DOCSLIB.ORG

Negotiating Agreement in Politics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Negotiating Agreement in Politics Negotiating Agreement in Politics edited by Jane Mansbridge and Cathie Jo Martin with Sarah Binder, Frances Lee, Nolan McCarty, John Odell, Dustin Tingley & Mark Warren A MERIC A N P OLITIC A L S CIENCE A ss OCI A TION | T as K F ORCE R E P ORT | 2013 Negotiating Agreement in Politics Report of the Task Force on Negotiating Agreement in Politics Edited by Jane Mansbridge and Cathie Jo Martin December 2013 American Political Science Association 1527 New Hampshire Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036-1206 Copyright 2013 by the American Political Science Association. All rights reserved. ISBN: 978-1-878147-47-9 Task Force on Negotiating Agreement in Politics Task Force Members Jane Mansbridge, Harvard University, APSA President 2012-2013 Cathie Jo Martin, Boston University Linda Babcock, Carnegie Mellon University Michael Minta, University of Missouri André Bächtiger, University of Lucerne Robert Mnookin, Harvard University Law School Max Bazerman, Harvard Business School Andrew Moravcsik, Princeton University Sarah Binder, George Washington University Kimberly Morgan, George Washington University Emile Bruneau, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Daniel Naurin, University of Gothenburg Max Cameron, University of British Columbia John Odell, University of California, Co-Chair Andrea Campbell, Massachusetts Institute of Technology David Rand, Yale University Simone Chambers, University of Toronto Christine Reh, University College London Thomas Edsall, Columbia and New York Times Laurie Santos, Yale University John Ferejohn, Stanford & New York University Rebecca Saxe, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Morris Fiorina, Stanford University Eric Schickler, University of California, Berkeley Robert Frank, Cornell University Melissa Schwartzberg, Columbia University Torben Iversen, Harvard University James Sebenius, Harvard University Alan Jacobs, University of British Columbia Janice Gross Stein, University of Toronto Robert Keohane, Princeton University Cass Sunstein, Harvard University Law School Andrew Kydd, University of Wisconsin Yael Tamir, Shenkar College of Engineering and Design Geoffrey Layman, University of Notre Dame Dennis Thompson, Harvard University James A. Leach, University of Iowa School of Law Dustin Tingley, Harvard University, Co-Chair Frances Lee, University of Maryland Sonia Wallace, Rutgers University Ashley Leeds, Rice University Barbara Walter, University of California, San Diego George Lowenstein, Carnegie Mellon University Mark E. Warren, University of British Columbia Julia Lynch, University of Pennsylvania Melissa Williams, University of Toronto Fen Hampson, Carleton University Cornelia Woll, Sciences Po Thomas Mann, Brookings Institution I. William Zartman, Johns Hopkins University Nolan McCarty, Princeton University Jonathan Zeitlin, University of Amsterdam ii American Political Science Association Table of Contents TASK FORCE MEMBERS ...................................................... .II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................... V EXECUTIVE SUmmARY ...................................................... VI INTRODUCTION 1. NEGOTIATING POLITICAL AGREEMENTS ..................................... 1 Michael Minta, University of Missouri Cathie Jo Martin Robert Mnookin, Harvard University Law School Andrew Moravcsik, Princeton University Kimberly Morgan, George Washington University STALEMATE IN THE UNITED STATES Daniel Naurin, University of Gothenburg 2. CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF POLARIZATION ............................. 19 John Odell, University of California, Co-Chair Michael Barber and Nolan McCarty David Rand, Yale University Working group: Andrea Campbell, Thomas Edsall, Morris Fiorina, Christine Reh, University College London Geoffrey Layman, James Leach, Frances Lee, Thomas Mann, Michael Laurie Santos, Yale University Minta, Eric Schickler, and Sophia Wallace Rebecca Saxe, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Eric Schickler, University of California, Berkeley 3. MAKING DEALS IN CONGRESS ............................................. 54 Melissa Schwartzberg, Columbia University James Sebenius, Harvard University Sarah Binder and Frances Lee Janice Gross Stein, University of Toronto Cass Sunstein, Harvard University Law School THE PROBLEM: NEGOTIATION MYOPIA; THE SOLUTION: DELIBERATIVE Yael Tamir, Shenkar College of Engineering and Design NEGOTIATION Dennis Thompson, Harvard University 4. NEGOTIATION MYOPIA .................................................. 73 Dustin Tingley, Harvard University, Co-Chair Chase Foster, Jane Mansbridge, and Cathie Jo Martin Sonia Wallace, Rutgers University Barbara Walter, University of California, San Diego Working group: Linda Babcock, Max Bazerman, Emile Bruneau, George Mark E. Warren, University of British Columbia Loewenstein, David Rand, Robert Frank, Robert Mnookin, Laurie Santos, Rebecca Saxe, and Cass Sunstein Melissa Williams, University of Toronto Cornelia Woll, Sciences Po I. William Zartman, Johns Hopkins University Jonathan Zeitlin, University of Amsterdam Task Force on Negotiating Agreement in Politics iii Table of Contents 5. DELIBERATIVE NEGOTIATION ............................................... 86 Mark Warren and Jane Mansbridge Working group: André Bächtiger, Maxwell A. Cameron, Simone Chambers, John Ferejohn, Alan Jacobs, Jack Knight, Daniel Naurin, Melissa Schwartzberg, Yael Tamir, Dennis Thompson, and Melissa Williams INSTITUTIONS AND RULES OF COLLECTIVE POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT 6. CONDITIONS FOR SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATION: LESSONS FROM EUROPE .......... 121 Cathie Jo Martin Working group: Andrew Moravcsik, John Ferejohn, Torben Iversen, Alan Jacobs, Julia Lynch, Kimberly Morgan, Christine Reh, Cornelia Woll, and Jonathan Zeitlin 7. NEGOTIATING AGREEMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS .................... 144 John S. Odell and Dustin Tingley Working group: Fen Osler Hampson, Andrew H. Kydd, Brett Ashley Leeds, James K. Sebenius, Janice Gross Stein, Barbara F. Walter, and I. William Zartman iv American Political Science Association Acknowledgements We are grateful to Kimberly Mealy, Michael Brintnall and Steven Smith at the APSA for their dedication and help in this project. Chase Foster provided exemplary research assistance, while Bruce Jackan and Juanne Zhao of the Ash Center at the Kennedy School were extremely helpful in the early stages of the project. We are grateful to many institutions and their supportive staff for making this project possible. We thank the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at the Harvard Kennedy School for supporting the Cognitive Bias Working Group, the US Working Group, and part of the European Working Group; the Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions at the University of British Columbia for supporting the Normative Working Group; the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University for supporting the International Relations Working Group; and the APSA for supporting part of the European Working Group as well as a meeting of representatives of all working groups at the 2013 Midwest Political Science Association annual meeting. In particular we thank the APSA for publishing this report and Liane Piñero-Kluge for her commitment, effort, and good will in the publication process. As always, Cathie Jo Martin thanks her husband and children – Jim, Julian and Jack Milkey – for their love and choice one-liners about the art of politics. Task Force on Negotiating Agreement in Politics v Executive Summary Negotiating Agreement in Politics The breakdown of political negotiation within Congress today is puzzling in several important respects. The United States used to be viewed as a land of broad consensus and pragmatic politics in which sharp ideological differences were largely absent; yet today politics is dominated by intense party polarization and limited agreement among representatives on policy problems and solutions. Americans pride themselves on their community spirit, civic engagement, and dynamic society, yet we are handicapped by our national political institutions, which often—but not always—stifle the popular desire for policy innovation and political reforms. The separation of powers helps to explain why Congress has a difficult time taking action, but many countries that have severe institutional hurdles to easy majoritarian rule still produce political negotiations that encompass the interests and values of broad majorities. This report explores the problems of political negotiation in the United States, provides lessons from success stories in political negotiation, and offers practical advice for how diverse interests might overcome their narrow disagreements to negotiate win-win solutions. We suggest that political negotiation is often essential to democratic rule, yet negotiating is difficult to do. First, the human brain makes mistakes that stymie even good-faith efforts. Second, our own Congress today faces greater structural obstacles to successful negotiation than at any time in the past century. Members of Congress themselves have identified many of the reforms within Congress that would produce such joint gains. We support those proposals with data from studies of the Congress, from Europe, from international relations, and from cognitive psychology. The Human Brain Our analysis throughout this report applies only to “tractable” situations in which both or all parties to a negotiation could gain. We use the term negotiation myopia to describe the inability to see these available joint gains. Chapter 4, titled “Negotiation Myopia,”
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Analyzing Change in International Politics: the New Institutionalism and the Interpretative Approach
    Analyzing Change in International Politics: The New Institutionalism and the Interpretative Approach - Guest Lecture - Peter J. Katzenstein* 90/10 This discussion paper was presented as a guest lecture at the MPI für Gesellschaftsforschung, Köln, on April 5, 1990 Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung Lothringer Str. 78 D-5000 Köln 1 Federal Republic of Germany MPIFG Discussion Paper 90/10 Telephone 0221/ 336050 ISSN 0933-5668 Fax 0221/ 3360555 November 1990 * Prof. Peter J. Katzenstein, Cornell University, Department of Government, McGraw Hall, Ithaca, N.Y. 14853, USA 2 MPIFG Discussion Paper 90/10 Abstract This paper argues that realism misinterprets change in the international system. Realism conceives of states as actors and international regimes as variables that affect national strategies. Alternatively, we can think of states as structures and regimes as part of the overall context in which interests are defined. States conceived as structures offer rich insights into the causes and consequences of international politics. And regimes conceived as a context in which interests are defined offer a broad perspective of the interaction between norms and interests in international politics. The paper concludes by suggesting that it may be time to forego an exclusive reliance on the Euro-centric, Western state system for the derivation of analytical categories. Instead we may benefit also from studying the historical experi- ence of Asian empires while developing analytical categories which may be useful for the analysis of current international developments. ***** In diesem Aufsatz wird argumentiert, daß der "realistische" Ansatz außenpo- litischer Theorie Wandel im internationalen System fehlinterpretiere. Dieser versteht Staaten als Akteure und internationale Regime als Variablen, die nationale Strategien beeinflussen.
    [Show full text]
  • PSC 760R Proseminar in Comparative Politics Fall 2016
    PSC 760R Proseminar in Comparative Politics Fall 2016 Professor: Office: Office Phone: Office Hours: Email: Course Description and Learning Outcomes Comparative politics is perhaps the broadest field of political science. This course will introduce students to the major theoretical approaches employed in comparative politics. The major debates and controversies in the field will be examined. Although some associate comparative politics with “the comparative method,” those conducting research in the area of comparative politics use a multitude of methodologies and pursue diverse topics. In this course, students will analyze and discuss the theoretical approaches and methods used in comparative politics. Course Requirements Class participation and attendance. Students must come to class prepared, having completed all of the required reading, and ready to actively discuss the material at hand. Each student must submit comments/questions on the assigned readings for six classes (not including the class you help facilitate). Please e-mail them to me by noon on the day of class. Students are expected to attend each class. Missing classes will have a deleterious effect on this portion of the grade. Arriving late, leaving early, or interrupting class with a phone or other electronic device will also result in a drop in the student’s grade. Students are not allowed to sleep, read newspapers or anything else, listen to headphones, TEXT, or talk to others during class. You must turn off all electronic devices during class. Any exceptions must be cleared with me in advance. Laptop computers and iPads are allowed for taking notes ONLY. I reserve the right to ban laptops, iPads, and so forth.
    [Show full text]
  • Phd in Political Science Comprehensive Examination Guidebook
    Department of Political Science __________________________________________________________ PhD in Political Science Comprehensive Examination Guidebook Contents Pages 2-3: Examination Overview and General Directions Pages 4-10: Reading Lists Page 4- Methodology Page 5- American Government Page 6- Comparative Politics Page 7- International Relations Page 9- Public Policy Page 11-13: Sample Questions for Written Examination Page 11- Methodology Page 12- American Government Page 12- Comparative Politics Page 12- International Relations Page 13- Public Policy EXAMINATION OVERVIEW AND GENERAL DIRECTIONS Doctoral students sit For the comprehensive examination at the conclusion of all required coursework, or during their last semester of coursework. Students will ideally take their exams during the fifth semester in the program, but no later than their sixth semester. Advanced Entry students are strongly encouraged to take their exams during their Fourth semester, but no later than their FiFth semester. The comprehensive examination is a written exam based on the literature and research in the relevant Field of study and on the student’s completed coursework in that field. Petitioning to Sit for the Examination Your First step is to petition to participate in the examination. Use the Department’s graduate petition form and include the following information: 1) general statement of intent to sit For a comprehensive examination, 2) proposed primary and secondary Fields areas (see below), and 3) a list or table listing all graduate courses completed along with the Faculty instructor For the course and the grade earned This petition should be completed early in the registration period For when the student plans to sit For the exam.
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics of Group Representation Quotas for Women and Minorities Worldwide Mona Lena Krook and Diana Z
    The Politics of Group Representation Quotas for Women and Minorities Worldwide Mona Lena Krook and Diana Z. O’Brien In recent years a growing number of countries have established quotas to increase the representation of women and minorities in electoral politics. Policies for women exist in more than one hundred countries. Individual political parties have adopted many of these provisions, but more than half involve legal or constitutional reforms requiring that all parties select a certain proportion of female candidates.1 Policies for minorities are present in more than thirty countries.2 These measures typically set aside seats that other groups are ineligible to contest. Despite parallels in their forms and goals, empirical studies on quotas for each group have developed largely in iso- lation from one another. The absence of comparative analysis is striking, given that many normative arguments address women and minorities together. Further, scholars often generalize from the experiences of one group to make claims about the other. The intuition behind these analogies is that women and minorities have been similarly excluded based on ascriptive characteristics like sex and ethnicity. Concerned that these dynamics undermine basic democratic values of inclusion, many argue that the participation of these groups should be actively promoted as a means to reverse these historical trends. This article examines these assumptions to explore their leverage in explaining the quota policies implemented in national parliaments around the world. It begins by out- lining three normative arguments to justify such measures, which are transformed into three hypotheses for empirical investigation: (1) both women and minorities will re- ceive representational guarantees, (2) women or minorities will receive guarantees, and (3) women will receive guarantees in some countries, while minorities will receive them in others.
    [Show full text]
  • Walter Richard Mebane, Jr. April 22, 2015 Home: 1722 Shadford Rd Office: Department of Political Science Ann Arbor, MI 48104
    Walter Richard Mebane, Jr. April 22, 2015 Home: 1722 Shadford Rd Office: Department of Political Science Ann Arbor, MI 48104 University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1045 phone: 607/592-0546 homepage: http://www.umich.edu/~wmebane FAX: 734/764-3522 email: [email protected] Born November 30, 1958 in Long Branch, New Jersey. EDUCATION: Ph.D. Yale University, New Haven, CT, December 1985 (Political Science). M.Phil. Yale University, New Haven, CT, December 1981 (Political Science). M.A. Yale University, New Haven, CT, December 1980 (Political Science). A.B. Harvard College, Cambridge, MA, June 1979 (Government). HONORS AND AWARDS: A.B. magna cum laude; Phi Beta Kappa; National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship (1979{1982); Danforth Graduate Fellowship (1979{1983); American Political Science Association Graduate Fellowship (1979); Midwest Political Science Association Brooks-Cole Award (1982); 1996 Harold Gosnell Award (with Jonathan Wand); Cornell University Robert A. and Donna B. Award for Excellence in Advising (2003-2004); Fellow, Society for Political Methodology (2009); Society for Political Methodology Software Award (2012). RESEARCH INTERESTS: American National Institutions and Elections, Political Economy, Political Behavior; Methodology (Statistics, Computation, Research Design); Mathematical Modeling (Formal Theory, Dynamical Systems); Election Forensics. WORK EXPERIENCE: Professor. Department of Political Science and Department of Statistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (9/07{). Visiting Professor. Department of Political Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (7/07{8/07). Visiting Scholar. Center for Basic Research in the Social Sciences, Harvard University (Spring 2004). Professor. Department of Government, Cornell University (7/03{6/07). Visiting Associate Professor. Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University (9/97{12/97).
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a More Democratic Congress?
    TOWARD A MORE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS? OUR IMPERFECT DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION: THE CRITICS EXAMINED STEPHEN MACEDO* INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 609 I. SENATE MALAPPORTIONMENT AND POLITICAL EQUALITY................. 611 II. IN DEFENSE OF THE SENATE................................................................ 618 III. CONSENT AS A DEMOCRATIC VIRTUE ................................................. 620 IV. REDISTRICTING AND THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE REFORM? ................ 620 V. THE PROBLEM OF GRIDLOCK, MINORITY VETOES, AND STATUS- QUO BIAS: UNCLOGGING THE CHANNELS OF POLITICAL CHANGE?.... 622 CONCLUSION................................................................................................... 627 INTRODUCTION There is much to admire in the work of those recent scholars of constitutional reform – including Sanford Levinson, Larry Sabato, and prior to them, Robert Dahl – who propose to reinvigorate our democracy by “correcting” and “revitalizing” our Constitution. They are right to warn that “Constitution worship” should not supplant critical thinking and sober assessment. There is no doubt that our 220-year-old founding charter – itself the product of compromise and consensus, and not only scholarly musing – could be improved upon. Dahl points out that in 1787, “[h]istory had produced no truly relevant models of representative government on the scale the United States had already attained, not to mention the scale it would reach in years to come.”1 Political science has since progressed; as Dahl also observes, none of us “would hire an electrician equipped only with Franklin’s knowledge to do our wiring.”2 But our political plumbing is just as archaic. I, too, have participated in efforts to assess the state of our democracy, and co-authored a work that offers recommendations, some of which overlap with * Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Politics and the University Center for Human Values; Director of the University Center for Human Values, Princeton University.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Representation Author(S): Jane Mansbridge Source: the American Political Science Review, Vol
    Rethinking Representation Author(s): Jane Mansbridge Source: The American Political Science Review, Vol. 97, No. 4 (Nov., 2003), pp. 515-528 Published by: American Political Science Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3593021 . Accessed: 16/08/2013 04:49 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Political Science Review. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 88.119.17.198 on Fri, 16 Aug 2013 04:49:00 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions American Political Science Review Vol. 97, No. 4 November 2003 Rethinking Representation JANE MANSBRIDGE Harvard University long withthe traditional"promissory" form of representation,empirical political scientists have recently analyzed several new forms, called here "anticipatory,""gyroscopic," and "surrogate" representation. None of these more recently recognized forms meets the criteria for democratic accountability developed for promissory representation, yet each generates a set of normative criteria by which it can be judged. These criteria are systemic, in contrast to the dyadic criteria appropriate for promissory representation. They are deliberative rather than aggregative.
    [Show full text]
  • Theda Skocpol
    NAMING THE PROBLEM What It Will Take to Counter Extremism and Engage Americans in the Fight against Global Warming Theda Skocpol Harvard University January 2013 Prepared for the Symposium on THE POLITICS OF AMERICA’S FIGHT AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING Co-sponsored by the Columbia School of Journalism and the Scholars Strategy Network February 14, 2013, 4-6 pm Tsai Auditorium, Harvard University CONTENTS Making Sense of the Cap and Trade Failure Beyond Easy Answers Did the Economic Downturn Do It? Did Obama Fail to Lead? An Anatomy of Two Reform Campaigns A Regulated Market Approach to Health Reform Harnessing Market Forces to Mitigate Global Warming New Investments in Coalition-Building and Political Capabilities HCAN on the Left Edge of the Possible Climate Reformers Invest in Insider Bargains and Media Ads Outflanked by Extremists The Roots of GOP Opposition Climate Change Denial The Pivotal Battle for Public Opinion in 2006 and 2007 The Tea Party Seals the Deal ii What Can Be Learned? Environmentalists Diagnose the Causes of Death Where Should Philanthropic Money Go? The Politics Next Time Yearning for an Easy Way New Kinds of Insider Deals? Are Market Forces Enough? What Kind of Politics? Using Policy Goals to Build a Broader Coalition The Challenge Named iii “I can’t work on a problem if I cannot name it.” The complaint was registered gently, almost as a musing after-thought at the end of a June 2012 interview I conducted by telephone with one of the nation’s prominent environmental leaders. My interlocutor had played a major role in efforts to get Congress to pass “cap and trade” legislation during 2009 and 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • CURRICULUM VITAE July 2012
    CURRICULUM VITAE July 2012 Robert Owen Keohane Professor of International Affairs Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs Princeton University [email protected] Office: 408 Robertson Hall Princeton, NJ 08544 609-258-1856 Higher Education: B.A., Shimer College, Mount Carroll, Illinois (1961), "with great distinction" (equivalent to summa). M.A. and Ph.D., Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1964 and 1966). Woodrow Wilson Fellowship (1961-62) and Dissertation Fellowship (1964-65). Sumner Prize (best Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Government), 1966. Previous Positions: Instructor to Associate Professor, Swarthmore College, 1965-73. Associate to Full Professor, Stanford University, 1973-81. Professor, Brandeis University, 1981-85. Professor, then Stanfield Professor of International Peace, Harvard University, 1985-96. James B. Duke Professor, Duke University, 1996-2005. Honors and Invited Memberships: Centennial Medal, Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, 2012. Honorary Doctorate, Science Po (Paris), 2006. Skytte Prize, Johan Skytte Foundation, Uppsala Sweden, 2005. Honorary Doctorate (Aeresdoktorer), University of Aarhus (Denmark), 1998. Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order, 1989. International Studies Association, Susan Strange Award 2012; Mentorship Award 1997 Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1983 – Member, National Academy of Sciences, 2005- Member, American Academy of Political and Social Science, 2006.- Member, American Philosophical Society, 2007- Corresponding Fellow, the British Academy, 2010- Fellowships: 1 Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, 1977-1978; 1987-1988; 2004-05. Guggenheim Fellowship, 1992-93. Bellagio Resident Fellowship, 1993. National Endowment for the Humanities, Frank Kenan Fellow, 1995-96. Visitor, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, N.J., 2008-09. Social Science Research Council, Senior Foreign Policy Fellowship, September 1987 August 1988.
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring the Research Productivity of Political Science Departments Using Google Scholar
    The Profession ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Measuring the Research Productivity of Political Science Departments Using Google Scholar Michael Peress, SUNY–Stony Brook ABSTRACT This article develops a number of measures of the research productivity of politi- cal science departments using data collected from Google Scholar. Departments are ranked in terms of citations to articles published by faculty, citations to articles recently published by faculty, impact factors of journals in which faculty published, and number of top pub- lications in which faculty published. Results are presented in aggregate terms and on a per-faculty basis. he most widely used measure of the quality of of search results, from which I identified publications authored political science departments is the US News and by that faculty member, the journal in which the publication World Report ranking. It is based on a survey sent appeared (if applicable), and the number of citations to that to political science department heads and direc- article or book. tors of graduate studies. Respondents are asked to I constructed four measures for each faculty member. First, Trate other political science departments on a 1-to-5 scale; their I calculated the total number of citations. This can be
    [Show full text]
  • Theda Skocpol | Mershon Center for International Security Studies | the Ohio State Univ
    Theda Skocpol | Mershon Center for International Security Studies | The Ohio State Univ... Page 1 of 2 The Ohio State University www.osu.edu Help Campus map Find people Webmail Search home > events calendar > september 2006 > theda skocpol September Citizenship Lecture Series October Theda Skocpol November December "Voice and Inequality: The Transformation of American Civic Democracy" January Theda Skocpol Professor of Government February Monday, Sept. 25, 2006 and Sociology March Noon Dean of the Graduate Mershon Center for International Security Studies April School of Arts and 1501 Neil Ave., Columbus, OH 43201 Sciences May Harvard University 2007-08 See a streaming video of this lecture. This streaming video requires RealPlayer. If you do not have RealPlayer, you can download it free. Theda Skocpol is the Victor S. Thomas Professor of Government and Sociology and Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University. She has also served as Director of the Center for American Political Studies at Harvard from 1999 to 2006. The author of nine books, nine edited collections, and more than seven dozen articles, Skocpol is one of the most cited and widely influential scholars in the modern social sciences. Her work has contributed to the study of comparative politics, American politics, comparative and historical sociology, U.S. history, and the study of public policy. Her first book, States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China (Cambridge, 1979), won the 1979 C. Wright Mills Award and the 1980 American Sociological Association Award for a Distinguished Contribution to Scholarship. Her Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States (Harvard, 1992), won five scholarly awards.
    [Show full text]
  • Benjamin Ginsberg Personal Data
    Benjamin Ginsberg Personal Data: Home Address: 10800 Tara Road, Potomac, MD 20854-1340 Home Telephone: (301) 983-3793 FAX: (301) 983-2965 e-mail: [email protected] Office: Department of Political Science Johns Hopkins University 341 Mergenthaler Hall 1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Baltimore, MD 21218 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (Baltimore) 410-516-5568; (Washington) 202-452-0763 Appointments: Johns Hopkins University, David Bernstein Professor of Political Science, 1992. Cornell University, Department of Government Instructor 1972, Assistant Professor 1973, Associate Professor 1978, Professor, 1983. Academic Background: The University of Chicago, Department of Political Science, B.A. 1968, M.A. 1970, Ph.D. 1973. Awards: University of Chicago Trustees' Scholarship, 1964-1968. NIMH Public Policy Fellowship, 1968-1972. John L. Senior, Post-Doctoral Fellowship 1972-1973. Cornell University Summer Research grant, 1973. Cornell University Jonathan R. Meigs grants, 1973 through 1991. Kellogg Foundation grant, 1985. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics grant, 1986. Taft Memorial Lecturer, University of Cincinnati, 1991. Exxon Foundation Lecturer, The University of Chicago, Committee on Social Thought, 1992. Oraculum Award for Excellence in Teaching, Johns Hopkins University, 1993. Private donor and foundation funding for the Johns Hopkins Washington Center, 1993 to present. George E. Owen Award for outstanding teaching and service, presented at commencement by the Class of 2000, Johns Hopkins University, June, 2000. Named outstanding undergraduate adviser, Johns Hopkins University, 2002. William Weber Lecturer in Government and Society, Kalamazoo College, 2004. President, National Capitol Area Political Science Association, 2002-04. Fellow, National Academy of Public Administration, 2010. Dean’s Award for Excellence in Research, 2014.
    [Show full text]