'obtenir des pouvoirs spéciaux pour s'en occuper, d'une manière déterminée de la part de l'auteur de la démarche sécuritaire (Waever 1995, p.54). À l'aide de ce cadre d'analyse, nous analysons les discours formulés par des acteurs clés (George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Barack Obama, John O. Brennan) et les politiques qui ont suivies. Notre recherche nous conduit à croire que malgré certains changements et reformulations, il y a une continuité générale de la sécurisation de la menace terroriste sous Obama. Après que les tours jumelles du World Trade Center ont été percutées par deux avions de ligne le 11 septembre 2001, la politique américaine a connu d'importants changements. L'administration du président G. W. Bush a entrepris une lutte contre le terrorisme qui était sans précédent. Selon la théorie de la sécurisation de l'École de Copenhague, c'était un cas de sécurisation à grande échelle. En effet, le gouvernement américain a annoncé une menace urgente mettant en péril l'existence de nombreux objets référents (la souveraineté des États-Unis et de leurs alliés, la sécurité des Américains et du reste du monde...) et a demandé certains droits spéciaux pour s'en occuper. L'administration Bush a pris par la suite plusieurs moyens extraordinaires afin de prévenir et combattre la menace terroriste : interventions militaires en Afghanistan et en Iraq, adoption du Patriot Act, ouverture de la prison de Guantanamo Bay et de centres de détention secret par la CIA, etc. L'élection présidentielle de Barack Obama en 2009 annonçait de nombreux changements dans la politique américaine, notamment au niveau de la lutte contre le terrorisme et la sécurité nationale. Les discours du nouveau président et de John O. Brennan (le conseiller principal pour la lutte antiterroriste entre 2009 et 2012) laissaient croire qu'il en serait ainsi : les troupes américaines seraient retirées d'Iraq, la prison de Guantanamo Bay serait fermée et le gouvernement américain n'emploierait plus la torture. La lutte contre le terrorisme durant le premier mandat du président Obama a toutefois été marquée par davantage de continuités que de changements en comparaison à l'administration précédente. La menace terroriste a continué d'être l'objet d'une sécurisation à travers laquelle le gouvernement a poursuivi des politiques extraordinaires au nom de la lutte contre le terrorisme. Bref, la sécurisation de la menace terroriste s'est poursuivie malgré certaines reformulations et de nouvelles politiques... ______________________________________________________________________________ MOTS-CLÉS DE L’AUTEUR : École de Copenhague, sécurisation, lutte contre le terrorisme, Barack Obama, George W. Bush