By: Megan Livengood

Developed at the University of Denver, the Pardee Institute's International Futures (IFs) model is now helping to shape how the world's leading industrial agency plans for decades ahead. Faster industrialization can be compatible with lower emissions when it is aligned with clean energy and equity goals, according to the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) flagship, Industrial Development Report 2026 (IDR 2026), released on November 26, 2025, during the Global Industry Summit 2025. In this report, UNIDO looks beyond the immediate future to explore how decisions around industrialization and development today can have transformative effects for the next generation.

For the IDR 2026, UNIDO, working with the Pardee Institute, used IFs, to understand how transformative megatrends, like demographic shifts and energy transitions, are likely to shape the future of industrialization and development. The analysis, led by Taylor Hanna and Abdelrahman Ibrahim and supported by Collin J. Meisel, José Solórzano, Yutang Xiong, and Pardee Fellows, Solikha Makhmatova, and Victoria Pepera, evaluates future scenarios for leveraging industrial development for growth in developing countries. The projections capture both the opportunities for inclusive and sustainable growth and the risks that industrial inequality will deepen if capabilities and investment remain concentrated.

The findings underscore what's at stake. Under the current path scenario, where existing policies and trends largely continue, IFs projections for 2050 estimate around 3.15 billion people living below the poverty line¹, 303 million people facing undernourishment, and a global temperature rise by roughly 2.3°C.

Using IFs, UNIDO then models two alternative futures for 2050: an industrialization push scenario and a clean energy and just industrialization push scenario. In the industrialization push scenario, 403 million fewer people are projected to live in poverty, and 33 million fewer people face undernourishment, but CO2 emissions rise by over 2% globally. In the clean energy and just industrialization push scenario, 525 million fewer people live in poverty, 52 million fewer people face undernourishment, and global CO2 emissions fall by 6%.

The launch of IDR 2026 and the adoption of Vision 2050 mark a critical turning point because UNIDO is grounding long-term industrial strategy in an integrated systems-based modeling approach rather than short-term analysis. Understanding how industrial growth interacts with energy systems, emissions, demographics, and human development over decades requires analytical tools capable of capturing feedbacks, trade-offs, and uncertainty.

Built on the International Futures (IFs) model, Pardee's empirical model enables policymakers to explore other development pathways, rather than a single trajectory. IFs enables analysis of how different development strategies may shape inequality, sustainability, and resilience over the long term.

The collaboration reinforces a core insight: building a sustainable and inclusive global industrial future will require not only technological and financial transformation, but also the analytical tools to understand where the world is headed and what alternative paths are possible.

 

1. World Bank defined upper-middle-income poverty line of $8.30 per person per day

As part of DU’s effort to spotlight high-impact research and student experiences, the new “Discover the Difference” feature highlights the Pardee Institute’s distinctive contributions. It presents IFs as a world-leading forecasting platform and underscores Pardee’s long-standing partnerships with global institutions. The piece also emphasizes the Institute’s hands-on engagement of 88 DU students, demonstrating how Pardee links academic training to real policy application. Overall, it positions Pardee as a strategic asset advancing DU’s mission and shaping informed global futures.  

“Discover the Difference” is part of a broader institutional effort to elevate research visibility, highlight student-centered impact, and strengthen DU’s public identity as a university producing meaningful, real-world outcomes. 

By: Sylvia Morna Freitas

The Frederick S. Pardee Institute for International Futures, in partnership with Octopus Energy and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), shaped the analytical foundation of the report Charged for Change: The case for renewable energy in climate action, which presents a vision for how renewable energy can simultaneously drive climate action and sustainable development. “Universal electricity and clean cooking access”, a global GDP boost of $48 trillion USD, and the end of extreme poverty for 193 million people are all achievable within a 1.5°C-aligned future, the report finds in its Renewable Acceleration and Sustainable Development Goals (RA+SDG) scenario.  

For the report, the Pardee Institute used its International Futures (IFs) model to quantify the impacts of three future scenarios of renewable climate action, or inaction, to provide an evidence-based foundation for revising and implementing Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) from the Paris Agreement for over 120 countries. These countries are supported by the UNDP’s Climate Promise: Pledge to Impact Programme, which is a commitment by the UNDP to help countries reach their NDCs by implementing needed programs.  

The Institute’s International Futures (IFs) model was used to compare the Base Case, Renewable Acceleration (RA), and Renewable Acceleration + SDGs (RA+SDG) scenarios. In the report, the Base Case forecasts our trajectory under current policies while the Renewable Acceleration pathway simulates a world with ambitious, integrated renewable energy policy. The RA+SDG scenario simulates a world with similar integrated renewable energy policy and the advancement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).  

Under current policy trajectories (the Base Case scenario), global temperatures are projected to rise by 2.6°C by 2060, leaving 400 million people without electricity, 700 million without clean cooking access, and 380 million in extreme poverty. The RA scenario, on the other hand, envisions a world where renewable energy transition is accelerated in line with the decision at the first global stocktake which calls on countries to triple renewable energy, double energy efficiency and phase out fossil fuels. This pathway would put the world on track to limiting global average temperature rise to below 2°C. 

In stark contrast, the RA+SDG scenario envisions universal access to electricity and clean cooking, lifting 193 million people out of extreme poverty and reducing undernutrition for 142 million. It also brings safe water and sanitation to 550 million more people and boosts agricultural productivity by up to 40% in low- and middle-income economies. Such a transition contributes an additional $48 trillion USD to global GDP by 2060, increases per capita income by $6,000, and saves $20.4 trillion through improved energy efficiency and lower renewable energy costs.  

These findings suggest that a just, 1.5°C-aligned energy future with economic gains is possible. They also help bridge the gap between climate ambition and real-world development outcomes, particularly in emerging economies. Countries like Nigeria, Indonesia, Ecuador, and Türkiye could reach 80–94% renewable energy shares by 2060, lifting millions out of poverty and bringing SDG targets within reach. 

Importantly, these findings challenge the false dichotomy that pits climate action against sustainable development and provides pathways where both aims are mutually beneficial, and within reach. In a world grappling with climate instability and widening inequality, this kind of evidence-based foresight is essential—and urgently needed. 

By: Wara Irfan

Frederick S. Pardee Institute for International Futures, in collaboration with UNICEF Innocenti’s Global Office of Research and Foresight and the African Union Development Agency–NEPAD (AUDA‑NEPAD), has released a new foresight report titled Unlocking the Potential of AfCFTA for Africa’s Young Population, exploring how the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) could transform outcomes for children and youth across Africa.   

Using the Pardee Institute’s International Futures (IFs) model, the report compares three scenarios: continuing current trade patterns without AfCFTA (referred to as the Current Path scenario), full AfCFTA implementation (AfCFTA scenario), and AfCFTA plus strategic reinvestment of trade revenues into education, welfare transfers, and research & development (R&D) (AfCFTA For Africa’s Young Population scenario). The report finds that a child-centered approach to the trade agreement is crucial for ensuring equitable and sustainable development in the region. 

Led by Pardee researchers Deva Sahadevan, Taylor Hanna, and Jonathan Moyer, the collaboration began in late 2023, alongside a 2024 contribution to UNICEF’s Global Prospects for Children report. Although the AfCFTA has been established, it has not yet been fully implemented across all African Union member states, so its full potential remains unrealized. Building on Pardee’s previous work on AfCFTA and intended to model the effects of a complete implementation of AfCFTA, the recent report uniquely leverages IFs’ bilateral trade model, covering all 55 African Union members, to capture both tariff and non‑tariff barriers, such as bureaucratic delays, which the model shows can suppress trade as strongly as tariffs themselves.  

The report finds that fully implementing the AfCFTA could boost intra-African trade by 97 percent and increase foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows by 20 percent by 2063, compared to the Current Path scenario. Moreover, the AfCFTA for Africa’s Young Population scenario is projected to generate far greater improvements in GDP growth and poverty reduction across Africa’s regions than the AfCFTA-only scenario.  

 Credit: Pardee Institute via UNICEF Innocenti  

However, it is the third scenario that can significantly amplify the benefits. Under the AfCFTA for Africa’s Young Population scenario, reinvesting cumulative AfCFTA revenue of around US$4 trillion, with US$2.4 trillion allocated to education, US$1.8 trillion to welfare transfers, and US$90 billion to R&D, yields multi-fold benefits by 2063. Africa’s GDP could rise to US$29 trillion (nearly US$3.5 trillion more than the no-AfCFTA scenario), 32.5 million people could be lifted out of extreme poverty, child stunting could fall by 3.4 million cases, malnutrition in children by 900,000, and female upper‑secondary graduation could increase by 72 million, narrowing longstanding gender gaps. 

By quantifying how trade gains can be ring‑fenced for child‑centered investments, the Pardee Institute provides governments and partners with key strategic policy actions. It recommends encouraging youth participation in AfCFTA implementation, creating transparent monitoring systems, reinvesting in human capital, establishing systems of accountability, and promoting public-private collaboration.  

The broader goal is to shift the narrative from merely economic integration to social transformation, with a particular emphasis on advancing the well-being of children and young people. Stakeholders can use Pardee’s insights in this report to design capacity‑building initiatives that foster digital, green, and STEM skills among the youth, consistent with emerging business models in the region. Aligned with the African Union’s Agenda 2063 and positioning the AfCFTA as a strategic development tool rather than merely a market‑access agreement, the findings underscore that investing in human capital today is essential to forge a healthier, better‑educated, and more prosperous Africa by 2063. 

By: Wara Irfan

While many experts forecast Russia’s long-term decline amid economic stagnation and isolation from the West, a new collaboration between the Frederick S. Pardee Institute for International Futures and the Stimson Center suggests a more complex and contingent future. In a recent commentary titled “Why Russia Isn’t Doomed” for The National Interest, Collin Meisel, director of analysis at the Pardee Institute, and Mathew Burrows, counselor at the Stimson Center, reveal that strategic realignment towards Asia, investment in Arctic infrastructure, and potential climate-related gains may sustain the Russia’s geopolitical relevance in the decades ahead. 

This commentary previews a few key insights from the Russia Futures 2035 project, a collaborative research effort between the Pardee Institute and the Stimson Center. Both organizations bring deep geopolitical expertise to forecast Russia’s future under various scenarios. In addition to contributing scenario modeling through the International Futures (IFs) platform, Pardee draws on its broader expertise in forecasting. By translating qualitative scenarios into modeled outcomes, this project aims to inform strategic planning for the U.S. administration and its allies as they navigate the evolving geopolitical landscape surrounding Russia. The full report will be published this summer. 

Among the preliminary findings revealed in their recent commentary for The National Interest, the authors note several structural advantages that may bolster Russia’s future standing despite its current isolation. Russia has created an alternative economic lifeline through its long-standing pivot to the East, deepened by infrastructure links and energy trade with China. Favorable public opinion in countries like India, ongoing diplomatic efforts within BRICS (a growing intergovernmental organization originally comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), and a recent treaty with North Korea are all contributing to the expansion of Russia’s influence in a shifting global order. Climate change may further benefit Russia by expanding arable land, increasing agricultural yields, particularly in the country’s northwest. 

However, Burrows and Meisel also point to vulnerabilities. Sustained conflict in Ukraine, declining technological capacity, and the emigration of educated and skilled youth may constrain Russia’s long-term development. Despite having immense renewable energy potential, structural barriers, such as the absence of a countrywide carbon pricing system, could hinder Russia’s ability to capitalize on its clean energy potential. While trade with China is booming, growing dependence on Beijing creates strategic vulnerabilities. Rising defense spending may further constrain social and economic development. Without meaningful reform or resolution of conflict, Russia may be unable to convert its latent strengths into lasting geopolitical gains. 

With novel and specific insights into how Russia’s future could unfold under different global conditions, stakeholders of this project, like the U.S. and its allies, can adjust their positioning to better neutralize these potential gains and even leverage them for economic and security gains of their own. 

 

By: Sylvia Morna Freitas

International Studies Quarterly published a new article authored by Institute Director Jonathan D. Moyer, Acting Director of Analysis Collin J. Meisel, COLT Project Manager Kylie X. McKee, and a larger team of researchers, making the Country and Organizational Leader Travel (COLT) dataset public for the first time. The COLT dataset is a research project at the Frederick S. Pardee Institute for International Futures that documents the travel of heads of government and state (HOGS) from 212 different countries from 1990 through 2024. The COLT dataset is the first of its kind. Accounting for 78,641 foreign trips as of 2023, the article delves into how the comprehensive and global nature of the dataset allows for “the first generalizable findings on the causes and effects of global leader travel.”  

In their ground-breaking article on the COLT dataset, the authors demonstrate the utility of the data through a series of statistical tests. First, they provide descriptive statistics about trends in HOGS travel over time. Second, they test the drivers and correlates of travel and use the analyses to evaluate causal relationships between leader travel and a variety of other factors. And third, they conduct a special exploration of the relationship between travel and trade with the first global dataset.    

Digging into the richness of the data, the authors highlight several interesting trends for the 1990-2023 period. For example, leaders averaged 10.9 international trips per year, and despite a significant decline in travel due to COVID-19, by 2023, leader travel reached a post-1990 high with 3,188 total trips occurring that year. The United States and European countries received the most visits, while countries like Palestine visited the most countries, and the African region had the fastest annual growth rate for visits at 4.5 percent. From the data, the authors found that democracies tend to travel more than autocracies, although there is significant variation at the country level. Additionally, countries with higher diplomatic influence, such as those in the European Union or North Atlantic Treaty Organization, received a disproportionate share of visits. 

The authors were then able to test theories about drivers of leader travel from previous research with a global dataset for the first time. “Our findings reinforce many explanations of what drives leader travel, showing that levels of development, material capabilities, economic and institutional interdependencies, conflict, distance, and homophily all matter,” the authors say in the article.  

Their analysis came to these conclusions by examining both monadic (country-year) and dyadic (country-pair-year) models. The findings show that material interests are a key factor influencing leader travel, with countries involved in economic exchanges—such as fossil fuel exports, foreign aid, and arms trade—experiencing more visits. Additionally, states involved in conflict are more likely to engage in diplomatic travel, possibly as part of efforts to manage or resolve conflicts. Another significant factor is the logic of homophily, where leaders tend to visit countries with similar political values or regime types, with shared voting behavior in the UN also correlating with more frequent bilateral visits. Geographical distance also plays a crucial role with greater distance between countries leading to fewer trips due to the increased costs of travel. In addition, the routine and reciprocal nature of visits is important, with regular diplomatic exchanges leading to more frequent travel.  

Overall, the authors findings demonstrate that diplomatic travel is driven by a combination of economic, political, and geographical factors that have been explored in past literature but can now be interrogated and probed more deeply with the COLT data. For example, prior literature claims “an increase in diplomatic travel is a leading indicator of increased trade.” The authors were able to test the robustness of this claim by testing the relationship between travel and trade across COLT’s global dataset, instead of just the two countries, China and the U.S., that the original study was based on. The authors find that while leader travel is a leading indicator of increased trade, increased trade is also a leading indicator of increased travel. In other words, the causal relationship is complex and bidirectional. 

The authors of the COLT project were motivated to create this dataset because of the under-investigation this topic has received in the past. Despite literature that highlighted the importance of HOGS visits vis-a-vis a variety of diplomatic factors, earlier studies were often limited to western or powerful countries, overlooking smaller, non-western states and limiting the reach of conclusions drawn on the causes and effects of leader travel. This previously unaddressed gap is where the COLT dataset is making a unique contribution. As the first public-access resource of its kind, the COLT dataset will further future research on “issues such as national prestige, public diplomacy, weaponized interdependence, and interstate conflict.” 

The COLT dataset is the product of several years of dedicated work from the authors of the new article and hundreds of undergraduate and graduate research aides at the Pardee Institute. A large part of what makes it possible for the COLT dataset to be so extensive is the large team of student employees that actively track and code new leader trips. Participation in the project also gives students at the University of Denver a unique opportunity to expand their professional and data management skills. The cross-sectional nature of COLT’s team, from the Pardee Institute’s director to undergraduate research aides, is indicative of the Institute’s wider innovative approach to generate useful research and help develop a new generation of experienced professionals in the field. 

The COLT dataset and codebook are freely available to the public and are included with the replication materials accompanying the article in the International Studies Quarterly. To access the dataset, click here. To read the full article, click here. 

COLT is part of the Institute’s Diplometrics Program. Diplometrics is funded by the U.S. government to better understand and measure relationships in the international system by gathering data, building tools, and conducting analysis. The project identifies international interactions that measure the depth and breadth of political, diplomatic, economic, security, and cultural ties between countries. The results and views expressed are those of the authors alone and do not represent the views of the U.S. Government. 

RadioEd co-host Jordyn Reiland chats with Assistant Professor Ajenai Clemmons about community policing and what people need to both be safe and feel safe. Listen to their interview here.

What makes you feel safe? Is it a familiar voice on the phone, a particular place, friends or family by your side, your spiritual beliefs or even a favorite blanket?

What about a person outside your personal circle, like a paramedic, a lifeguard, a firefighter or a police officer?

20-year-old Joseph said that people should feel safe around police officers, but that isn’t always the case in Durham, North Carolina—where he lives—and elsewhere.

He says, “I think that police officers almost have to have a—not necessarily nurturing aspect, but kind of like a—sense of safety about them. Because you should feel safe around police officers, you know? I don’t necessarily know how to put that in a word, but I think that you should definitely just feel safe around police officers.”

So how can police departments increase safety and earn trust in the communities where they work?

University of Denver Assistant Professor of Public Policy Ajenai Clemmons’ research answers these questions that can extend beyond North Carolina.

On this episode of RadioEd, co-host Jordyn Reiland chats with Clemmons about how the men she interviewed made sense of policing in their neighborhood—and what they needed to both be safe and feel safe.

Clemmons is an assistant professor of public policy at the Scrivner Institute. She researches the policing of marginalized communities in democratic contexts, particularly the United States and Europe. She teaches courses on the politics of the policymaking process, intersectional inequality, as well as state violence and local security.

More Information:

What the Durham Police Department Can Do to Enhance Safety and Earn Trust

Transcript

RadioEd S5E3: 

Guest: Ajenai Clemmons, Assistant Professor of Public Policy at the Scrivner Institute

Jordyn Reiland (00:04)

You're listening to RadioEd, the University of Denver podcast. I'm your host Jordyn Reiland.

What makes you feel safe? Is it a familiar voice on the phone, a particular place, friends or family by your side, your spiritual beliefs or even a favorite blanket?

What about a person outside your personal circle, like a paramedic, a lifeguard, a firefighter or a police officer?

20-year-old Joseph said that people should feel safe around police officers, but that isn’t always the case in Durham, North Carolina — where he lives — and elsewhere.

He says, “I think that police officers almost have to have a—not necessarily nurturing aspect, but kind of like a—sense of safety about them. Because you should feel safe around police officers, you know? I don’t necessarily know how to put that in a word, but I think that you should definitely just feel safe around police officers.”

So how can police departments increase safety and earn trust in the communities where they work?

University of Denver Assistant Professor of Public Policy Ajenai Clemmons’ research answers these questions that can extend beyond North Carolina.

Clemmons’ work around policing began in 2004 when she worked as a Community Relations Ombudsman in Denver. During that time Clemmons helped create a new government agency called the Office of the Independent Monitor.

Ajenai Clemmons (01:24) 

This was in response to some very high-profile incidents, some officer-involved deaths of civilians in Denver and so the city, the citizens rose up. The city came together across all agencies and volunteers from the community as well, to study new systems of civilian oversight that could improve transparency and accountability for public safety in Denver.

Jordyn Reiland (01:49)

The role of the Office of the Independent Monitor allows for an outside party to ensure law enforcement investigations are fair, thorough and timely and that any discipline is reasonable and appropriate.

Civilian oversight of law enforcement is something that's been around for some decades now, but it looks different in every city. Civilian commissions or boards exist in cities throughout the country including Los Angeles, Chicago, Kansas City, Missouri and Detroit.

Clemmons also spent time in Washington, D.C. between 2010 and 2015, where she was the policy director for a national professional association of Black state legislators.

At that time there were a series of high-profile shootings across the country, including Travyon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Sandra Bland and Freddie Gray.

Clemmons’ interest in policing of marginalized communities only grew from there.

In 2018 until just before the onset of the pandemic, she conducted in-depth interviews with 18- to 29-year-old African American men—like 20-year-old Joseph, who we heard from earlier. These men lived in the most economically distressed, high violent crime areas in Durham.

Clemmons’ work sought to understand how they made sense of policing in their neighborhood — and what they needed to both be safe and feel safe.

She acknowledged the challenges of conducting this type of research in the community and wanted to find ways to ensure people felt the most comfortable sharing their thoughts — positive or negative.

Ajenai Clemmons (03:10)

I went out on foot into these neighborhoods and recruited them. I was in barber shops, I was on basketball courts talking to young men during halftime and trying to pull them aside to see if they were interested in my study. I was hitting the streets. So we did these interviews in a private location. I wanted them to be confidential so that people could be candid. These are very complex feelings that people have, and I wanted them to feel that they could be vulnerable, that they could feel comfortable to be fully honest about whether their experiences were negative, whether they were positive or whether they were neutral, that they would have the full range to discuss whatever they wanted. I was very honored that they were so forthcoming. And they didn't sugar coat anything, and they didn't hold back. And it wasn't just..they were also self-reflective. They talked about what their experiences were like as kids, as youth, as teenagers, you know, being angry, whether they had a chip on their shoulder or not, or whether they were trying to stay out of trouble, and the kinds of ways that they... the kinds of things that they did to keep themselves safe.

Interlude

Jordyn Reiland (04:44)

Why don't people trust the police?

Ajenai Clemmons (04:46)

Yeah, this is a very big question. It's simple, but it's actually complex in a lot of ways. So in a nutshell, people don't trust police when they feel like they're not doing their jobs. They trust police when they feel under policed, when they feel that police are not competent, and I'll talk about that in a second. And they also feel they don't trust police. When they feel that police are being abusive and they're harming them. So they're sort of over policed, right? So these are the neighborhoods that I study. I literally study neighborhoods that are considered by their residents to be over policed and under policed. So in these communities, there's this intense police presence. Residents are stopped on foot or in their vehicles in a way they describe as constant, intrusive and harassing. They describe many officers as quick to accuse them of wrongdoing, right to curse at them and to use unnecessary and excessive force. Yet in these same neighborhoods, in spite of all the police activity going on, they still face high levels of crime, right? And that includes violent crime, and so this causes stress and insecurity on their part. So there's this sense that you know there are all these police around, but they're not there when you need them, right, or they're not in the right spots or focused on the right priorities, or they don't care about us.

When people feel abandoned and neglected, sometimes they distance themselves in return. And so it goes beyond this sense of trust or mistrust, it can breed legal cynicism. And cynicism is this orientation in which the law and agents of its enforcement, like the police and courts, are viewed as illegitimate. They're viewed as unresponsive and ill-equipped to ensure public safety, and that's a definition from Kirk and Papachristos. So it is very much a sense of feeling alienated. And that can go beyond police. It can extend to the judicial system writ large. But when this happens, when people don't trust police anymore and they are cynical toward them, it's rational from the perspective of looking at an individual, but it actually harms the community as a whole, because what happens is that people won't report crime as much, right? They won't cooperate with investigations, they won't serve as witnesses in the court of law as readily, and this can make it very hard to bring people who commit crimes to justice, and I'm not talking about, you know, unserious crimes. I'm talking about serious crimes. And so, you know, these folks are not held accountable, and they are, in fact, making the community less safe. And then this further breeds the cynicism. It's a vicious cycle, because then people see folks running around who are threatening the community, and so then they even feel further alienated, as they feel that the police don't care about them.

Jordyn Reiland (07:55)

Wow, that must be so challenging, and it kind of alludes to what you were talking about with the different meanings and thoughts about safety. And I think you said feeling safe and being safe, if that's correct. Could you talk a little bit about that?

Ajenai Clemmons (08:11)

So in general, a lot of people assume that if crime numbers go down, then they will feel more safe, and that's actually not true. The perception of safety is completely independent of whether or not you are safe or your risk level. So crime went down for years, decades even, and people's assessment of the risk of crime really hasn't changed. And sometimes it went up, even though the crime was going down, depending on where you were. So those are two different things, and it actually makes police, their job tougher, because they do have that accountability of bringing down the crime levels. But then people can feel that way regardless. And so then they have to dedicate some considerable resources to making people feel safer.

In this context, though, there really is unacceptable levels of violent crime and so even though it's a tiny proportion of the population that's carrying it out, it is significant. And in a lot of it, there are innocent bystanders that get caught in the middle. And in fact, out of the men that I interviewed, eight had been shot at least once, and four of those were folks who were caught in the crossfire who didn't have any idea who the shooter was or were mistaken by the shooter for someone else. And then additional men that I interviewed who literally were at a bus stop, waiting for their bus to arrive to go to work, and ended up having to dive for cover as bullets whizzed past them, because somebody saw somebody that they had been looking for, and then, just without regard to the circumstances, just opened fire. So there really is an extraordinary level of risk in these particular neighborhoods, and so it is important for people to both be safer and to feel safer, and so I wanted to make sure that I was being intentional in pulling out those two things in the interviews.

Jordyn Reiland (10:36)

One question that you asked stood out to me, and you said, “If you had a magic wand and could make a perfect interaction happen between an officer and a civilian, what would you do?” And you said you can choose any scenario. Did any of those answers surprise you?

Ajenai Clemmons (10:52)

On the whole, most answers tried to find some sort of win-win. They tried to find some sort of reconciliation between both parties and ensure that that was a positive interaction. And so it wasn't the case that most people's first thought was to just take care of the needs of the civilian. That in that perfect scenario, they really did seek a win-win. And so I was struck by that. A lot of the men did use their wishes to also undo the deaths of the men who had been killed that we talked about earlier, those high-profile deaths that had happened across the country, there was a recognition of that. And it was something that all but one interview we related to on some level, that they could see themselves in those men who had died, or in those people who had died. We certainly want to take into account the women who have been killed as well. So they actually use their magic wand to undo those deaths and to undo the harms that have happened.

Jordyn Reiland (12:10)

You highlight five themes that emerged as the most desired characteristics for officers, including those who are just communicative, invested composed and discerning and adaptive in their decision making. Can you paint a picture for me of the ideal police officer?

Ajenai Clemmons (12:30)

There is not one person that I spoke with who thought that being a police officer was an easy job. Folks were very quick to say it is a hard job. Not everybody should be a police officer, there are a lot of things to manage. It was about being constitutional. People were clear about that. It was making sure that you're observing people's rights, that people are innocent until proven guilty—that officers are truly just in how they enforce the law.

But it goes beyond that. Really, they wanted officers to have integrity. They wanted officers to be good people. And I think this is because this is really the most powerful person in their lives. They're the only person who can literally take life. And so it is important then that people who hold the most amount of power are actually good and righteous, and because you don't have the opportunity to see officers outside of these sort of emergency situations, or time pressure situations, you need other opportunities to observe their behavior, to know if they're trustworthy, right? To know if you can bring confidential information to them, to know whether they will keep confidence and so this is where you know they wanted to see officers' character on display. How do you do that? Well, they got to get in the community. They’ve got to get involved.

Jordyn Reiland (14:14)

Clemmons said that what surprised her about her research in Durham was people’s inherent desire to have a connection and a relationship with law enforcement.

Ajenai Clemmons (14:22) 

Now maybe because they can't tell who's a safe officer and who's not a safe officer, and because there's so much unpredictability that is possible in those interactions, having positive encounters and having incredibly scary negative encounters, the safer thing to do could be to avoid police. To try to minimize the possibility of an experience, right? To keep a low profile.

But that ideally in their heart of hearts, many wished that they could just casually walk up to a police officer, say hi, chat, check in, or have that police officer do the same. That in their ideal world, that's what the general relationship would be between the police and the community. That you would see officers jumping in and playing double dutch, or joining in a pickup game of basketball or guiding a young person and talking to them about healthy life choices that those officers would be leading by example, that they would be a fabric of the community, that they would be rolling up their sleeves, and serving food and soup kitchens. And so there were so many ways that they saw police as able to be a force for good that I didn't expect. I didn't expect that level of specificity and of richness and of desire in elevating, actually, the importance and the impact that officers could have.

I also want to add a quote that I think exemplifies this desire for a better relationship and what it would take in order for officers to build trust in the community. So I named this interviewee, Marcus, and he's 25. This is what he says:

“Get police to come out here in these neighborhoods where a lot of these people are getting shot and killed and do something. Make a difference. Go drop off flowers at some of these people's graves. Act like a human being. You want the community to trust you? Do something for the community. Communication. Do a fundraiser. Do a get together, throw a police parade, you know? How many cops are out here, genuinely just to protect and serve? If, instead of judging us, officers would be more prone to trying to get to know the people they see every day, we wouldn't have so many problems with law enforcement and young black men in the communities. Pull up to the basketball court, play some ball with us. Throw a football with us. They're all frisbee for all I care. But do something."

Jordyn Reiland (17:15)

Yeah that really gets to the heart of that aspect of trust building and community involvement and really harkens back to just wanting to have that dual interaction.

Ajenai Clemmons (17:28)

You know, sometimes we can overthink what it would take for officers to create connections. But the desire is already there. It just needs an opportunity to be tapped into. And so it can be so many simple little things that officers can do to connect with folks in a way that's authentic, in a way that's joyful, to have that organic experience. And so those are the things that I'll be researching in the future and working on – like matching officers, even, with opportunities to connect and in activities like anything from this basketball or something sports, to arts and crafts and music, and all sorts of things that young people and officers could take a joint interest in.

Jordyn Reiland (18:24)

Clemmons posed a question that went beyond policing and asked participants if they could have the full attention and concern of anyone in power to fix or improve anything in their life, what would it be?

Here’s one response that really stuck with her.

Ajenai Clemmons (18:37)

This is a quote that really moved me. This is from a young man, Joseph, who's 20 years old, and he said:

“I would tell politicians to more so hear the letter, not the law, of what's being said, and to try to understand people's feelings, not just what they're saying. What comes out of their mouth is ultimately influenced by how they feel. So, if you can understand how someone feels, then you're more so to meet their expectations, not just do what they tell you to do. To say it in other words, when you understand how someone feels, you're more so to not necessarily make the same mistake again, if they understand how we feel when they're reading the analysis and not just see what we're saying, but see in what we are saying, like how we feel, it would help them to make better decisions about how to accommodate what we're saying.”

This is at the heart of what I am trying to do as a researcher, is certainly capture their words, but also pair that with their underlying emotions to capture how they feel, so that when I'm sharing my findings and evidence with policy makers, that they're able to see both. That they're able to see the words, read the words, hear the words, but also understand what's behind that, what's underlying that, that subtext, so that they can properly receive that, understand it and then try to address it in the most appropriate way.

Interlude

Jordyn Reiland (20:29) 

Now you write that, in addition to the work that you've done in Durham, at least hundreds, if not thousands of jurisdictions across the country would also be well served by participants' insights and calls for action. How does your work translate beyond North Carolina?

Ajenai Clemmons (20:44)

In terms of the policy recommendations that come out of this report, it is the relationship building. It's also the transparency. It's also the accountability. I mean, if you're not cleaning up things and making it better, if you're not resolving the problems that you know exist in your department, then you're not going to improve that relationship. So, there are many... the hiring, the recruitment, the policies that are in place, the accountability to make sure that those policies are being adhered to, the training and that follow up with the relationship building are all key.

And in Denver, we're fortunate that Police Chief Ron Thomas has taken an interest in this work as well, and so he has already taken many steps in his short—he just recently took over, was appointed relatively recently, and has already started implementing more community outreach programs. And so has asked me to advise on what implementation would look like. And so my colleague Kate Sims and I are working on that with the police department. So, we'll be rolling out a program and evaluating that and measuring and seeing what works, what doesn't work and how to improve upon that. And I think it's commendable, to see a chief that is deeply interested in the evidence base and being a willing partner in the research process to see what can work and how to improve and make things better.

Jordyn Reiland (22:37) 

This report is based on interviews that concluded in March 2020 and a lot has happened in the United States as it relates to policing since that time. How do you think about these findings in 2024?

Ajenai Clemmons (22:49)

I believe the findings are still very much relevant in 2024. In the interviews, which ended in March, which ended at the at the onset of the pandemic, the men were very vocal about the deaths that preceded George Floyd, which happened three months after I ended the interviews And so they related very much to the men that they had seen, the people that they had seen in the media. They were concerned about that, they used their magic wand and one of my questions to undo their deaths. So, this was at the forefront. It was something that they thought about when they got pulled over by police. So, George Floyd was not new, in other words, sadly. It was not new to them at all. And so in that sense, I think that the findings still stand.

There have been some researchers that have found in terms of behaviors, like, for example, calling the police to report a crime, that those can be temporarily affected by high profile, very disturbing incidents, but that with time, the behaviors return to normal. And so there's a sort of eventual kind of snap back effect, for lack of a better term, that happens. So whether it's reporting crime, whether it's their likelihood of cooperating with investigations, or avoiding police – whatever police behaviors they had before, whether they were avoiding them, whether they were cooperating with them, all of that, I think, is still relevant. There haven't been a ton of reforms that have happened across the country, not in any kind of systematic way. And so the concerns that they have are still very much present in most jurisdictions, and to the extent that some things were done, not nearly enough, as far as they would be concerned, so the problem is still there. The concerns are still there, and what they were calling for still remains. So yeah, I mean taking all that into account, would say that the findings still stand.

Jordyn Reiland (25:33)

A big thanks to our guest, University of Denver Assistant Professor of Public Policy Ajenai Clemmons. More information on her work can be found in our show notes. If you enjoyed this episode, I encourage you to subscribe to the podcast on Apple Music or Spotify, and if you really liked it, leave us a review and rate our work. It really helps us reach a larger audience and grow the pod.

Joy Hamilton is our Managing Editor, Madeleine Lebovic is our production assistant and musical genius, and James Swearingin arranged our theme. I'm Jordyn Reiland and this is RadioEd.

Article written by Jordyn Reiland.

UNICEF and the Pardee Institute have released a report, Navigating the future: Four scenarios assessing child well-being in the twenty-first century. Authors Jonathan Moyer, director of the Pardee Institute, and Deva Sahadevan, research associate at Pardee, found that increased global cooperation, in tandem with high technological advancements and resource availability, promise the most sustainable future for younger generations worldwide.

These findings are useful, if not surprising. The authors arrived at this conclusion through simulating different future pathways along various points of intersection among those key domains of technology and cooperation. This methodology offers a proactive framework that can help policymakers promotes current and future well-being while mitigating the perverse effects of economic growth.

The authors apply a 2x2 scenario framework featuring scenarios grounded in combinations of high or low levels of technological innovation, resource availability, and international cooperation. These factors determine how future challenges such as climate change, resource distribution, and geopolitical tensions might affect children’s well-being. The scenarios are designed to evaluate long-term trends and their implications for children, with particular emphasis on regions most vulnerable to changes in development.

The resulting scenarios include possible futures of:

• Divided prosperity (our current path: high technology/resource availability; low cooperation);

• Global synergy (a better world: high technology/resource availability; high cooperation);

• Struggling together (not the best/not the worst scenario; low technology/resource availability; high cooperation); and

• Fragmented world (least ideal future: low technology/resource availability; low cooperation).

Using the Pardee Institute’s International Futures platform (IFs), the authors apply quantitative data from various sources, including economic indicators, health statistics, and environmental data, to define these scenarios and to project future well-being outcomes that are measured by economic output, extreme poverty, malnutrition, hunger, carbon emissions.

The global synergy scenario, the most ideal scenario, envisions a future where technological progress aligns with robust international cooperation, unlocking advancements in health, education, and environmental sustainability. Under this scenario, global GDP increases by 10.7%, while per capita GDP rises by 9.8%, accompanied by a dramatic reduction in global poverty—from 8.7% to just 0.4% by 2050. The scenario highlights clean energy infrastructure and lower carbon emissions, demonstrating how unified global efforts can foster a sustainable and prosperous world. However, its feasibility is questioned, given the current concentration of political power and the suspected depletion of Earth's resources.

The other three scenarios present fewer promising paths. The divided prosperity scenario, reflecting current trends, demonstrates significant GDP growth and reduced poverty, with 265 million fewer people living in extreme conditions and malnutrition halving by 2050. Yet, these gains come at the cost of escalating carbon emissions, worsened pollution, and rising global temperatures. The fragmented world scenario predicts slow technological and economic growth, with persistently high poverty levels and unaddressed critical issues like child malnutrition and mortality. Meanwhile, the struggling together scenario highlights the potential benefits of enhanced global collaboration, which lowers poverty and malnutrition rates. However, the lack of technological progress limits its ability to effectively address broader developmental challenges, like child development and technology.

The report concludes with broad policy suggestions based on the results of the 2x2 framework. The authors encourage the strengthening of international institutions to address global environmental issues while promoting economic equality, investing in children’s health and education, and fostering greater cooperation among governments and international communities. Read more about the scenarios, their results, and the authors’ recommendations here.

IFs is the only open-source integrated assessment platform and forecasting tool that employs a hybrid approach, combining systems dynamics, econometrics, and other quantitative techniques to forecast a range of interconnected, macro-level variables across human, social, and natural systems for 188 countries in one-year time steps, extending as far as the year 2100. These multifaceted dimensions of modeling are integral to forecasting potential outcomes for future generations on a global scale, considering both actual and hypothetical drivers of change. 

UNICEF - an international organization dedicated to advancing children’s well-being around the globe - and Pardee’s collaboration bridges the gap between global decision-makers and academic researchers, using data tools and policy knowledge to encourage and assist in creating a more sustainable and equitable world for children.  

 

By: Sylvia Morna Freitas

A new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change led by Marina Andrijevic of the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) argues for the importance of including gender dynamics and trends in the analysis of climate change. The study, co-authored by Caroline Zimm (IIASA), Jonathan D. Moyer, director of the Pardee Institute for International Futures, Raya Muttarak (IIASA), and Shonali Pachauri (IIASA), draws upon existing research to show that a direct relationship between gender equality and a society’s capacity to respond to climate change exists and is currently underexplored in quantitative models—a significant gap in research.

“Our work was inspired by growing evidence that when women lack opportunities, from access to primary schooling to having a say at top levels of government, it weakens the ability of entire societies to respond to crises, such as climate change,” Andrijevic says. The authors argue that issues of gender (in)equality are largely overlooked in scenario-based climate change research and show that this has implications for our ability to study patterns of mitigation and adaptation. When women do not have equal access to education or employment, the ability of women to contribute to climate mitigation is limited and, in some places, lost. This untapped potential both compounds the cost of climate adaptation and diminishes the capacity of a society to respond overall.

The Pardee Institute’s mission is to build data and tools to better understand and plan for the future. This publication furthers that mission by highlighting an important gap in research that can drive improvements in future models to help policymakers better assess risks and policy options. Understanding how gender and climate change overlap is crucial for building knowledge and crafting appropriate policy responses. For example, the authors show that men and women are more likely to face different climate-related risks. For women, there are increased risks to maternal health, undernutrition during droughts, and exposure to diseases while collecting water. Meanwhile, men are more likely to suffer from floods and storms, experience work-related heat stress, or face depression and suicide due to drought-related economic hardship.  By neglecting these dynamics, our current scenarios make a significant omission.

This work aligns with other research conducted at Pardee that uses gender as a lens. By modeling different patterns of gender equality in relation to unpaid domestic work, health, climate change, education, and poverty, the International Futures (IFs) model can be used to ask and explore a broader range of questions with implications for climate change and beyond.

By: Sylvia Morna Freitas

Collin J. Meisel, acting director of analysis at the Pardee Institute, and his colleagues have just finished their analysis of the Pardee Institute’s Perceived Mass Atrocities Dataset (PMAD) for 2024—and the news is grim. According to the global dataset, people living in 111 countries around the world experienced some form of mass atrocity in the past year.

Covering 196 countries, the dataset aims to determine the breadth and severity of humanitarian suffering in each country under a single metric. The PMAD highlights several regions where analysis of atrocities using data on lethal atrocities only would be inadequate. In the project, a mass atrocity is an act of violence against 25 or more defenseless members of a social, cultural, ethnic, religious, or political group. The acts are rated on a scale of “lethal to less lethal,” which provides a more nuanced scope of threats of human suffering worldwide. For example, 2024 saw a slight decrease in the number of lethal atrocities from 2023. Still, several types of “less lethal” atrocities—actions involving gross, intentional violations of human rights on a mass scale, short of murder—were more numerous.

But as grim as these reports are, the work Meisel and his team complete is integral to providing an evidence-based foundation for future action. “By systematically tracking these atrocities, we increase the chance that perpetrators will one day be held accountable,” says Acting Director of Analysis Collin Meisel.

Countries with the top 25 worst average values for all years from 2018-2024, sorted from highest to lowest. *Events for 2024 data still under review; values may be underestimated.

Chart: The Conversation, CC-BY-ND Source: Frederick S. Pardee Institute for International Futures, Perceived Mass Atrocities Dataset Created with Datawrapper

In addition, because the PMAD classes atrocities under a single metric, it provides a measure to facilitate research on the relationship between mass atrocities and a myriad of other interconnected factors, such as state stability and conflict, economic development, colonialism, and gender equality.

Having an empirical framework to tease out these relationships allows us to better understand the risk factors and consequences of mass atrocities within the larger fabric of the world.

PMAD is sponsored by the U.S. Government and built to support the U.S. Congress’s Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018, which was enacted to prevent acts of genocide and other atrocity crimes through the recognition of patterns of escalation and the methods that prevent them. Elie Wiesel was a Holocaust survivor and Nobel laureate who implored the world not to turn away from atrocities but to bear witness. PMAD is a manifestation of that charge and is one of various datasets used by the US Government for monitoring, evaluation, and learning about mass atrocities worldwide.

More here in The Conversation.