Aseem Prakash
Aseem Prakash is Professor of Political Science, the Walker Family Professor for the College of Arts and Sciences, and the Director of the Center for Environmental Politics at University of Washington, Seattle. He is the Founding General Editor of Cambridge University Press Series in Business and Public Policy, the Co-Editor of Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, and the Associate Editor of Business & Society.
Professor Prakash studies environmental politics and governance, NGOs and nonprofits, and international political economy. Much of his work focuses on voluntary environmental programs. He has extended this work to study corporate social responsibility and voluntary regulation in the nonprofit sector. He is also examining issues pertaining to (1) drivers of domestic pollution, (2) NGO advocacy and accountability, and (3) the influence of trade and FDI networks on the cross-country diffusion of rules, standards, and norms in areas such as the human rights, labor rights, and women's rights
Professor Prakash studies environmental politics and governance, NGOs and nonprofits, and international political economy. Much of his work focuses on voluntary environmental programs. He has extended this work to study corporate social responsibility and voluntary regulation in the nonprofit sector. He is also examining issues pertaining to (1) drivers of domestic pollution, (2) NGO advocacy and accountability, and (3) the influence of trade and FDI networks on the cross-country diffusion of rules, standards, and norms in areas such as the human rights, labor rights, and women's rights
less
Interests
Uploads
Papers by Aseem Prakash
Perhaps, this should compel us to step back and think about media bias. We typically think of Fox News as offering a biased perspective. But is the liberal media any better? We offer an informal empirical examination of how the prestigious New York Times, portrayed the consequences of the Brexit vote in what we consider to be a biased way. The New York Times reflects and shapes elite opinion. An examination of its coverage can give a sense of the lessons the American elites’ perspective on Brexit, and more broadly, on economic and political integration
All of this is aimed at stopping or slowing down global warming – but it has had mixed success. Energy companies have often blocked or weakened regulatory action. It has often been hard to mobilize consumers, who are addicted to automobiles and energy intensive lifestyles, and believe that they have little power over markets.
Now, activists are trying something new - disrupting how the fossil fuel industry transports its products. Their objective is to prevent the fossil fuel industry from accessing the pipelines and railroad networks they need to move their products. The logic is simple; if products cannot be moved, they cannot be sold and will not contribute to global warming
countries to reduce their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions? Our analyses of 136
developing countries from 1981 through 2007 suggests that: developing
countries’ export dependence on the EU is associated with CO2 emission
reductions post-Kyoto in relation to the pre-Kyoto time period; this also
holds for SO 2, which, while not covered under Kyoto, is linked with CO 2
emission levels; this does not hold for PM10, a pollutant which is not covered
under Kyoto and is not directly associated with CO2 emissions related to
industrial activities; developing countries’ export dependence on non-EU
developed countries and on the rest of the world is not associated with
significant reductions in emissions between pre- and post-Kyoto for these
pollutants . In sum, even in the absence of binding regulatory mandates, the
EU appears to exert market leverage to project its regulatory preferences
abroad.