Assistant Professor Of Political Science Research Articles

Polish Americans Today

Dominik Stecula, assistant professor of political science at Colorado State University Fort Collins, wants to provide an updated, data-driven overview of American Polonia that tells us more than the mere demographic. This survey was based on 1,781 online respondents in 2020–21. The survey is a follow-up of one also sponsored and published in 2009 by the Piast Institute, authored by the late Thaddeus Radziłowski and Stecula.Stecula's survey covers a range of demographics, values, and political choices of the respondents. The respondents’ demographic data includes their age, marital status, educational and income levels, and religious affiliation (including frequency of practice). The values include both the sacred and secular: attitudes toward life issues (abortion and capital punishment) and attachment to Polonia (conceptually in the value attached to language preservation and heritage, and practically in terms of organizational membership, activity, and financial support). The political includes the ideological (conservative/liberal), the partisan (party affiliation and voting patterns), and views of current issues, like climate change, government-sponsored anti-poverty programs, and genetically modified foods. Other interesting questions include from whence Polonia gets its information of the wider world, of Poland, and of its own community, and attitudes toward “conspiracy theories.” The survey also examines whether and how often respondents travel to Poland. Data is almost always broken down between US- and foreign-born respondents.Stecula's respondents are overwhelmingly Catholic (65 percent). More than a third are pro-abortion; and 42 percent consider preserving Polonia's heritage the most important issue facing the community. The respondents reported greater reliance (68 percent) than Americans in general on traditional media and lesser reliance on ideologically identified outlets, like Fox or MSNBC. The largest cohort of respondents were first generation immigrants in the United States (39 percent) and nearly half held graduate or professional degrees (46 percent).The self-selected respondents learned of the poll through social media and ethnic newspapers. Stecula argues that the method is justified because Polonia lacks both money and human resources for a truly random national poll of Polonia. He also notes that the results represent Polonia's most active and engaged (e.g., those who found out about the survey and took the initiative to respond), and so gives us insight into the community's movers and shakers.Perhaps. Stecula's data gives us insight into a particular slice of Polonia, but the generational and educational skew of the respondents may also skew other results, for example, values. In the absence of broader, regular, and more systematic surveys of Polonia at-large—its demographics, values, and politics—this study provides a valuable data-point, at least in terms of further studies about Polonia's leadership. Stecula's research affords a useful point-of-comparison for further studies both of Polonia at large and how its leadership may or may not mirror its rank-and-file.

National Conference of Black Political Scientists Presidential Address

National Conference of Black Political Scientists Presidential Address

The Regulator, the Target, and the Intermediary: A Comprehensive Look at the Regulation of Organic Food in the United States

First paragraph: In Regulation by Proxy: How the USDA Relies on Public, Nonprofit, and For-Profit Intermediaries to Oversee Organic Food in the U.S., Dr. David P. Carter, assistant professor of political science at the Uni­versity of Utah, provides a comprehensive analysis of organic food regulation in the United States. The regulation of organic food is complex, and, as the book title suggests, organic regulation involves many actors with various roles. Although the federal government, through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), plays a role in organic certification, “the regulatory arrangement is not as simple as a regu­lator . . . regulating an industry activity . . .” (p. 7). Instead, The National Organic Program (NOP), a regulatory entity housed under the USDA’s Agri­cultural Marketing Service, relies on “an assortment of ‘regulatory intermediaries’” (p. 7) independent from the NOP to develop and enforce uniform national standards for organically produced agricul­tural products sold in the United States. As a result, the regulation of the USDA organic standard is “decentralized” such that organic food is regulated by proxy. . . .

About the Contributors

About the Contributors

Book Review: Today’s Environmental Issues: Democrats and Republicans

Walker is an associate professor of political science at Elmhurst College. This volume is part of a series titled “Across the Aisle.” The other titles cover Social Issues, Economic Issues and Foreign Policy Issues. The preface is written by Lindsey Cormack, an assistant professor of political science and director of the Diplomacy Lab at Stevens Institute of Technology. She goes on to state that members of Congress “do not dedicate the same amount of time and focus to each pressing environment issue.” (vii). Cormack presents some tables that contain both topics covered by party e-newsletters and keywords that are used most by each party. The preface also gives an overview of each party’s platform pertaining to environmental issues in 2016. The introduction states that this volume “examines the proposal and positions of the two parties—both the profound disagreements and the areas of common ground between the two parties.” (xviii).

Bertrand Russell as A “Public Intellectual”

russell: the Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies n.s. 37 (winter 2017–18): 348–60 The Bertrand Russell Research Centre, McMaster U. issn 0036–01631; online 1913–8032 c:\users\ken\documents\type3702\red\rj 3702 064 red.docx 2018-01-25 6:31 AM oeviews BERTRAND RUSSELL AS A “PUBLIC INTELLECTUAL” Stefan Andersson stefankarlandersson@live.com Tim Madigan and Peter Stone, eds. Bertrand Russell: Public Intellectual. Rochester, ny: Tiger Bark P., 2016. Pp. 241. us$20.95. isbn-13: 978-09976305 -0-3. t is unusual for me to review a book consisting mainly of essays by authors I know and have met once a year—more or less—for the last thirty years. This makes me positively inclined even before reading anything. This collection has two competent Russell fans and scholars as editors: Tim Madigan, associate professor of philosophy at St. John Fisher College in Rochester, New York, and president of the Bertrand Russell Society, who is the author of three essays in this collection: “Six Degrees of Bertrand Russell ”,1 “Russell and Dewey on Education: Similarities and Differences” and “Russell in Popular Culture”; and Peter Stone, Ussher assistant professor of political science at Trinity College Dublin, who serves on the brs board, founded two of its local chapters, was recently its vice-president, and also is the author of three essays: “Introduction: Who Was Bertrand Russell?”, “Russell the Political Activist” and “The Logic of Storytelling and the Storytelling of Logic” (on Logicomix). To begin with, we need some idea of the meaning of the term “public intellectual ”, which sounds pretty clear but has no clear Swedish or German equivalents, and that’s not because we don’t have intellectuals in Sweden or Germany, but because the subset public intellectuals has no clear definition and therefore lacks unambiguous examples as members. Russell’s Swedish disciple Ingemar Hedenius,2 Professor in Practical Philosophy at Uppsala 1947–73, became a well-known intellectual person, when he attacked Swedish theology from a more or less Russellian view in Tro och Vetande [Faith and Knowledge], first published in 1949. The debate went on for years and divided the Swedish general population into two groups, much 1 Reprinted from Russell 30 (2010): 63–7. 2 See my “Russell’s Influence on Ingemar Hidenius” (2005). f= Reviews 349 c:\users\ken\documents\type3702\red\rj 3702 064 red.docx 2018-01-25 6:31 AM as the American certified public intellectual Noam Chomsky has his admirers as well as critics. A public intellectual does not necessarily have to be an academic , but usually he is (there are very few female public intellectuals, at least in Sweden). Russell, Hedenius and Chomsky are to me clear examples of public intellectuals , but what did the editors have in mind when they put together a collection of essays about Russell as a public intellectual and how did this social role differ and overlap with other social roles that Russell took: academic, philosopher , political philosopher, political activist, etc? We don’t know because the editors have not supplied an introduction where one would expect these questions to be introduced and discussed. However, taken together the essays provide a good picture of different aspects of Russell as a public intellectual. The second-best way to find out what the essays collected have as a common denominator is to look at the titles. There are fourteen essays, but only the first, brs award-winner Michael Ruse’s foreword, “Bertrand Russell as Public Intellectual: a Personal Reflection”, and David Blitz’s “A Public Intellectual on War and Peace” contain the expression “public intellectual” in the title. However, Ruse does not discuss the meaning of “public intellectual”, and nor does Blitz. They seem to assume it is well known, which it isn’t. The only essay that actually is about Russell as a public intellectual and discusses its varieties is John Lenz’s “How Bertrand Russell Became a New Kind of Intellectual during World War i”. Lenz is associate professor at the department of classics at Drew University, a long-time member of the brs, has served as board chair, and was co-chair of the fourth annual Harvard...

Democracy in Central Asia: competing perspectives and alternative strategies

Central Asia is a fascinating region. It is also one of the most problematic parts of the former Soviet Union in which to work on democracy and human rights, as all five republics face what sometimes seem like insurmountable challenges. Mariya Omelicheva is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Kansas and far from new to the region—she has previously published a book on counterterrorism policies in Central Asia (Counterterrorism policies in Central Asia, Routledge, 2010), and has spent considerable time on the research for her latest work. In many ways, the process of democratization of Central Asia takes place not only among the people and elites of the five 'stans themselves, but also at board meetings in DC, European Union hearings in Brussels, UN reviews in Geneva, during OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) seminars in Vienna and conferences in Warsaw. Peculiar, perhaps—one should think these were matters best discussed by those most directly affected in Bishkek, Astana or Tashkent. That is, however, how the world is currently set up, making the study of Central Asia complex in a way that demands that scholars and activists—local as well as foreign—regularly look up and beyond what they can see from their regional office window or during fact-finding missions in the field.

Introduction

Introduction Melvin I. Urofsky In this issue, I am pleased to say, we have our usual medley, ranging from one of the iconic Marshall Court rulings to the twentieth century. There is fraud, pestilence, bad science, the free press, and how little Abe Fortas grew up and thrived in Memphis. And we also have Grier Stephenson, guiding the reader on new books regarding the Court. You have read many times in my introduction that the field of legal and constitutional history, while lively, is rather small, and that its practitioners, for the most part, all know each other. I can remember when one ofmy books came out, and my older son read the blurbs on the back cover, looked at who had written them, and then said to me “All the usual suspects.” Actually, I think it rather rare that when a book in this field comes out the author would not know the blurb writers. Charles Hobson is an old friend, whose work on the Marshall Papers is a model of manuscript editing. The case he is writing on is a favorite of law and history teachers because the great Yazoo land fraud is almost certain to get students talking. Why, they ask, should the fruits ofbribery and corruption not be taken away from those who profited from them? Why, indeed. Hobson, who is retired after teaching for many years with the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture at the College ofWilliam and Mary, shows that there are many sides to this case, and, although it remains the first time the Supreme Court declared a statute unconstitutional, by then it did not matter. We don’t get too many articles submitted about nineteenth-century state cases on the Bible, and we get about the same number about Stanley Matthews, who served on the Court from 1881 until his death in March 1889. As a Justice he is remembered primarily for three decisions that limited the power of the states, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886). But if Stanley’s tenure on the Bench appears rather drab, just the opposite is true of his pre-Court career: an antislavery Democrat in Ohio, a federal attorney responsible for enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act, a Union veteran of the Civil War, and one of the draftsmen ofthe Compromise of 1877, which 238 JOURNAL OF SUPREME COURT HISTORY installed his Rutherford B. Hayes in the White House. Although a devout Presbyterian, Mat­ thews opposed religious instruction in the public schools, and led the campaign in Cincinnati to do away with Bible reading to start the school day. Linda Przybyszewski, associate professor of history at the Univer­ sity of Notre Dame, another well-known colleague whose work has previously ap­ peared in the Journal, looks at the famous (at the time) Cincinnati Bible War, and the rather interesting—and highly religious—arguments Matthews made. Although Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., is often ranked as one of the three greatest Justices to serve on the High Court (along with John Marshall and Louis Brandeis), there has always been one stain on his escutcheon, that of Buck v. Bell (1927). By a vote of 8-1, the Court upheld a Virginia forced sterilization law, and Holmes’s short opinion is marked by the phrase “three generations of imbeciles are enough.” As several scholars have since taught us, neither Carrie Buck, her mother, nor her daughter were feeble-minded. In trying to explain the decision, the usual story is that in areas such as forced steriliza­ tion, Holmes and his Brethren believed the practice to fall within the police powers of the state. Daniel Frost, assistant professor of political science at Clemson University, however, shows that police power jurispru­ dence, with its insistence that there be no class legislation, was actually used in several state courts to strike down forced sterilization laws, and he asks why the High Court acted as it did. For years now, many of us in the field of legal history have emphasized that students need to know not only the holdings in important cases, but the facts that led to the litigation, and especially the...

When Movements Anchor Parties: Electoral Alignments in American History

The author of this book is an assistant professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University, and the work is unashamedly an exercise in his discipline. Nonetheless, an immensely impressive feature is its command of American historical writing, for it is based on a great many secondary sources. While the book's principal attention is to the two great political alliances of recent times—between organized labor and the Democratic party and between the Christian Right and the Republican party—the analysis does extend to abolitionism, Populism, and the 1960s antiwar movement. Daniel Schlozman is interested in the relationships between social movements and political parties, and he is correct that we need a better understanding of the complex processes involved. Social movements (though the term social is not altogether satisfactory; in Britain the term extra-parliamentary is sometimes used) characteristically originate outside party structures but may seek particular policy outcomes, sometimes developing as pressure groups. Opportunities may also allow a movement to forge an alliance with a party or even enter it—reaching an accommodation that can become institutionalized. When movements reach this status they become what Schlozman calls “anchoring groups” (p. 3). Anchoring groups cannot act independently without endangering the party alliance; parties are usually anxious to keep the benefits brought by the group, such as funds and voters. While such alignments may come about because of the circumstances at any particular point in time, once effected and institutionalized the arrangement takes on a measure of permanence and may continue to shape party priorities for decades.

The 2012 crisis in Mali: Ongoing empirical state failure

In 2012 Mali faced a crisis disrupting nearly twenty years of democratization – a coup and rebel insurgency. This article investigates policy priorities amongst rural Malians living on the border of state and rebelcontrolled territory during the crisis. While academic and policy-making communities have focused largely on Mali’s recent and sudden regime and territorial breakdown, the villagers defined the crisis in terms of their unmet needs for public services and infrastructure amidst high food and water insecurity. Concern for the sudden ‘juridical state’ breakdown – the collapse of the democratic regime – was trumped by the focus on longterm ‘empirical state’ breakdown. Using recent Afrobarometer data on diverse dimensions of empirical statehood, we show that the problem of rural neglect emphasized by seminal scholars is persistent not only across Mali, but also across many African countries. The tendency of academics and policy makers to focus on the immediate or more volatile political problems of the coup and rebel insurgency facing the Malian state, while important, risks understating and underestimating the power of slow-moving crises of daily life that are more important to rural citizens. IN APRIL 2012, THE WORLD’S EYES TURNED to Mali’s political crisis – a coup and subsequent rebel takeover of three northern provinces. The coup disrupted nearly twenty years of multi-party elections, while armed movements, including those with secessionist and jihadist goals, took over nearly two-thirds of Mali’s geographical territory, causing over 400,000 Malians to flee. Academic, policy, and journalistic accounts of these events have focused on many aspects of the crisis, including determinants of the rebellion and coup, the French intervention, and the need to restore multi-party *Jaimie Bleck ( jbleck@nd.edu) is a Ford Family Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame. Kristin Michelitch (kristin.michelitch@vanderbilt.edu) is an Assistant Professor of Political Science and Littlejohn Faculty Fellow at Vanderbilt University. This research was funded with generous support from the National Science Foundation, the Spencer Foundation, the Catt Prize, the Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies, and the Institute for Scholarship in the Liberal Arts at the University of Notre Dame. We thank Michael Bratton, Nicolas van de Walle, Kevin Fridy and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments as well as Liana Cramer, Jae Won Kim, and our team in Mali for excellent research support. A previous version of this paper appeared as Afrobarometer Working Paper 155. African Affairs, 1–26 doi: 10.1093/afraf/adv038 © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Royal African Society. All rights reserved 1 African Affairs Advance Access published August 10, 2015

Propaganda as Signaling

Why do authoritarian governments engage in propaganda when citizens often know that their governments are propagandizing and therefore resist or ignore the messages? This paper proposes that propaganda is often not used for indoctrination of pro-regime values and attitudes, as is traditionally understood, but rather to signal the government’s strength in maintaining social control and political order. Consistent with the theory, analysis of a unique dataset shows that Chinese college students with more exposure to state propaganda in the form of ideological and political education are not more satisfied with China’s government system, but are more likely to believe that the regime is strong in maintaining social control, and less willing to participate in political dissent. Additional evidences supporting the theory are also briefly discussed. *Assistant professor of political science, University of California, Merced (email: hhuang24@ucmerced.edu). I am grateful to Li Zhi for help with the data collection. I would also like to thank John James Kennedy, Susan Shirk, Daniela Stockmann, Kharis Ali Templeman, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments.

Does it Matter that Most Representatives are Higher Educated?

Does it Matter that Most Representatives are Higher Educated?

Class and Representation in Latin America

Mexico’s 2012 presidential election was fought between two affluent career politicians and a millionaire businesswoman. The 2013 race in Chile pitted an economist against a physician. And the top candidates in last year’s presidential election in Brazil were both millionaire economists. The pattern is clear: Latin American democracies – like democracies all over the world – are disproportionately run by the rich. Although working-class jobs (informal workers, manual labor, and service industry jobs) make up the vast majority of the labor force in every Latin American country, only a tiny percentage of Latin American lawmakers come from those kinds of jobs. Like most places, Latin America is run by white-collar governments. Many journalists, pundits, and political observers take this aspect of the governing environment for granted in Latin America and elsewhere. (In 2013, commentators in Chile buzzed about having two female frontrunners in the presidential race. But they failed to note that both came from affluent backgrounds.) Perhaps they are so accustomed to welloff politicians that they simply see them as a natural feature of the political landscape. Or perhaps they believe that it does not matter whether politicians are drawn from one class or another. In the 1970s, scholars of comparative politics reached exactly that conclusion. After a handful of studies (which, in hindsight, probably had serious methodological problems) found that policymakers from different classes behave about the same in office, the eminent political scientist Robert Putnam concluded that “the assumption of a correlation between attitude and social origin lies behind most studies of the social backgrounds of elites, . . . most of the available evidence tends to disconfirm this assumption” (R. Putnam, unpublished manuscript: 93). A decade later, a sweeping review of the evidence available in the mid-1980s concluded that the existing data were “scattered and inconclusive” and “certainly [did] not add up to a finding that the social . . . [or] economic . . . biases of legislative recruitment result in a . . . policy bias of legislative institutions” (Matthews 1985: 25). In the mid-1990s, another review of the research reached the same conclusion: scholars had “not clearly established that the social background of politicians has a significant influence on their attitudes, values and behavior” (Norris and Lovenduski 1995: 12). Ever since, the idea that a legislator’s class does not matter has been the de facto conventional wisdom in the scholarly community. This conventional wisdom has helped fuel indifference about the overwhelmingly unequal social class makeup of the world’s political institutions. But new evidence suggests that the scholarly consensus may be wrong (Carnes 2013, and his contribution to this Swiss Political Science Review 21(2): 229–236 doi:10.1111/spsr.12162

Introduction

Introduction Melvin I. Urofsky The articles in this issue cover a large spectrum of Supreme Court history—how the Justices decided certain cases, dissents that never appeared, a reminiscence of the fourteenth Chief Justice, some little-known aspects of important cases, a rebuttal to an article that appeared in an earlier issue, and, last but certainly not least, Grier Stephenson’s review of books. Docket books are little notebooks that, at least in the time with which I am familiar, had small locks opened by an even smaller key, somewhat akin to a teenage girl’s diary. But instead of comments on Mary’s dress or how interesting the new boy in class is, the comments are on cases argued before the Supreme Court and the discussions on those cases in the Conference following oral argument. In the ones I have used, the jottings may be quite lean—A, B, and C voted to reverse; everyone else to affirm—to lengthy, and sometimes near-verbatim, transcripts of who said what. Given the secrecy with which the Court surrounds its internal deliberations—there are no clerks, secretaries, or messengers at the Conference—the docket books allow historians a limited but often illuminating glance at how Justices discussed certain cases. The Court recently made docket books in the possession of the Curator more easily available to scholars, and Barry Cushman has examined the entries for the first five Terms of the Hughes Court. These are important years, as the country entered the Great Depression following the boom years of the Roaring Twenties. Initially the cases coming to the Court were fairly similar to those in the preceding five Terms, but as the states tried to deal with widespread economic problems, mortgage foreclosures, unemployment, and the like, the measures they experimented with pushed the bounds of what the Justices had previously allowed to the state police powers. Professor Cushman, who is the John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law at the University ofNotre Dame, leads us in an exploration ofthe Court in a time ofimportant transition. v vi JOURNAL OF SUPREME COURT HISTORY Most textbooks, including mine, pay very little attention to Champion v. Ames (1903), the Lottery Case, except to note that it is somewhat of an anomaly in the Court’s Commerce Clause jurisprudence at the time. John W. Compton, an assistant professor of political science at Chapman University, argues that it is, in fact, more than an anomaly. Up until that case, most scholars, lawyers, and jurists assumed that only the states had police powers, that is, the authority to enact measures for the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens. The federal govern­ ment, of course, had plenary authority in those areas assigned to it by the Constitution, such as regulation ofinterstate commerce, but police powers analogous to those ofthe states supposedly did not exist. Professor Compton shows how the decision in the Lottery Case marked the demise of this form of dual federalism, although it would be many years before the Court would acknowledge the existence of a federal police power. The Schwimmer case (1929) is usually remembered for one of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s most striking aphorisms, namely, “if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.” Rosika Schwimmer had her application for citizenship denied because, as a pacifist, she could not in good conscience declare that she would take up arms in defense of her country. Holmes pointed out the silliness of this reason, noting that the U.S. Army did not take women and that Schwimmer was then over fifty years old, an age that would have disbarred men as well. We are so enthralled by Holmes’s language—as well we should be—that often we do not look much beyond the dissent. Why did the government turn her down? Who was she, and how did the whole ordeal reflect on the burgeoning women’s movement of that decade? Why did the government allow conscientious objectors to avoid combat but penalized...

Book Review: The People’s News: Media, Politics, and the Demands of Capitalism, by Joseph E. Uscinski

The People's News: Media, Politics, and Demands of CapitalismJoseph Uscinski, an assistant professor of political science at University of Miami, has taken a giant step forward with his examination of what he refers to as the people's news. Although his subtitle makes reference to demands of capitalism, his focus within text is on what economists refer to as consumer demands. This conflict between constructions is something to which we will return after I take due note of great many things that Uscinski makes perfectly clear.This is a book about information and democracy, and Uscinski suggests we have reason to be concerned about character and quality of information being supplied by nation's news media. Among many shortcomings that are identified within introduction, we are reminded of many ways that negativity can degrade quality of citizen engagement in democratic process. Framed as a externality rather than a journalistic goal, we are told that overly pronounced negative news can us to avoid activities that might otherwise lead to enlightened citizenship.The nature of these media effects are explored more fully in second chapter, where Uscinski explores many of claims and challenges that have been made with regard to agenda-setting hypothesis. While making it clear that controlled experiments provide considerable support for claims that media coverage can set audience agenda, Uscinski describes an innovative approach for assessing extent to which audiences can also be said to set media agenda. After presenting five arguments for why a study of television network news provides a fair test of audience influence, Uscinski describes his use of abstracts from Vanderbilt News Archives from 1968 to 2010 to identify extent of news coverage of various issues over this forty-two-year period. Among many interesting things he notes about this coverage is extent to which networks agree with themselves, as well as New York Times, about which issues are worthy of our attention. He makes use of Gallup's Most Important Problem as a measure of public's interest in these issues.The challenge, of course, is to determine direction of influence, or dare we say the direction of statistical causation between news issue coverage and public opinion. For this, Uscinski relies upon Granger analysis to assess this directionality at different time lags. Not surprisingly, there is no simple answer to question being set here. While audience opinion is said to drive media coverage with regard to seven issues, media drive opinion in four, and there is no significant relationship for ten remaining issue areas. Uscinski this evidence of audience influence over news media to introduce another perspective on media effects into discussion.Uscinski provides a political scientist's slant on some of insights derived from communications scholars' periodic engagement with media uses and gratifications. Audiences are said to derive important gratifications from exposure to media content that is consistent with their ideology and political partisanship. Because these are believed to be relatively stable attributes of an individual's identity, it is likely that neither is much changed by exposure to news media content. It is here that change in nature of media environment becomes particularly relevant. …

Book Reviews

Donato Masciandaro of Bocconi University reviews, “Bankers, Bureaucrats, and Central Bank Politics: The Myth of Neutrality” by Christopher Adolph. The Econlit abstract of this book begins: “Presents a new approach to the politics of money, focusing on the role played by central bankers and their preferences. Discusses agents, institutions, and the political economy of performance; career theories of monetary policy; central banker careers and inflation in industrial democracies; careers and the monetary policy process—three mechanism tests; careers and inflation in developing countries; how central bankers use their independence; partisan governments, labor unions, and monetary policy; the politics of central banker appointment; the politics of central banker tenure; and the dilemma of discretion. Adolph is Assistant Professor of Political Science, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Statistics, and a core faculty member of the Center for Statistics and the Social Sciences at the University of Washington, Seattle.”

Real-Time Reactions to a 2012 Presidential Debate

Real-Time Reactions to a 2012 Presidential Debate

Reevaluating Foreign-Imposed Regime Change

January 01 2014 Reevaluating Foreign-Imposed Regime Change William G. Nomikos, William G. Nomikos William G. Nomikos is a doctoral student at Yale University. He thanks Allan Dafoe, Jason Lyall, Nuno Monteiro, and Nicholas Sambanis for their constructive comments and guidance. The data, code, and additional coding notes are available from the author upon request. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Alexander B. Downes, Alexander B. Downes Alexander B. Downes is Associate Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University. he would like to thank William Nomikos for sharing his list of foreign-imposed democratizations. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Jonathan Monten Jonathan Monten Jonathan Monten is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Oklahoma. he would like to thank William Nomikos for sharing his list of foreign-imposed democratizations. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Author and Article Information William G. Nomikos William G. Nomikos is a doctoral student at Yale University. He thanks Allan Dafoe, Jason Lyall, Nuno Monteiro, and Nicholas Sambanis for their constructive comments and guidance. The data, code, and additional coding notes are available from the author upon request. Alexander B. Downes Alexander B. Downes is Associate Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University. he would like to thank William Nomikos for sharing his list of foreign-imposed democratizations. Jonathan Monten Jonathan Monten is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Oklahoma. he would like to thank William Nomikos for sharing his list of foreign-imposed democratizations. Online ISSN: 1531-4804 Print ISSN: 0162-2889 © 2014 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology2014 International Security (2014) 38 (3): 184–195. https://doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_c_00152 Cite Icon Cite Permissions Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Search Site Citation William G. Nomikos, Alexander B. Downes, Jonathan Monten; Reevaluating Foreign-Imposed Regime Change. International Security 2014; 38 (3): 184–195. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_c_00152 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll JournalsInternational Security Search Advanced Search This content is only available as a PDF. © 2014 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology2014 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Existential Democratic Individuality: A Conversation with George Kateb

La entrevista se realizo en el Departamento de Ciencia Politica de la Universidad de Princeton, en dos sesiones consecutivas de dos horas cada una, el 14 y 15 de enero de 2013. Realizaron la entrevista dos profesores de la Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile: Tomas Chuaqui Henderson, profesor asociado de ciencia politica, quien tuvo al profesor Kateb como tutor de tesis doctoral en Princeton; y Diego Rossello, profesor asistente de ciencia politica que obtuvo su doctorado en la Northwestern University. La transcripcion de la entrevista ha sido editada para lograr una lectura mas clara y fluida

Assessing the Link Between Civilian Nuclear Assistance and the Proliferation Risk

Atomic Assistance: How “Atoms for Peace” Programs Cause Nuclear Insecurity. By Matthew Fuhrmann . Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2012. 312 pp., $29.95 paperback (ISBN-13: 978-0-801-47811-6). Achieving Nuclear Ambitions: Scientists, Politicians, and Proliferation. By Jacques E. C. Hymans . New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012. 315 pp., $32.99 paperback (ISBN-13: 978-0-521-13225-1). Increasing global demand for energy is giving rise to a “nuclear renaissance” as more and more countries look for alternatives to fossil fuels. Furthermore, amid concerns over global warming, nuclear power is seen as a potentially cleaner option. Over the past several decades, there has been a steady expansion in the number of nuclear reactors, and the number is projected to double by the end of the century. It remains to be seen whether the March 2011 simultaneous reactor containment failures at the Fukushima plant in Japan will affect this trend. Although most nuclear fuel will be used for civil purposes, the threat of diversion remains insofar as reactors produce plutonium, which can be used for the pit of a nuclear weapon. Matthew Fuhrmann, an assistant professor of political science at Texas A&M University, explores the “dual-use” conundrum. For his analysis, he uses a standard time-series cross-sectional data set for the period from 1950 to 2000, which tracked more than 150,000 instances of nuclear cooperation between states. At a speech before the United Nations General Assembly on December 8, 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower launched his “Atoms for Peace” program, which offered nuclear technology to countries for civil purposes if they agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. His proposal led to the creation of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—the international organization chiefly responsible for encouraging nonproliferation—and provided the framework for the 1968 Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). By 2013, 189 countries had signed the treaty (only India, Israel, Pakistan, and South Sudan have abstained). The treaty recognizes a nuclear monopoly consisting of those countries that possessed the bomb at the time that the treaty was created—the United States, Soviet Union/Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China—which are designated as nuclear weapons states. Signatories to the treaty that are not part of …