Popular in Social Sciences

Books

City Time: On Being Sentenced to Rikers Island

Independent Scholar David A. Campbell

Culture and Society

The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place

New York University Harvey Moltoch

Economics

Gender and Economics

University of California Santa Barbara Shelly Lundberg

American Politics

Keeping the Republic

Boston College Marc Landy

Banks and Policy Organisations

Greening the financial sector

European Investment Bank Matteo Ferrazzi

British Politics

Entrepreneurial thinking: the politics and practice of policy impact

University of Sheffield Matthew Flinders

Culture and Society

Carceral Entrapments: Views from the Prison/Street Interface in India

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Mahuya Bandyopadhya

How Constitutional Drafters Use Comparative Evidence

View more insights in Social Sciences - Political Science

View more figures from Australian National University

View the page of Svitlana Chernykh

Read the Study

Svitlana Chernykh discusses the transcripts of constitutional deliberations in two settings of third-wave democratization, Brazil and Ukraine.

Image courtesy of interviewee. February 12, 2024

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

This video video is a transcript from a presentation focused on a co-authored study about diffusion in the context of constitutional reforms, conducted by the speaker and Zach Elkins from the University of Texas at Austin. The study aims to explore how constitutional drafters reference foreign models and experiences during deliberations for new constitutions. The authors seek to answer three main questions: whether these drafters refer to foreign constitutional models, how they do so, and which specific countries or models are referenced.

The study highlights the significance of foreign references during the constitutional debates in two key cases: Brazil (1987-1988) and Ukraine (1991-1996). Findings reveal that these references were frequent and central to discussions, often occurring as frequently as mentions of democracy and freedom. Both countries predominantly referenced nations like the US, UK, Canada, and France, even though some specific mentions varied (e.g., Brazil mentioning Portugal and Ukraine referencing Russia).

The research methodology involved analyzing transcripts of constitutional deliberations to identify and categorize foreign references, examining their context, the perceived motives of the speakers, and the nature of the references (whether they advocated for or warned against adopting foreign models). The results showed a balance between positive endorsements and warnings against certain models.

Overall, the study offers insights into the mechanisms of how foreign models influence constitutional development, countering the notion that such adaptations are merely mechanical. It underscores that constitutional drafters conduct thorough evaluations and discussions regarding foreign experiences before incorporating them into new constitutional frameworks. This video video nuanced understanding provides a more detailed view of the diffusion processes involved in constitutional reform.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.105 --> 00:02.485
Let begin with saying that this is a co-authored work

00:02.515 --> 00:04.405
with Zach Elkins, professor

00:04.405 --> 00:05.845
of University of Texas at Austin.

00:07.065 --> 00:09.965
And in this, article we study diffusion.

00:10.855 --> 00:14.315
So diffusion is a general phenomena of interdependence,

00:14.325 --> 00:16.435
which includes a host of complementary

00:16.695 --> 00:18.875
and sometimes competing mechanisms.

00:19.335 --> 00:21.635
In order to identify the mechanisms,

00:21.875 --> 00:24.675
analysts can make an inference based on the kinds

00:24.675 --> 00:26.795
of countries and networks that are most influential.

00:27.575 --> 00:30.235
So a bit of a context for this particular study,

00:30.415 --> 00:32.355
the motivating reasons for scholars

00:32.415 --> 00:35.395
of diffusion is the observation that adoption

00:35.395 --> 00:39.475
of a particular reform such as, let's say, abolition

00:39.475 --> 00:41.315
of slavery or decolonization

00:41.455 --> 00:43.275
or more recently transition to democracy

00:44.175 --> 00:47.355
is clustered temporarily and spatially.

00:47.855 --> 00:50.795
So the most popular example is the third wave of democracy

00:50.885 --> 00:52.155
where scholars observe

00:52.305 --> 00:55.715
that multiple countries have started their transitions

00:55.715 --> 00:58.075
to democracy, not only around the same time,

00:58.415 --> 01:00.115
but also it happened with countries

01:00.115 --> 01:02.555
that were located closely to each other, right?

01:03.055 --> 01:05.555
So in this article, we are interested

01:05.615 --> 01:07.875
to study diffusion processes in the context

01:07.975 --> 01:09.555
of constitutional reforms.

01:10.295 --> 01:12.515
And we have three main questions we want to answer.

01:13.135 --> 01:18.035
So the first one is, do constitution drafters refer, refer

01:18.055 --> 01:19.395
to foreign models

01:19.975 --> 01:22.915
and experiences during constitutional deliberation.

01:23.175 --> 01:24.595
So when they're sitting down

01:24.775 --> 01:26.195
and discussing, you know,

01:26.195 --> 01:29.235
what the new constitution will look like, as I mentioning,

01:29.495 --> 01:31.195
any countries outside of the countries

01:31.195 --> 01:33.115
that they're actually drafting the constitution for.

01:34.015 --> 01:36.955
If they do, how do they do it? Right?

01:37.535 --> 01:40.515
And the final question is, which countries?

01:40.695 --> 01:43.915
So which models of foreign experience are they referring to?

01:44.175 --> 01:45.955
Is it neighboring countries?

01:46.215 --> 01:49.555
Is it countries that are high income developing countries

01:49.555 --> 01:50.555
or developed countries?

01:50.575 --> 01:52.715
Is it countries with similar

01:53.315 --> 01:55.315
cultural linguistic or colonial types?

01:56.175 --> 01:57.915
So these are the three questions that we want

01:57.915 --> 01:59.315
to answer in this article.

01:59.855 --> 02:03.435
In my opinion, one of the most influential studies on,

02:04.335 --> 02:07.635
in the field of theories of diffusion is, the study

02:07.655 --> 02:10.355
by Zach Elkins, the Elkins, who is co-authoring this work

02:10.355 --> 02:14.195
with me and Beth Simmons and their article 2005 article.

02:14.615 --> 02:17.315
In this article, they counted,

02:17.425 --> 02:21.115
they focused on identifying distinct mechanism of diffusion.

02:21.295 --> 02:23.435
How does diffusion happen, right?

02:23.735 --> 02:28.635
And they identify, 27 distinct mechanisms of diffusion.

02:29.455 --> 02:33.355
Now, frequently the an the analysis are conducted at the

02:33.355 --> 02:34.995
country or the aggregate level.

02:35.795 --> 02:39.855
For instance, if a country imitates those nations on which

02:39.995 --> 02:42.495
it depends, before an aid, for instance,

02:42.915 --> 02:45.655
one may conclude that there's a pressure on these leaders

02:45.675 --> 02:46.855
to conform, right?

02:47.475 --> 02:49.815
If a country imitates the experience

02:49.815 --> 02:52.535
of economic competitors, one main reason

02:52.885 --> 02:55.335
that perhaps competition plays a large role,

02:56.005 --> 02:58.895
however, to track the diffusion mechanism

02:59.025 --> 03:01.965
At play and their causal impact investigation

03:01.985 --> 03:05.805
of individuals involved in the reform is very helpful

03:05.985 --> 03:09.045
to collaborate the state level inferences, right?

03:09.625 --> 03:12.805
And sometimes to really pin down the actual processes

03:13.105 --> 03:14.645
of weather and how ideas,

03:14.905 --> 03:18.165
or in this case, reforms are diffused, right?

03:18.345 --> 03:20.245
And this is what we do in this work, right?

03:20.345 --> 03:22.885
So we are relying to the building on Elkin

03:22.885 --> 03:24.485
and Siemens trying to define that

03:24.545 --> 03:26.365
to really track down the mechanisms.

03:26.825 --> 03:29.485
And we are doing it by focusing on the actors on the ground.

03:30.055 --> 03:31.365
We're not the first ones, right?

03:31.585 --> 03:34.245
So we are also building on a number of what,

03:34.385 --> 03:35.725
who have done this before.

03:36.545 --> 03:39.685
For instance, Whitney, Wesley in 1987,

03:40.165 --> 03:43.365
documented an intensive review of foreign models

03:43.465 --> 03:44.525
of government structures

03:44.525 --> 03:47.405
that the post maji government pursued in Japan.

03:47.715 --> 03:50.205
Similarly, one of the most, famous scholars

03:50.205 --> 03:52.925
of democratization democracy in Latin America occurred

03:52.925 --> 03:57.725
Wayland in his 2004 book, really traced down the cases

03:57.865 --> 04:00.845
of transfer and influence among Latin American countries.

04:01.145 --> 04:04.685
So in this work, we rely on this, existing literature

04:04.745 --> 04:05.845
and we build on it.

04:06.145 --> 04:08.005
Uh, and we are looking at the processis

04:08.005 --> 04:10.245
of diffusion in the constitutional deliberation.

04:10.665 --> 04:12.605
And we have, two cases.

04:13.105 --> 04:16.165
We, we, it's a comparative study from two different regions.

04:16.785 --> 04:21.645
So what we do, we started with, trying to find,

04:21.845 --> 04:23.925
a record of constitutional deliberation.

04:23.985 --> 04:27.005
And we were quite lucky to find a complete record

04:27.025 --> 04:28.125
of constitutional deliberation

04:28.385 --> 04:33.165
during the constitutional drafting in Brazil, 19 87, 19 88,

04:33.745 --> 04:35.685
and the constitutional drafting of Ukraine,

04:35.695 --> 04:39.565
which spent five years, 1991 to 19 95, 9 96.

04:40.935 --> 04:44.275
So once we found the transcripts, a full complete record

04:44.375 --> 04:49.075
of constitutional deliberation, we read the transcripts

04:49.775 --> 04:51.955
and we try to identify each

04:52.175 --> 04:54.555
and every reference to a foreign country

04:54.735 --> 04:57.475
or a set of countries in these transcripts

04:58.445 --> 04:59.465
for each reference.

04:59.605 --> 05:01.825
We also recorded a number of variables.

05:02.245 --> 05:04.425
Uh, we wanted to record,

05:05.825 --> 05:07.485
the identity of the reference country.

05:07.505 --> 05:10.605
So which particular country is reference as well

05:10.605 --> 05:14.725
as the purpose of the reference, the re as the context

05:14.905 --> 05:16.245
or the topic of the reference.

05:16.265 --> 05:18.245
So here, think about the constitution

05:18.585 --> 05:20.805
and different sections that constitutions have.

05:21.145 --> 05:24.485
So usually we would see does this reference refers in the

05:24.485 --> 05:26.685
context of talking about executive

05:26.785 --> 05:28.205
and legislative relations,

05:28.785 --> 05:30.565
or is it talking about the judiciary?

05:30.785 --> 05:34.445
Is it talking about the section of, you know, human rights?

05:34.825 --> 05:37.525
Is it talking about, sections of election, right?

05:37.705 --> 05:40.445
So we tried to figure out which topic it would refer to.

05:41.065 --> 05:44.845
We also looked and tried to code the perceived motives

05:44.845 --> 05:47.685
of the speaker, the tone and the reaction.

05:48.105 --> 05:51.245
So for instance, we wanted to see if this speaker is,

05:51.585 --> 05:54.365
trying to advocate for an endorsement of this model

05:54.465 --> 05:55.565
or similar model, right?

05:55.585 --> 05:58.045
So having sort of a positive tone in thinking

05:58.045 --> 06:01.365
that this particular foreign model, might be appropriate

06:01.425 --> 06:03.405
for the country in question here, right?

06:04.065 --> 06:07.405
Or on the other hand, we would code if the speakers,

06:07.915 --> 06:10.525
what we call is a warning, they saying, you know,

06:10.545 --> 06:12.405
we shouldn't adapt this particular model

06:12.515 --> 06:15.685
because perhaps it didn't work in a particular case.

06:16.025 --> 06:18.205
And they're referencing a country in that respect.

06:18.585 --> 06:20.885
So really coding the references,

06:20.985 --> 06:22.765
but also the context around them.

06:22.865 --> 06:24.525
So really try to understand

06:25.385 --> 06:27.005
not only whether the countries are references,

06:27.065 --> 06:29.165
but in what way as a reference,

06:29.305 --> 06:31.285
and what does the motivation of the speaker,

06:31.635 --> 06:33.565
what does the motivating reasons for the speaker

06:33.785 --> 06:35.405
to really talk about the country?

06:35.865 --> 06:38.845
And how extensively are it really talking about

06:38.845 --> 06:39.885
this particular reference?

06:39.985 --> 06:41.845
Is it just, you know, a fleeting reference?

06:42.225 --> 06:45.125
You know, is it the reference to, you know, a number

06:45.145 --> 06:46.445
of countries in particular region,

06:46.545 --> 06:48.605
or is it an in-depth reference really

06:48.605 --> 06:49.845
analyzing the model, right?

06:49.865 --> 06:52.525
And this was something that was very, very important to us.

06:53.145 --> 06:56.765
So once we had a complete data set for, Brazil

06:56.945 --> 06:59.525
and Ukraine, we were able to analyze

06:59.525 --> 07:01.165
and really answer our questions here.

07:01.705 --> 07:03.285
So I think the easiest way for me

07:03.285 --> 07:05.125
to talk about the results is really go back

07:05.125 --> 07:06.205
to our questions, right?

07:06.225 --> 07:09.325
So we had three main questions we were asking in this study,

07:09.625 --> 07:12.565
do constitution drafters refer to foreign models

07:12.745 --> 07:15.325
and experiences during constitutional deliberation?

07:15.745 --> 07:17.845
And the short answer is yes.

07:18.305 --> 07:21.845
And extensively, we found the delegates in both countries

07:21.845 --> 07:23.165
that we analyze, Brazil

07:23.185 --> 07:25.805
and Ukraine frequently referenced foreign

07:25.805 --> 07:26.885
models in their speeches.

07:27.665 --> 07:30.245
Now, to give an idea of the magnitude of

07:30.265 --> 07:32.885
how frequently the reference, these countries,

07:33.145 --> 07:35.965
we can compare these references, to,

07:36.175 --> 07:37.285
other important terms.

07:37.465 --> 07:41.365
For instance, you know, do they mention foreign,

07:41.515 --> 07:42.805
experiences in,

07:42.805 --> 07:45.245
and countries, as frequently

07:45.245 --> 07:46.965
as they mentioned the word democracy, for instance,

07:47.145 --> 07:50.485
or as frequently and the most mentioned the word, you know,

07:50.625 --> 07:52.365
freedom, right?

07:52.665 --> 07:55.805
And we find that it is as frequent, right?

07:56.025 --> 08:00.445
So in Ukraine, the references, the frequency of references

08:00.465 --> 08:03.005
to foreign countries is actually more than references

08:03.025 --> 08:05.525
to the, you know, to the word democracy or democratic

08:05.585 --> 08:06.965
or to the word freedom, right?

08:07.305 --> 08:10.605
In Brazil, it's almost as frequent as to these terms, right?

08:10.945 --> 08:13.445
So what we find is that first sort of finding

08:13.545 --> 08:16.365
and conclusion is that foreign references were central

08:16.945 --> 08:20.045
to the constitutional debates in both countries, right?

08:20.045 --> 08:22.085
So this is our sort of answer to our first question.

08:22.155 --> 08:23.245
They have been central,

08:23.425 --> 08:25.685
and now we moving to a se second question

08:25.745 --> 08:29.805
to really understand how do the constitutional drafters

08:29.975 --> 08:33.765
refer to these foreign, experiences, right?

08:34.655 --> 08:36.355
And here, as I mentioned previously,

08:36.355 --> 08:39.515
we're looking at the motives and the context, okay?

08:39.735 --> 08:42.475
So we're looking as a, you know, advocating endorsement

08:42.535 --> 08:45.235
as advocating avoidance, you know, what is the tone

08:45.235 --> 08:47.315
of the references and how in depth they are.

08:48.175 --> 08:50.635
We find that in both countries, the majority

08:50.855 --> 08:53.675
of the references contained at least a regimen,

08:53.675 --> 08:54.755
rudimentary element of

08:54.925 --> 08:56.885
Comparative constitutional analysis

08:57.905 --> 09:01.045
in which speakers suggest a particular foreign country was a

09:01.045 --> 09:04.885
target for, is a model to follow sort of

09:04.885 --> 09:05.925
what we call endorsement

09:06.025 --> 09:08.815
or to avoid sort of call a warning, right?

09:08.955 --> 09:11.335
So they weren't just referred to, in,

09:11.355 --> 09:14.695
in fleeting discussions, they were really analyzed in depth.

09:15.755 --> 09:20.015
Um, when we think about endorsements, when the speakers sort

09:20.015 --> 09:23.135
of advocated a model to emulate, you know,

09:23.405 --> 09:26.575
they frequently refer to, you know, development

09:26.715 --> 09:29.215
or institution or the level of democracy

09:30.275 --> 09:32.535
or similarity between their country

09:32.915 --> 09:34.495
and the reference country, right?

09:35.235 --> 09:37.895
For the warnings, it was a similar sort of set

09:38.035 --> 09:39.175
of context, right?

09:39.715 --> 09:43.215
Um, they again refer to the development institutions

09:44.075 --> 09:46.775
in this case, you know, low level of democratization

09:46.835 --> 09:48.055
or authoritarianism,

09:48.315 --> 09:50.375
and the differences between their country

09:51.175 --> 09:52.695
and the countries that they're reference to.

09:53.365 --> 09:54.775
What we find is that,

09:55.465 --> 09:58.415
there are more references talking about the emulation.

09:58.715 --> 10:02.055
So they were really focusing on which models can they really

10:02.055 --> 10:05.055
borrow and trying to understand, you know, and explain

10:05.055 --> 10:07.215
and sort of advocate why they should be borrowed.

10:07.915 --> 10:10.415
Um, but there are also a sizable number

10:10.475 --> 10:11.655
of negative references

10:11.755 --> 10:14.575
or sort of, warnings saying, you know,

10:14.765 --> 10:16.895
this particular institution did not work

10:17.475 --> 10:18.615
in the reference countries.

10:18.615 --> 10:20.615
This is why we should be staying away from it.

10:20.915 --> 10:22.775
And we find this very, very interesting.

10:24.095 --> 10:27.515
Now, our third question was about, you know,

10:27.515 --> 10:29.515
which models are referenced?

10:29.615 --> 10:30.715
Um, is it neighbors?

10:30.775 --> 10:34.115
Is it high income countries, countries with similar cultural

10:34.215 --> 10:35.915
or linguistic or colonial ties?

10:36.765 --> 10:39.875
Which countries are important for constitutional designers?

10:41.775 --> 10:43.745
Even though we are working with quite different countries,

10:43.745 --> 10:46.905
which is Ukraine and Brazil, we found that they,

10:48.135 --> 10:51.195
in these two countries during the constitutional debates,

10:51.255 --> 10:54.555
the constitutional drafters refer to the same set

10:54.575 --> 10:55.955
of countries, right?

10:56.185 --> 10:59.915
They refer to the US, Canada, United Kingdom,

11:00.095 --> 11:02.475
and France very frequently, right?

11:02.815 --> 11:05.355
So these countries that were absolutely prominent in

11:05.485 --> 11:08.775
discussion, in both cases,

11:09.635 --> 11:11.455
we do find some differences as well, right?

11:11.475 --> 11:12.495
So there are some countries

11:12.495 --> 11:15.775
that mentioned only in one context or the other.

11:15.915 --> 11:18.815
So Brazil, you know, was frequently mentioning Portugal.

11:18.885 --> 11:20.415
Ukraine was mentioning Russia, right?

11:21.075 --> 11:22.625
But what we really find that

11:23.245 --> 11:26.665
two different societies in the midst of reconstruction

11:26.665 --> 11:29.345
of their political order drew insights

11:29.935 --> 11:31.785
from mostly the same countries, right?

11:31.845 --> 11:35.745
And especially US has been quite influential, right?

11:36.085 --> 11:39.025
And when we think about, you know, can we develop a model

11:39.175 --> 11:42.065
that would, predict which countries would actually,

11:42.605 --> 11:44.265
you know, dominate the discussion

11:44.285 --> 11:45.825
of constitutional drafters, right?

11:46.165 --> 11:49.185
And if we develop such a model, which we do in our paper,

11:49.685 --> 11:51.305
we find that,

11:51.435 --> 11:53.145
there are particular things that are important.

11:53.505 --> 11:55.485
So the size of the economy,

11:56.025 --> 11:57.605
so we're talking here about the GDP

11:58.185 --> 12:00.845
and the countries, with high,

12:01.135 --> 12:02.325
human development index.

12:02.425 --> 12:05.405
So these are the countries that are, you know, quite sort of

12:05.955 --> 12:08.765
habited by the constitutional doctors they use, you know,

12:09.025 --> 12:10.205
in quite, quite a lot.

12:10.385 --> 12:12.205
So, what matters is the economy.

12:12.235 --> 12:14.285
What matters is the human development index.

12:14.305 --> 12:16.165
You know, they're not paying attention to other things.

12:16.195 --> 12:19.325
Like for instance, you know, population, obviously Brazil

12:19.325 --> 12:22.285
and Ukraine, you know, these are two episodes

12:22.285 --> 12:23.605
of constitutional reforms.

12:23.825 --> 12:27.525
So when we were picking cases for this study, we wanted to,

12:27.825 --> 12:31.485
balance the similarities and the contrast.

12:32.505 --> 12:36.205
So we wanted cases similar enough to be amenable

12:36.225 --> 12:39.085
to comparison, but different enough

12:39.145 --> 12:42.205
to test whether insights from one setting,

12:42.425 --> 12:44.525
are consistent with the those from another.

12:45.225 --> 12:46.605
So let's talk about the similarities

12:46.605 --> 12:47.805
between these two countries, right?

12:48.155 --> 12:51.885
Both cases, of transition to democracy,

12:51.995 --> 12:54.405
both happening, in the same time, right?

12:54.405 --> 12:58.085
So Brazil, 1987, Ukraine is, 1991.

12:58.185 --> 12:59.765
So just three to four years apart.

13:01.315 --> 13:02.895
Um, in both cases,

13:02.895 --> 13:05.215
these are new constitution directors, right?

13:05.515 --> 13:09.015
So actors involved, took the opportunity

13:09.035 --> 13:12.495
to engage in a very comprehensive constitutional reform.

13:13.325 --> 13:14.675
Let's talk about the differences.

13:15.015 --> 13:17.875
Um, the processes were a bit different.

13:18.415 --> 13:22.275
So Brazil had a constitution, constitu assembly, right?

13:22.335 --> 13:25.235
So the whole sort of a side of the department was involved,

13:25.255 --> 13:27.635
and there was an intended debate, you know, happening

13:27.635 --> 13:31.275
between the 87, 88 Ukraine had the structure

13:31.275 --> 13:32.675
of the constitutional commission.

13:33.255 --> 13:35.995
At the same time, Ukraine was sort of, you know, becoming,

13:36.025 --> 13:38.195
this was an independence in 1991.

13:38.375 --> 13:41.475
So in addition to drafting a new constitution, it was sort

13:41.475 --> 13:43.955
of going through the sort of new birth

13:44.015 --> 13:45.515
of the state in a way, right?

13:45.615 --> 13:48.355
So, you know, regaining independence, you know,

13:48.355 --> 13:51.355
there's other issues associated with these processes

13:51.385 --> 13:53.875
that made the constitutional drafting

13:53.905 --> 13:55.595
process a bit longer, right?

13:55.615 --> 13:57.195
It wasn't as condensed, right?

13:57.465 --> 13:58.795
They couldn't meet as frequently.

13:58.815 --> 14:01.715
So it spans sort of a couple years with interruptions

14:01.735 --> 14:03.355
for different things that were happening.

14:04.935 --> 14:07.955
What's interesting is that both constitutions,

14:08.095 --> 14:11.275
the Brazilian one and the Ukrainian one surpassed,

14:11.565 --> 14:13.235
their life expectancy in this stage.

14:13.335 --> 14:14.915
So the life expectancy

14:14.915 --> 14:17.115
of a constitution worldwide is 19 years.

14:17.815 --> 14:20.995
We expect the Constitution on average to die after 19 years.

14:21.495 --> 14:23.835
Now, both of these constitutions are still alive.

14:23.945 --> 14:26.395
They have been amended, but they're still alive.

14:26.815 --> 14:30.155
Uh, so at this point, they have surpassed the 19 years,

14:30.455 --> 14:33.715
of life expectancy worldwide as I started, right?

14:33.835 --> 14:35.275
I was talking about the diffusion

14:35.505 --> 14:36.955
processes and how they're studied.

14:37.375 --> 14:38.835
And in many analysis,

14:39.215 --> 14:41.755
the diffusion process are studied at the country level

14:41.815 --> 14:43.515
or sort of an aggregate level, right?

14:44.055 --> 14:46.915
And our work has shown a more detailed process of diffusion.

14:47.055 --> 14:50.435
We are looking at the actors and the actual mechanism of how

14:51.125 --> 14:54.405
Possibly, right, these foreign models are actually making

14:54.405 --> 14:55.885
their way into constitution

14:55.905 --> 14:58.725
and tracing the process on the ground, as opposed

14:58.725 --> 15:00.405
to just comparing the constitution

15:00.405 --> 15:01.805
and saying, this one is similar.

15:01.945 --> 15:04.925
So we will assume that they borrowed it from a constitution.

15:05.305 --> 15:07.725
So, I think our work is providing sort of a more

15:08.315 --> 15:09.885
nuanced view, right?

15:10.105 --> 15:13.245
And, a way to really track down the mechanism

15:13.245 --> 15:15.805
of diffusion a bit more closely by looking at the actors.

15:17.455 --> 15:19.275
Now, the second contribution,

15:20.215 --> 15:23.195
we learned which characteristics are important, right?

15:23.255 --> 15:25.195
So which countries are actually making,

15:25.615 --> 15:29.595
or which foreign models are making their way into, you know,

15:30.515 --> 15:31.995
constitutions of different countries, right?

15:32.375 --> 15:33.755
So we, what is important?

15:33.895 --> 15:35.875
So for instance, countries level

15:35.875 --> 15:37.715
of development is much more important

15:37.715 --> 15:38.875
than its population, right?

15:39.135 --> 15:42.795
So countries really looking, they are looking at,

15:42.815 --> 15:45.155
you know, similarities, but they are really looking at

15:45.215 --> 15:49.075
how successful other models are, trying to understand why,

15:49.215 --> 15:50.515
and then see, you know, if

15:50.515 --> 15:52.555
that will work in their context, right?

15:52.645 --> 15:55.275
Which is, I find it extremely useful and interesting.

15:55.335 --> 15:56.955
Um, and finally,

15:58.075 --> 16:01.355
I think one particular insight from our work has to do

16:01.355 --> 16:04.555
with the style and the approach to foreign models.

16:05.295 --> 16:09.115
So there's some accounts of institutional adaptation, right?

16:09.115 --> 16:10.355
Or institutional adaption,

16:11.015 --> 16:13.715
and they tend to suggest that institutions are sort

16:13.715 --> 16:14.795
of picked off the shelf

16:15.135 --> 16:17.555
and you know, in a rather automatic fashion

16:17.695 --> 16:19.555
and sort of, you know, taken and adapted.

16:20.095 --> 16:23.835
But if we, look at the Brazilian example

16:24.015 --> 16:27.995
and the Ukrainian example, foreign models go through,

16:28.275 --> 16:30.395
a very sorrow evaluation, right?

16:30.745 --> 16:33.235
They are looked at closely, they're analyzed,

16:33.235 --> 16:34.395
they are discussed,

16:34.815 --> 16:37.315
and you know, even if they are sort of accepted,

16:37.825 --> 16:42.595
they are still modified before they get into, you know,

16:42.895 --> 16:45.235
before they make their way into constitutional context.

16:45.415 --> 16:47.515
So it's more a nuance process, right?

16:47.785 --> 16:49.355
It's not just picked up what's working

16:49.355 --> 16:50.595
there, and we just put it here.

16:51.185 --> 16:52.435
They've really looked closely,

16:52.815 --> 16:55.275
the constitutional directors in this particular two cases

16:55.815 --> 16:58.435
really done their work, in many cases, studying

16:58.455 --> 17:00.275
and doing research, you know,

17:00.375 --> 17:04.435
before bringing it up during the debates, you know,

17:05.095 --> 17:08.115
and really sort of supporting their arguments

17:08.215 --> 17:11.275
and really sort of investigating the impact of these models.

17:11.455 --> 17:14.595
How would they fit? And not only then perhaps they make it

17:14.595 --> 17:15.755
into Constitution, if they do,

17:16.295 --> 17:19.155
and I think this is sort of an advancement on the, you know,

17:19.155 --> 17:20.115
what we've knew so far.

00:00 - Let begin with saying that this is a co-authored work with Zach Elkins, professor of University of Texas at Austin. And in this, article we study diffusion. So diffusion is a general phenomena of interdependence, which includes a host of complementary

00:16 - and sometimes competing mechanisms. In order to identify the mechanisms, analysts can make an inference based on the kinds of countries and networks that are most influential. So a bit of a context for this particular study, the motivating reasons for scholars of diffusion is the observation that adoption of a particular reform such as, let's say, abolition of slavery or decolonization or more recently transition to democracy

00:44 - is clustered temporarily and spatially. So the most popular example is the third wave of democracy where scholars observe that multiple countries have started their transitions to democracy, not only around the same time, but also it happened with countries that were located closely to each other, right? So in this article, we are interested to study diffusion processes in the context of constitutional reforms.

01:10 - And we have three main questions we want to answer. So the first one is, do constitution drafters refer, refer to foreign models and experiences during constitutional deliberation. So when they're sitting down and discussing, you know, what the new constitution will look like, as I mentioning, any countries outside of the countries that they're actually drafting the constitution for. If they do, how do they do it? Right?

01:37 - And the final question is, which countries? So which models of foreign experience are they referring to? Is it neighboring countries? Is it countries that are high income developing countries or developed countries? Is it countries with similar cultural linguistic or colonial types? So these are the three questions that we want to answer in this article. In my opinion, one of the most influential studies on,

02:04 - in the field of theories of diffusion is, the study by Zach Elkins, the Elkins, who is co-authoring this work with me and Beth Simmons and their article 2005 article. In this article, they counted, they focused on identifying distinct mechanism of diffusion. How does diffusion happen, right? And they identify, 27 distinct mechanisms of diffusion. Now, frequently the an the analysis are conducted at the country or the aggregate level. For instance, if a country imitates those nations on which

02:39 - it depends, before an aid, for instance, one may conclude that there's a pressure on these leaders to conform, right? If a country imitates the experience of economic competitors, one main reason that perhaps competition plays a large role, however, to track the diffusion mechanism At play and their causal impact investigation of individuals involved in the reform is very helpful to collaborate the state level inferences, right?

03:09 - And sometimes to really pin down the actual processes of weather and how ideas, or in this case, reforms are diffused, right? And this is what we do in this work, right? So we are relying to the building on Elkin and Siemens trying to define that to really track down the mechanisms. And we are doing it by focusing on the actors on the ground. We're not the first ones, right? So we are also building on a number of what,

03:34 - who have done this before. For instance, Whitney, Wesley in 1987, documented an intensive review of foreign models of government structures that the post maji government pursued in Japan. Similarly, one of the most, famous scholars of democratization democracy in Latin America occurred Wayland in his 2004 book, really traced down the cases of transfer and influence among Latin American countries. So in this work, we rely on this, existing literature

04:04 - and we build on it. and we are looking at the processis of diffusion in the constitutional deliberation. And we have, two cases. We, we, it's a comparative study from two different regions. So what we do, we started with, trying to find, a record of constitutional deliberation. And we were quite lucky to find a complete record of constitutional deliberation during the constitutional drafting in Brazil, 19 87, 19 88,

04:33 - and the constitutional drafting of Ukraine, which spent five years, 1991 to 19 95, 9 96. So once we found the transcripts, a full complete record of constitutional deliberation, we read the transcripts and we try to identify each and every reference to a foreign country or a set of countries in these transcripts for each reference. We also recorded a number of variables. we wanted to record,

05:05 - the identity of the reference country. So which particular country is reference as well as the purpose of the reference, the re as the context or the topic of the reference. So here, think about the constitution and different sections that constitutions have. So usually we would see does this reference refers in the context of talking about executive and legislative relations, or is it talking about the judiciary?

05:30 - Is it talking about the section of, you know, human rights? Is it talking about, sections of election, right? So we tried to figure out which topic it would refer to. We also looked and tried to code the perceived motives of the speaker, the tone and the reaction. So for instance, we wanted to see if this speaker is, trying to advocate for an endorsement of this model or similar model, right? So having sort of a positive tone in thinking that this particular foreign model, might be appropriate

06:01 - for the country in question here, right? Or on the other hand, we would code if the speakers, what we call is a warning, they saying, you know, we shouldn't adapt this particular model because perhaps it didn't work in a particular case. And they're referencing a country in that respect. So really coding the references, but also the context around them. So really try to understand not only whether the countries are references,

06:27 - but in what way as a reference, and what does the motivation of the speaker, what does the motivating reasons for the speaker to really talk about the country? And how extensively are it really talking about this particular reference? Is it just, you know, a fleeting reference? You know, is it the reference to, you know, a number of countries in particular region, or is it an in-depth reference really

06:48 - analyzing the model, right? And this was something that was very, very important to us. So once we had a complete data set for, Brazil and Ukraine, we were able to analyze and really answer our questions here. So I think the easiest way for me to talk about the results is really go back to our questions, right? So we had three main questions we were asking in this study, do constitution drafters refer to foreign models

07:12 - and experiences during constitutional deliberation? And the short answer is yes. And extensively, we found the delegates in both countries that we analyze, Brazil and Ukraine frequently referenced foreign models in their speeches. Now, to give an idea of the magnitude of how frequently the reference, these countries, we can compare these references, to, other important terms.

07:37 - For instance, you know, do they mention foreign, experiences in, and countries, as frequently as they mentioned the word democracy, for instance, or as frequently and the most mentioned the word, you know, freedom, right? And we find that it is as frequent, right? So in Ukraine, the references, the frequency of references to foreign countries is actually more than references to the, you know, to the word democracy or democratic

08:05 - or to the word freedom, right? In Brazil, it's almost as frequent as to these terms, right? So what we find is that first sort of finding and conclusion is that foreign references were central to the constitutional debates in both countries, right? So this is our sort of answer to our first question. They have been central, and now we moving to a se second question to really understand how do the constitutional drafters refer to these foreign, experiences, right?

08:34 - And here, as I mentioned previously, we're looking at the motives and the context, okay? So we're looking as a, you know, advocating endorsement as advocating avoidance, you know, what is the tone of the references and how in depth they are. We find that in both countries, the majority of the references contained at least a regimen, rudimentary element of Comparative constitutional analysis in which speakers suggest a particular foreign country was a

09:01 - target for, is a model to follow sort of what we call endorsement or to avoid sort of call a warning, right? So they weren't just referred to, in, in fleeting discussions, they were really analyzed in depth. when we think about endorsements, when the speakers sort of advocated a model to emulate, you know, they frequently refer to, you know, development or institution or the level of democracy or similarity between their country

09:32 - and the reference country, right? For the warnings, it was a similar sort of set of context, right? they again refer to the development institutions in this case, you know, low level of democratization or authoritarianism, and the differences between their country and the countries that they're reference to. What we find is that, there are more references talking about the emulation.

09:58 - So they were really focusing on which models can they really borrow and trying to understand, you know, and explain and sort of advocate why they should be borrowed. but there are also a sizable number of negative references or sort of, warnings saying, you know, this particular institution did not work in the reference countries. This is why we should be staying away from it. And we find this very, very interesting.

10:24 - Now, our third question was about, you know, which models are referenced? is it neighbors? Is it high income countries, countries with similar cultural or linguistic or colonial ties? Which countries are important for constitutional designers? Even though we are working with quite different countries, which is Ukraine and Brazil, we found that they, in these two countries during the constitutional debates, the constitutional drafters refer to the same set

10:54 - of countries, right? They refer to the US, Canada, United Kingdom, and France very frequently, right? So these countries that were absolutely prominent in discussion, in both cases, we do find some differences as well, right? So there are some countries that mentioned only in one context or the other. So Brazil, you know, was frequently mentioning Portugal. Ukraine was mentioning Russia, right?

11:21 - But what we really find that two different societies in the midst of reconstruction of their political order drew insights from mostly the same countries, right? And especially US has been quite influential, right? And when we think about, you know, can we develop a model that would, predict which countries would actually, you know, dominate the discussion of constitutional drafters, right? And if we develop such a model, which we do in our paper,

11:49 - we find that, there are particular things that are important. So the size of the economy, so we're talking here about the GDP and the countries, with high, human development index. So these are the countries that are, you know, quite sort of habited by the constitutional doctors they use, you know, in quite, quite a lot. So, what matters is the economy.

12:12 - What matters is the human development index. You know, they're not paying attention to other things. Like for instance, you know, population, obviously Brazil and Ukraine, you know, these are two episodes of constitutional reforms. So when we were picking cases for this study, we wanted to, balance the similarities and the contrast. So we wanted cases similar enough to be amenable to comparison, but different enough to test whether insights from one setting,

12:42 - are consistent with the those from another. So let's talk about the similarities between these two countries, right? Both cases, of transition to democracy, both happening, in the same time, right? So Brazil, 1987, Ukraine is, 1991. So just three to four years apart. in both cases, these are new constitution directors, right? So actors involved, took the opportunity

13:09 - to engage in a very comprehensive constitutional reform. Let's talk about the differences. the processes were a bit different. So Brazil had a constitution, constitu assembly, right? So the whole sort of a side of the department was involved, and there was an intended debate, you know, happening between the 87, 88 Ukraine had the structure of the constitutional commission. At the same time, Ukraine was sort of, you know, becoming, this was an independence in 1991.

13:38 - So in addition to drafting a new constitution, it was sort of going through the sort of new birth of the state in a way, right? So, you know, regaining independence, you know, there's other issues associated with these processes that made the constitutional drafting process a bit longer, right? It wasn't as condensed, right? They couldn't meet as frequently. So it spans sort of a couple years with interruptions

14:01 - for different things that were happening. What's interesting is that both constitutions, the Brazilian one and the Ukrainian one surpassed, their life expectancy in this stage. So the life expectancy of a constitution worldwide is 19 years. We expect the Constitution on average to die after 19 years. Now, both of these constitutions are still alive. They have been amended, but they're still alive. so at this point, they have surpassed the 19 years,

14:30 - of life expectancy worldwide as I started, right? I was talking about the diffusion processes and how they're studied. And in many analysis, the diffusion process are studied at the country level or sort of an aggregate level, right? And our work has shown a more detailed process of diffusion. We are looking at the actors and the actual mechanism of how Possibly, right, these foreign models are actually making their way into constitution

14:55 - and tracing the process on the ground, as opposed to just comparing the constitution and saying, this one is similar. So we will assume that they borrowed it from a constitution. So, I think our work is providing sort of a more nuanced view, right? And, a way to really track down the mechanism of diffusion a bit more closely by looking at the actors. Now, the second contribution, we learned which characteristics are important, right?

15:23 - So which countries are actually making, or which foreign models are making their way into, you know, constitutions of different countries, right? So we, what is important? So for instance, countries level of development is much more important than its population, right? So countries really looking, they are looking at, you know, similarities, but they are really looking at how successful other models are, trying to understand why,

15:49 - and then see, you know, if that will work in their context, right? Which is, I find it extremely useful and interesting. and finally, I think one particular insight from our work has to do with the style and the approach to foreign models. So there's some accounts of institutional adaptation, right? Or institutional adaption, and they tend to suggest that institutions are sort of picked off the shelf

16:15 - and you know, in a rather automatic fashion and sort of, you know, taken and adapted. But if we, look at the Brazilian example and the Ukrainian example, foreign models go through, a very sorrow evaluation, right? They are looked at closely, they're analyzed, they are discussed, and you know, even if they are sort of accepted, they are still modified before they get into, you know, before they make their way into constitutional context.

16:45 - So it's more a nuance process, right? It's not just picked up what's working there, and we just put it here. They've really looked closely, the constitutional directors in this particular two cases really done their work, in many cases, studying and doing research, you know, before bringing it up during the debates, you know, and really sort of supporting their arguments and really sort of investigating the impact of these models.

17:11 - How would they fit? And not only then perhaps they make it into Constitution, if they do, and I think this is sort of an advancement on the, you know, what we've knew so far.

Faculti AI can make mistakes