Research
My work takes up the challenge of theorizing borderlands as unique geopolitical spaces and local populations as central actors. Knowledge about the causes and effects of border hardening is abundant, but little is understood about its “on-the-ground” politics. Local communities are unique not only in directly experiencing the hardening trend but in their opportunity to engage with neighboring societies. Given this position, my agenda examines local communities and border hardening on multiple axes: (1) local contestation and accommodation over hardening, (2) psychological adaptation as states expand their presence in border areas, and (3) the influence of bottom-up demands on the content of border policy.
Publications
Jeffrey Coltman-Cormier. 2026. “The Local Politics of Border Hardening: Transnationality, Resistance, and Accommodation.” International Studies Quarterly (Forthcoming). PDF
States are increasingly hardening borders. Scholars have uncovered various causes and effects of this phenomenon, but local reactions to it are less understood. This study takes up the challenge of theorizing borderlands as unique geopolitical spaces in order to explain why the communities therein sometimes resist hardening. Borderland communities that are highly transnational are more likely to have both the inclination and the capacity to mobilize against new restrictions. Yet, when a hardening strategy is designed in ways that meaningfully preserve interaction and exchange across borders, resistance is less likely. This theory is both tested and developed via a mixed-methods design leveraging the COVID-19 pandemic during which most states closed borders. Global quantitative analysis finds that an original geospatial measure of transnationality predicts local protest and riot events against closures. Interviews in two U.S. communities near the border with Mexico, which are highly transnational but did not demonstrate against the closure, show that the policy’s accommodation of key flows alleviated the negative impact. Such selective bordering, narrow in its targets, reduces discontent. The findings of this study highlight domestic conflict in international border politics, showing that local communities are focal actors that deserve more attention.