Bann Seng Tan is appointed as Associate Editor for the Asia Europe Journal (SpringerNature)

Asia Europe Journal (Springer Nature) is an international peer-reviewed journal that publishes research papers of national and regional relevance for Asia and Europe, with a particular focus on issues of bi-regional interest.

Bann Seng Tan has been formally reappointed as Associate Editor of Asia Europe Journal for a further two-year term. The appointment was confirmed by the Editor-in-Chief, Professor Shen Wei, and takes effect immediately.

Published by Springer Nature, the Asia Europe Journal provides a forum for scholarship on common policy challenges, interregional relations, and political, economic, and social developments across Asia and Europe. As Associate Editor, Bann Seng Tan contributes to the journalā€™s editorial oversight, including the assessment and management of manuscript submissions and the peer review process.

The reappointment reflects continued involvement in the journalā€™s editorial leadership and its international academic community.

51²č¹Ż

Bann Seng Tan speaks on hedging at a high-level roundtable on ASEANā€“EU relations at Corvinus University of Budapest

The high-level roundtable discussion The ASEAN and the EU in a Changing World Order was organised by the Department of International Relations at Corvinus University of Budapest and brought together ambassadors, consular officials, and academic experts to discuss shifting regional and global dynamics.

On 24 November 2025, Bann Seng Tan participated as an invited speaker in the high-level The ASEAN and the EU in a Changing World Order at Corvinus University of Budapest. He spoke on hedging in foreign policy, focusing on the concept itself and its misapplications, with particular attention to how Southeast Asian states manage strategic uncertainty in their relations with the United States and China. The featured ambassadors and consular officials from several ASEAN countries, including Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand, as well as representatives from India, alongside faculty and students.

51²č¹Ż

Bann Seng Tan gave a book talk at Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea

Bann Seng Tan presented his book,International Aid and Democracy Promotion: Liberalization at the Margins, at the 24th Global Platform Governance Forum. The event brought together scholars and practitioners to discuss governance challenges in the era of digital platforms and global transition. A dedicated banner was produced for the session, and the talk highlighted the international dimensions of democracy assistance and the politics of aid.

51²č¹Ż

Bann Seng Tan joins the Corvinus Institute for Advanced Studies at Corvinus University of Budapest, Hungary, as a visiting research fellow in Fall 2025

During his sabbatical year, Bann Seng Tan will be at , Corvinus University, Budapest, Hungary, as a CIAS . The fellowship runs from September 2025 to January 2026. He will research the impact of democratization on war and work on the conversion of his dissertation into a book manuscript. 

51²č¹Ż

Dipin Kaur receives US-India Security Studies Fellowship at Stanford

Dipin Kaur is a recipient of theĢżĢżatĢżtheĢżĢżat Stanford University. Through this fellowship, she will spend January to June 2026 as a visiting research fellow at the center in Palo Alto, California.Ģż

51²č¹Ż

Hegemonic Failures: Mass-Elite Resonance and Narratives of Indian Nationhood, 1947ā€“50

By comparing competing conceptions of Indian nationhood from 1947-50, this develops a theoretical framework of ideational resonance that distinguishes between hegemonic and dominant ideas at the mass level. Based on a Gramscian framework of hegemony and mass common sense, the article posits that some ideas may appear to be dominant as opposed to being truly hegemonic in the Gramscian sense. Secondly, what determines whether an idea becomes truly hegemonic is its resonance with mass common sense; the closer the sociopolitical link between the elite and the masses, the more likely it is to form cultural hegemony. Our framework yields the conclusion that these initial years of Indian independence were marked by a lack of hegemony, despite the seemingly unassailable position of the ruling Congress party. Conversely, we argue that during the same time period, Hindu nationalism's social influence may have been underestimated because of its political marginalization by Congress-led state apparatuses.

51²č¹Ż

Bann Seng Tan speaks about the Liberal International Order (LIO) at a West Point conference

Bann Seng Tan spoke in a panel on Deterrence where he presented strategies to defend the Liberal International Order in Asia. The held at the United States Military Academy, West Point will result in a special report for the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (OCJCS), which will also be distributed to US and allied interagency/interministerial partners.

51²č¹Ż

Ashoka faculty Kaustav Dhar Chakrabarti awarded the best fieldwork prize

The Democracy and Autocracy Section of the American Political Science Association (APSA) has announced 51²č¹Ż faculty Kaustav Dhar Chakrabarti as the winner of the Best Field Work Award.

The citation reads:

Kaustav Chakrabarti of 51²č¹Ż, India, for his dissertation, from Brown University, entitled ā€œUnderground Governance: Rules-Based Order by Armed Groups in Northeast India.ā€ Chakrabarti conducted a total of 254 in-depth interviews over 11 months of immersive fieldwork in order to understand the intricacies of rebel governance without territorial control. The geographical breadth of these interviews deserves mention: the majority of interviews took place in 10 districts across the states of Nagaland, Mizoram, and Manipur, and 9 of these districts are designated as active conflict zones. Apart from interviewing rebel leaders, foot soldiers, bureaucrats and policemen, Chakrabarti also made use of national and personal archives to cross-reference information gathered through the interviews in a systematic way. The committee was particularly impressed with Chakrabartiā€™s lengthy discussion of how he selected respondents, handled discrepancies in interview data, his mitigation strategies, and his learning of best interview practices ā€œon the job.ā€ The resulting dissertation is elegantly written and allows the reader to take a deep dive into the workings of rebel governance.

The Democracy and Autocracy Section of APSA promotes the analysis of the origins, processes, and outcomes of democratization among nations of all regions of the world. It encourages scholarship that is both informed by comparative theoretical perspectives and based on field research in specific countries.

It seeks to activate global networks of both democracy scholars and policy-makersā€”facilitating their interaction and enhancing their role within APSA.

Prof. Chakrabarti received a Ph.D. from Brown University in 2021. He also holds a Masterā€™s degree in political science from Binghamton University and a bachelorā€™s degree in computer engineering from Pune University. He was earlier based at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi where he worked on insurgency and national security policy in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and India.

51²č¹Ż pushes the frontiers of knowledge to achieve research excellence across multiple disciplines. The amalgamation of basic sciences with humanities and social sciences has created a vibrant environment which facilitates several unique interdisciplinary research opportunities for researchers at the university.

51²č¹Ż

Ashokaā€™s Research Quest | Democratic Peace and its Importance in International Relations Scholarship

Democratic peace is the idea that democracies do not wage wars against each other.  

His dissertation research studies the effects of democratisation on interstate conflict behaviour. He argues that democratisation into joint democracy deescalates a rivalry. The magnitude of de-escalation is however, conditional on the relative power between the rivals.  

ā€œThe study is significant because it goes beyond the selection effect of democracy, or the tendency of democracies not to become rivals, to focus on how democracies behave in rivalry. I test the empirical implications of the institutional and normative accounts of the democratic peace against each other. I also consider the Peru-Ecuador rivalry (In Latin American) as a case study. I consider the rivalry during its period of democratic transition (from 1979 to 1991), and during the period of autocratic transition (from 1980 to 2000),ā€ he said. 

The interesting fact is that Bann Seng tests the argument using both quantitative and qualitative methods.  

In this video, he sheds light on his research interest, in-detail, the research methodology that he has used and how the pandemic COVID-19 has impacted international relations. 

His research focusses on the argument - if democracies do not fight each other, then the spread of democracy becomes one of the ways to promote international peace. One such way is through foreign aid.  

How might we use aid to nudge autocratic recipients towards democracy? The tying of future disbursement of aid to good behavior on the part of recipients appeals because it offers a way for donors to influence recipientsā€™ behaviour while placating internal critics of aid.  

He said, ā€œSuch donor pressure should take into account the fact that democratisation is politically costly for the aid recipients. Recipients can be expected to exploit aid fungibility and seek alternative donors where they can. I speculate there may be two conceptual groups of recipients, distinguished by their relative importance to donors. Primary recipients, or states with the strategic or economic attributes that matches the donorsā€™ priorities, should be able to switch between alternative donors for the needed aid.  

Secondary recipients, or states whose strategic or economic attributes do not match the donorsā€™ priorities, should have a harder time finding alternative donor. Consequently, donor pressure to democratise should be more effective on secondary recipients than on primary recipients.ā€   

Bann Seng also studies the political economy of natural disasters, especially exploring the authoritarian reactions to disaster aid which typically means studying the reactions of autocratic government to humanitarian relief in the aftermath of disasters.  

ā€œWhile natural disasters do not respect political boundaries, statesā€™ responses do. I argue that authoritarian regimes strategically choose from aid facilitation, obstruction or diversion depending the political relevance of the disaster victims and the need for performance legitimacy.  

When key supporters of the regime are afflicted by the disaster and the regime needs performance legitimacy, it is in the interest of authoritarian regimes to facilitate foreign relief. When neither holds true, they opt to obstruct aid. Between the two policy extremes, we expect a policy mix of facilitation with aid diversion,ā€ said Bann Seng.  

Bann Seng Tan received his Ph.D. from the Graduate Center at the City University New York (CUNY). Prior to joining Ashoka, he was an Assistant Professor of International Relations at Bogazici University (Turkey). He taught at the College of William and Mary, at Queens College (CUNY), and at Hunter College (CUNY) before. He was also a senior research scholar at New York University. Understand more about his research . 

Ashokaā€™s Research Quest Campaign 

Ashoka Research Quest is a newly launched campaign that showcases the in-depth research that 51²č¹Ż offers. This will be a recurring affair. Get an insight into various subjects through a detailed conversation with the faculty. 

So, letā€™s talk about research!  

51²č¹Ż

#AshokaBookTower – ā€˜International Aid and Democracy Promotionā€™ ā€“ Written by Prof Bann Seng Tan, the book is a powerful revelation of foreign aid and political liberalisation

Synopsis: 

International Aid and Democracy Promotion investigates the link between foreign aid and the promotion of democracy, using theory, statistical tests, and illustrative case studies. The book challenges the field of development to recognise that democracy promotion is unlike other development goals. With a goal like economic development, the interests of the recipient and the donor coincide; whereas, with democratisation, authoritarian recipients have strong reasons to oppose what donors seek. The different motivations of donors and recipients must be considered if democracy aid is to be effective. The author examines how donors exercise their leverage over aid recipients, and, more importantly, why, using selectorate theory to understand the incentives of both aid donors and recipients. International Aid and Democracy Promotion will be of great interest to academics and students of development and democratisation, as well as policy makers with authority over foreign aid allocation.  

In conversation with the author, Bann Seng Tan, Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Relations, 51²č¹Ż. 

Please give an insight into your book International Aid and Democracy Promotion: Liberalization at the Margins.  

Many years ago, I was teaching at Queens College, City University New York. I invited political scientist  to give a guest lecture in one of my classes. I expected him to reject the invitation but was pleasantly surprised that he accepted the invitation. It turned out he has personal ties to and fond memories of Queens College.

 I asked about his research and was surprised at his interest in foreign aid. The topic was far removed from my dissertation focus on democratic peace. Back then, as a PhD candidate, I was on the lookout on new research interests. Intrigued, I started to pay attention to the politics of foreign aid. I was fascinated by the complexity of the politics behind development even though the absolute values of foreign aid, relative to national budgets, are trivial. 

I learnt an important lesson from Bruce that in some political situations, the signal that is important is the fact there was an agreement rather than the absolute amount that was agreed upon. In aid-for-policy deals, the absolute monetary value of the foreign aid is typically small. However, the fact that both the donor and recipient must agree in order for the deal to exist is significant in itself. This key insight is what I applied to the book.  

The book seeks to understand the conditions under which aid donors choose to apply diplomatic pressure upon aid recipients. What accounts for the willingness of aid donors to exert pressure only on some recipients and not others? If we can understand the bargaining dynamics between donors and recipients, we can identify those that are susceptible to donor pressure. What is more, we can then use this information to nudge authoritarian aid recipients towards democracy. This book articulates a strategy to do just that. 

What was the motivation behind writing this book?We already live in an age of feckless democracies and resurgent authoritarianism. Compounding this is the pandemic, where I expect the world to turn even more authoritarian as people give in to their fears. Not everyone is content to celebrate the end of the liberal international order. This book is my small attempt to push in the other direction.  

Please talk about both qualitative and quantitative research methodologies you have used in this book to support your argument.

I use both qualitative and quantitative methods in the book. The argument advanced in the book requires me to classify potential recipients according to their bargaining leverage. This is done in order to identify a set of countries that at different points in time, may be amenable to democracy promotion. Using statistics from cross-national data, I provide evidence that some recipients can be persuaded to politically liberalise in exchange for aid. I extend the model to differentiate between the economic and geostrategic value of recipients. I also account for the regional dynamics of Asia and Africa. Qualitatively, I conduct case studies that illustrate the situations when donor pressure fails (the case of Egypt) and when it can succeed (the cases of Fiji and of Myanmar). 

"The different motivations of donors and recipients must be considered if democracy aid is to be effective.ā€ Your comment. 

A key concept I inculcate in my classes is the incentive structure of key political actors. Not every actor shares the same objectives. The authoritarian leadership of aid recipients oppose the political reforms that donors seek. Assuming they want the aid money, what counteroffers in lieu of democracy promotion can they make to donors in exchange for the desired aid? 

 Likewise, actors, being strategic, can deliberately misrepresent their public preferences. Aid donors may claim publicly that they seek democracy promotion while accepting deals with authoritarian recipients that exclude political reforms privately. In other words, the decisions of donors to accept an aid deal that does not involve democratisation, is more revealing of the true preferences of donors than their public declarations. I focus on their deeds, not their words. 

The point is that any serious attempt to promote democracy must consider both the disinterest of donors and the pushback by authoritarian recipients simultaneously. 

How do you strategically use foreign aid to nudge authoritarian aid recipients towards political liberalisation? Your argument.  

We should take both the reluctance of Western donors and the pushback by recipients seriously. Since political liberalisation hurts authoritarian recipients, they can be expected to offer alternative policy concessions for the aid and in lieu of democratisation. Those recipients who have the economic and strategic attributes that donorsā€™ desire should have an easier time making counteroffers.  

Donors, on their part, accept such counteroffers because democracy promotion is less valuable than the economic and strategic policy concessions that recipients might also offer. For instance, the US might seek Pakistani cooperation in counterterrorism operations against the Taliban and the political liberalisation of the Pakistani regime. When the US is forced to choose between a democratic Pakistan that refuse to cooperate in counterterrorism or an authoritarian Pakistan that support American counterterrorism, it will choose the later. This preference is not unique to the US, the data suggest most Western donors operate in a similar manner. This means that Western donors value democracy promotion only as in so far as it does not affect policy concessions with a higher priority.

Putting the calculus of the two sides (donors and recipients) together, I infer that some recipients like Egypt, will have leverage against the West and are effectively immune to donor pressure. It also implies some recipients, like Fiji, will lack the attributes to make counteroffers attractive enough to the West. This implies these ā€œsecondary recipientsā€ are more likely to liberalise. Thus, secondary recipients should be the proper emphasis of democracy aid. If we filter recipients by their leverage, democracy promotion with aid need not be a lost cause.   

Any anecdote while writing the book that you wish to share.  

The core argument was fleshed out in the two years of my visiting assistant professorship at William and Mary. The book itself, however, took over five years to write. There were two periods when circumstances facilitated productivity. The first was from 2016-2017 or the years spent living in Bogazici University, Turkey. It was also the period when Turkey accelerated its turn to authoritarianism.  The second period was the first four months of 2020 at 51²č¹Ż.  It was also the period of the pandemic and the inept responses by those in authority.  

I suppose when life gives you lemons, make lemonade! 

Would you like to talk a little about your current and future projects? 

Even though this book is done, there remains the task of book publicity, of which this interview is part of!  

My next project is to return my dissertation on the democratic peace and work on its conversion into a book manuscript. After that is done, which will take some time, I aim to restart my secondary research project on the political economy of natural disasters.  

Anything else you would like to share.  

51²č¹Ż generously funded Open Access for this book. This means students can get a digital copy of the book for free.  

I thank 51²č¹Ż for that funding. Not many universities are willing to invest into their faculty at a time of budget crunch induced by the pandemic. For that, I am grateful. 

The writing of my first book has been instructive. There are nuances I am learning that I was not aware of beforehand.  I will learn from this and be more efficient the second time round.  

To know more about Bann Seng Tan, click here. You can order the book . 

Reviews of International Aid and Democracy Promotion

"International Aid and Democracy Promotion is the all-too-rare example of thoughtful theorizing and testing that is crafted into a powerful, politically meaningful, plausible program for improving political liberalization. Bann Seng Tan has contributed significantly to the theory of foreign aid; to rigorous empirical tests of his theoretically-developed hypotheses; to nuanced regional and case study analyses that nail down what can work and what cannot work in inducing greater political accountability; and he has done so in a way that opens the path to actual improvement in the well-being of people around the world. International Aid and Democracy Promotion does what the best social science should and can do. It is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand how to promote better governance or, for that matter, better social science." ā€” Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, Julius Silver Professor of Politics at New York University, USA 

"This is a must-read book for scholars and students of democracy promotion. Bann Seng Tan employs both quantitative and qualitative evidence to test and further develop a political economy model that incorporates geopolitical salience, domestic politics, and the bargaining power of the governments that receive foreign assistance ā€” not just those providing it. The book explains the success and failure of democracy promotion efforts in specific cases, but also suggests how donors can deploy such assistance more effectively." ā€” Michael J. Tierney, George and Mary Hylton Professor of Government and Director of the William & Mary Global Research Institute, USA

"This book offers a refreshing perspective on the international dimension of democratization and delineates the conditions under which democratic aid can, in fact, be effective. Using selectorate theory and informed by strategic leveraging and bargaining processes among donors and recipients, the author combines originally compiled big data analysis with careful case studies from Africa and Asia (as well as wide range of recipient countries such as Myanmar, Fiji, and Egypt). He meticulously demonstrates the importance of the incentives of both the donors and the recipients in this "game of democratic aid." This book will be of great value not only to the foreign aid community but also to politicians and policy makers, who, in this world of persistent democratic backsliding, do not lose hope and aim to navigate effectively so as to "nudge" the autocrats in the right direction." ā€” Mine Eder, Professor of Political Science and International Relations at BoğaziƧi University, Turkey 

"This book ties theory and the application of aid in the promotion of democratization to selected country case studies. The topic is both interesting and timely for testing a number of hypotheses in the literature including how such aid favours incumbent regimes and the inability of donors to stay focussed on original goals over time. It is also thoughtful in its reflections on older questions like the linkage between aid and development on the one hand and democratization on the other. This book is a welcome addition to the studies on political development in general and the circumstances surrounding the onset and consolidation of democracy." ā€” Narayanan Ganesan, Professor of Southeast Asian Politics at Hiroshima Peace Institute at Hiroshima City University, Japan 

About #AshokaBookTower 

The #AshokaBookTower campaign showcases books written by our faculty and staff. The campaign aims to highlight the rich variety of subjects and intensive scholarship these books represent. An in-depth conversation with the author will also give a glimpse into what went into the writing of the book. This will be a recurring affair and will highlight some of the newest launches as well as the old collection.  Do follow us on social media ( |  |  | ) to know more about the campaign!

Written by Shreya Chatterjee

51²č¹Ż