Christopher F. Karpowitz
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
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. -
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. -
What Triggers Public Opposition to Immigration? Anxiety, Group Cues, and Immigration Threat
What Triggers Public Opposition to Immigration? Anxiety, Group Cues, and Immigration Threat Ted Brader University of Michigan Nicholas A. Valentino The University of Texas at Austin Elizabeth Suhay University of Michigan We examine whether and how elite discourse shapes mass opinion and action on immigration policy. One popular but untested suspicion is that reactions to news about the costs of immigration depend upon who the immigrants are. We confirm this suspicion in a nationally representative experiment: news about the costs of immigration boosts white opposition far more when Latino immigrants, rather than European immigrants, are featured. We find these group cues influence opinion and political action by triggering emotions—in particular, anxiety—not simply by changing beliefs about the severity of the immigration problem. A second experiment replicates these findings but also confirms their sensitivity to the stereotypic consistency of group cues and their context. While these results echo recent insights about the power of anxiety, they also suggest the public is susceptible to error and manipulation when group cues trigger anxiety independently of the actual threat posed by the group. mmigration surged onto the national agenda follow- tervals throughout U.S. history (Tichenor 2002). Current ing the 2004 election, as politicians wrangled over episodes reflect mounting pressures from heavy immi- I reforms on what is perceived to be a growing prob- gration and an expanding Latino electorate. West Europe lem for the United States (U.S.). Public concern followed, also has experienced a rising tide of migrants, spurring with 10% of Americans by 2006 naming it the most im- bitter debates over how to deal with the newcomers and portant problem facing the country, the highest level in 20 a growth in electoral position taking (Fetzer 2000; Sni- years of polling by Pew Research Center. -
Competition and Cooperation
CONTRIBUTORS JAMES E. ALT is Frank G. Thomson Professor of Government and director of the Center of Basic Research in the Social Sciences at Harvard University. MARGARET LEVI is professor of political science and Harry Bridges Chair in Labor Studies, University of Washington, Seattle. She is also director of the University of Washington Center for Labor Studies. ELINOR OSTROM is codirector of the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis and the Center for the Study of Institutions, Population, and Environ- mental Change at Indiana University, Bloomington. She is also Arthur F. Bentley Professor of Political Science. KENNETH J. ARROW is Joan Kenney Professor of Economics Emeritus and profes- sor of Operations Research Emeritus at Stanford University. He is also director of the Stanford Center on Conflict and Negotiation. GARY S. BECKER is professor of economics and sociology at the University of Chicago. JAMES M. BUCHANAN is advisory general director of the Center for Study of Public Choice at George Mason University. NORMAN FROHLICH is professor of business administration at the University of Manitoba and senior researcher at the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation. BARBARA GEDDES is associate professor of political science at the University of California at Los Angeles. ROBERT E. GOODIN is professor of philosophy in the Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. RUSSELL HARDIN is professor of politics at New York University. BRYAN D. JONES is professor of political science at the University of Washington, Seattle. ROBERT O. KEOHANE is James B. Duke Professor of Political Science at Duke University. xi xii Contributors DAVID D. -
Rewriting the Epic of America
One Rewriting the Epic of America IRA KATZNELSON “Is the traditional distinction between international relations and domes- tic politics dead?” Peter Gourevitch inquired at the start of his seminal 1978 article, “The Second Image Reversed.” His diagnosis—“perhaps”—was mo- tivated by the observation that while “we all understand that international politics and domestic structures affect each other,” the terms of trade across the domestic and international relations divide had been uneven: “reason- ing from international system to domestic structure” had been downplayed. Gourevitch’s review of the literature demonstrated that long-standing efforts by international relations scholars to trace the domestic roots of foreign pol- icy to the interplay of group interests, class dynamics, or national goals1 had not been matched by scholarship analyzing how domestic “structure itself derives from the exigencies of the international system.”2 Gourevitch counseled scholars to turn their attention to the international system as a cause as well as a consequence of domestic politics. He also cautioned that this reversal of the causal arrow must recognize that interna- tional forces exert pressures rather than determine outcomes. “The interna- tional system, be it in an economic or politico-military form, is underdeter- mining. The environment may exert strong pulls but short of actual occupation, some leeway in the response to that environment remains.”3 A decade later, Robert Putnam turned to two-level games to transcend the question as to “whether -
Patterns of Democracy This Page Intentionally Left Blank PATTERNS of DEMOCRACY
Patterns of Democracy This page intentionally left blank PATTERNS OF DEMOCRACY Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries SECOND EDITION AREND LIJPHART First edition 1999. Second edition 2012. Copyright © 1999, 2012 by Arend Lijphart. All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, including illustrations, in any form (beyond that copying permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the US Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public press), without written permission from the publishers. Yale University Press books may be purchased in quantity for educational, business, or promotional use. For information, please e-mail [email protected] (US offi ce) or [email protected] (UK offi ce). Set in Melior type by Integrated Publishing Solutions, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Printed in the United States of America. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lijphart, Arend. Patterns of democracy : government forms and performance in thirty-six countries / Arend Lijphart. — 2nd ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-300-17202-7 (paperbound : alk. paper) 1. Democracy. 2. Comparative government. I. Title. JC421.L542 2012 320.3—dc23 2012000704 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. This paper meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48–1992 (Permanence of Paper). 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 for Gisela and for our grandchildren, Connor, Aidan, Arel, Caio, Senta, and Dorian, in the hope that the twenty-fi rst century—their century—will yet become more -
An Interview with Elinor Ostrom
Annual Reviews Conversations Presents An Interview with Elinor Ostrom Annual Reviews Conversations. 2010 Host: You are listening to an Annual Reviews prefatory interview. In Annual Reviews Conversations interviews are online this interview, Margaret Levi, editor of the Annual Review of Political at www.annualreviews.org/page/audio Science, talks with Elinor Ostrom. Professor Ostrom is the cofounder, Copyright © 2010 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved with her husband, Vincent Ostrom, and longtime codirector of the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis at Indiana University, and she now serves as its senior research director. She is currently the Arthur F. Bentley Professor of Political Science at Indiana University, as well as research professor and the founding director of the Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity at Arizona State University. She is cowinner of the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences. Margaret Levi: I have a couple questions that I am going to prime the pump with here, Lin, and then we can let conversation flow however it does. There are many things about your history and what you’ve done in your career that are immensely impressive and have broken all kinds of barriers. But one of the things that I’ve been most intrigued by, and which I know very few other people have achieved, is the way in which you have not only tolerated and encouraged a multiple-method 1 approach to how one does work, but how you’ve conquered so many different methods. You really are very au courant in just almost—first, you learned game theory, and you learned microeconomics. -
JANE JUNN Department of Political Science University of Southern California 327 Vonkleinsmid Center Los Angeles, CA 90089 E-Mail: [email protected] Phone: 908.399.6186
JANE JUNN Department of Political Science University of Southern California 327 VonKleinSmid Center Los Angeles, CA 90089 E-mail: [email protected] Phone: 908.399.6186 ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT 1993 – 1994 Rutgers University, Instructor of Political Science 1994 – 2000 Rutgers University, Assistant Professor of Political Science 2003 Columbia University Teachers College, Sussman Visiting Professor 2000 – 2009 Rutgers University, Associate Professor of Political Science 2002 – 2009 Rutgers University, Research Professor, Eagleton Institute of Politics 2009 Rutgers University, Professor of Political Science 2009 – present University of Southern California, Professor of Political Science OTHER PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS & APPOINTMENTS 1999 Senior Scientist, Knowledge Networks, Palo Alto, California 2000 – 2004 Director, Assessing Quality of University Education and Research, Association of American Universities, Washington, DC 2007 – 2008 Program Co-Chair, American Political Science Association 2008 – 2009 Faculty Director, Rutgers-Eagleton Poll 2009 – 2010 Vice President, American Political Science Association (APSA) 2009 – 2010 Administrative Committee, APSA Council 2009 – 2010 Research Director, USC College-Los Angeles Times Poll 2016 – 2017 Co-President, APSA Race, Ethnicity and Politics organized section 2017 – 2018 Vice President, Western Political Science Association (WPSA) 2018 – 2019 President, Western Political Science Association (WPSA) 2018 – 2020 Co-Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics EDUCATION 1985 A.B., University of -
Tanika Raychaudhuri
Tanika Raychaudhuri 001 Fisher Hall Princeton, NJ 08544 [email protected] http://www.tanikar.com Summary PhD candidate in American Politics at Princeton University, with a research focus on po- litical behavior, race and ethnicity, immigration, and inequality. Academic Postdoctoral Research Fellow August 2019 Appointments Center for the Study of Ethnicity, Race, and Immigration, University of Pennsylvania Education Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Politics September 2016 - August 2019 (expected) Princeton University, Princeton, NJ • Subfields: American Politics (Primary field); Comparative Politics; Empirical Methods (Quantitative and Qualitative) M.A., Department of Politics (GPA: 3.81/4.00) September 2014 - August 2016 Princeton University, Princeton, NJ B.A., Political Science (GPA: 3.98/4.00) September 2010 - May 2014 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI • Graduated with Highest Distinction, Phi Beta Kappa • Senior Thesis \Now You Are Speaking My Language: Informational and Priming Effects of Spanish-Language Political Advertising on U.S. Hispanic Voters." (with Highest Honors. Advisor: Nicholas Valentino.) • Minors in Applied Statistics and Sociocultural Anthropology Dissertation \The New Democrats: On the Social Roots of Asian American Partisan Political Behavior" • Committee: Tali Mendelberg (Chair); Martin Gilens; Dara Strolovitch Peer-Reviewed • Raychaudhuri, Tanika. 2018. \The Social Roots of Asian American Partisan Atti- Publications tudes" Politics, Groups, and Identities 3(6): 389-410. Works • \(Dis)enfranchised Citizens: -
American Political Science Review
AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW AMERICAN https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000060 . POLITICAL SCIENCE https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms REVIEW , subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at 08 Oct 2021 at 13:45:36 , on May 2018, Volume 112, Issue 2 112, Volume May 2018, University of Athens . May 2018 Volume 112, Issue 2 Cambridge Core For further information about this journal https://www.cambridge.org/core ISSN: 0003-0554 please go to the journal website at: cambridge.org/apsr Downloaded from 00030554_112-2.indd 1 21/03/18 7:36 AM LEAD EDITOR Jennifer Gandhi Andreas Schedler Thomas König Emory University Centro de Investigación y Docencia University of Mannheim, Germany Claudine Gay Económicas, Mexico Harvard University Frank Schimmelfennig ASSOCIATE EDITORS John Gerring ETH Zürich, Switzerland Kenneth Benoit University of Texas, Austin Carsten Q. Schneider London School of Economics Sona N. Golder Central European University, and Political Science Pennsylvania State University Budapest, Hungary Thomas Bräuninger Ruth W. Grant Sanjay Seth University of Mannheim Duke University Goldsmiths, University of London, UK Sabine Carey Julia Gray Carl K. Y. Shaw University of Mannheim University of Pennsylvania Academia Sinica, Taiwan Leigh Jenco Mary Alice Haddad Betsy Sinclair London School of Economics Wesleyan University Washington University in St. Louis and Political Science Peter A. Hall Beth A. Simmons Benjamin Lauderdale Harvard University University of Pennsylvania London School of Economics Mary Hawkesworth Dan Slater and Political Science Rutgers University University of Chicago Ingo Rohlfi ng Gretchen Helmke Rune Slothuus University of Cologne University of Rochester Aarhus University, Denmark D. -
Rochester Phd Program in Political Science
Rochester PhD Program in Political Science Contents Introduction to the Program......................... 1 Main Fields of Study in Political Science American Politics............................... 5 Comparative Politics.......................... 6 Formal Political Theory...................... 7 International Relations....................... 8 Political Methodology......................... 9 Rochester Political Economy....................... 10 Selected Faculty Publications...................... 11 Rules & Requirements................................ 17 Timeline of Milestones................................ 28 Introduction to the Rochester PhD Program in Political Science Rigorous Analysis of Politics Introduction The Ph.D. program in Political Science at the University of Rochester is designed to train scholars to conduct rigorous analysis of politics at the highest level. Students learn the most advanced formal and statistical techniques to address substantive problems in political science, while some develop the technical skills needed to do work in pure formal theory or statistical methods, and others acquire skills for qualitative or historical work. The program has a storied history and long tradition of excellence. After joining Richard Fenno in Rochester in 1962, William Riker pushed the department – and the discipline – in a new direction, creating the field of “positive political theory,” which uses modeling techniques from mathematics, prob- ability theory, and game theory to study political phenomena of interest. To reflect -
The Double Bind: the Politics of Racial & Class Inequalities in the Americas
THE DOUBLE BIND: THE POLITICS OF RACIAL & CLASS INEQUALITIES IN THE AMERICAS Report of the Task Force on Racial and Social Class Inequalities in the Americas Edited by Juliet Hooker and Alvin B. Tillery, Jr. September 2016 American Political Science Association Washington, DC Full report available online at http://www.apsanet.org/inequalities Cover Design: Steven M. Eson Interior Layout: Drew Meadows Copyright ©2016 by the American Political Science Association 1527 New Hampshire Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 All rights reserved. ISBN 978-1-878147-41-7 (Executive Summary) ISBN 978-1-878147-42-4 (Full Report) Task Force Members Rodney E. Hero, University of California, Berkeley Juliet Hooker, University of Texas, Austin Alvin B. Tillery, Jr., Northwestern University Melina Altamirano, Duke University Keith Banting, Queen’s University Michael C. Dawson, University of Chicago Megan Ming Francis, University of Washington Paul Frymer, Princeton University Zoltan L. Hajnal, University of California, San Diego Mala Htun, University of New Mexico Vincent Hutchings, University of Michigan Michael Jones-Correa, University of Pennsylvania Jane Junn, University of Southern California Taeku Lee, University of California, Berkeley Mara Loveman, University of California, Berkeley Raúl Madrid, University of Texas at Austin Tianna S. Paschel, University of California, Berkeley Paul Pierson, University of California, Berkeley Joe Soss, University of Minnesota Debra Thompson, Northwestern University Guillermo Trejo, University of Notre Dame Jessica L. Trounstine, University of California, Merced Sophia Jordán Wallace, University of Washington Dorian Warren, Roosevelt Institute Vesla Weaver, Yale University Table of Contents Executive Summary The Double Bind: The Politics of Racial and Class Inequalities in the Americas .