Dr. Aaron Schneider
 
Specialization: Political Science
Home institution in US: Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana
Host Institution in India: Institute of Social Sciences, New Delhi  
Start date/Month in India: January 2013
Duration of grant: 7 months

Brief Bio:
Dr. Aaron Schneider is the Judy and Avram Professor of Political Science at Tulane University, Louisiana. His work focuses on the intersection of wealth and power, and he has conducted research in Latin America, the United States, Sub-Saharan Africa and India. In particular, he emphasizes the study of public finance as a window into the political economy of development and democracy. His most recent book is State-Building and Tax Regimes in Central America (Cambridge University Press 2012), and he has published over 40 articles and book chapters. Prior to joining Tulane University, Dr. Schneider worked at the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex, U.K. and he has also been an advisor to the chief economist for Central America at the Interamerican Development Bank. In the fall of 2012, Dr. Schneider will be moving to the University of Denver in Colorado to take up the Leo Block Chair of International Studies at the Korbel Institute of International Relations. He has a Ph.D. in political science from University of California at Berkeley and a B.A. in economics from Brown University, Rhode Island.

Dr. Schneider’s Fulbright project, “On the Wealth of States: Fiscal Federalism in India and (Brazil),” examines what divergent macroeconomic strategies tell us about emerging markets in global capitalism, and explores how domestic political institutions of federalism and political parties respond to distinct macroeconomic constraints. Brazil and India have successfully responded to the challenges of globalization and the international financial crises they faced in the 1990s, though they have done so in different ways. The most striking difference is in their chosen strategies for macroeconomic adjustment. India has pursued a heterodox mix of partially liberalized trade, managed capital accounts and fiscal stimulus, while Brazil has pursued a more orthodox path. Both countries navigated crisis and reinserted themselves in the international economy with great success, but differences in their macroeconomic strategy reverberate within domestic political institutions. Institutions such as federalism and political parties accommodate diverse sociopolitical realities across large territories to link state and society. Yet, the domestic political implications of macroeconomic strategy are relatively unstudied.

Schneider-Aaron
www.usief.org.in