Behavioral Political Science Research Articles

INTERNATIONAL HEALTH COOPERATION: THE GRAVE NEGLECT OF GLOBAL HEALTH COOPERATION & THE RISE SEVERE ACUTE RESPIRATORY SYNDROME - COVID19 PANDEMIC CASE STUDY

International relations is truly the manner in which inter-state interactions take place, the behaviour by which they concern each other with issues that touch economic performance, political alignments and social cultural relations. However, it is more than that. In order to clearly understand these inter-state relations, one must truly look at the state cooperation or lack thereof. This paper sets the scene for the concept of global health by identifying the link between the concept and international relations. The insight into the need of health impact assessment is reviewed in the international relations where the key assumption is that issues of global health are ignored in international relations. There is hence the review of impact that the incorporation of global health issues can have in international diplomacy. The aim of this study is to stress the great amount of negligence that exists within the world of International cooperation in the field of Global Health. Global health cooperation is more important than ever. The International response to Covid-19 pandemic, as well as the lack of transparency within Global Cooperation, and interstate relations were examined in this study. The clear observation of military expenditure rises, and the extreme lack of financial redirection against states during times COVID-19 is seen. The lack of compassion from governmental and medical institutions in vulnerable states is also demonstrated. This research was undertaken in a form of Case studies in order to demonstrate the real time results and impacts on often quickly dismissed states. 3 One conclusion is the unpreparedness in terms of response in many countries it suggested the need for improved International Health Regulations. Governmental efforts, alongside community based initiatives and contributions towards health care maintenance have been taken into consideration. The issue lies in the neglect of other aspects of Health especially in times of crises. In my view, the term “Global Health” is widely misunderstood and misrepresented. The context within Global Health may arise from different political backgrounds and focused on different disciplinary principles. It requires a certain capability to deal with heterogeneous ideas in macro, micro, and behavioral economics sociology, political science, international affairs, and public policy. Global health will necessitate moving beyond simple health advocacy in order to be fully comprehended. By contrasting different state responses to COVID-19 outbreaks, in hopes to prevent spreading, setting a precedent for populations, health managers, and leaders around the world on how to plan for, track, and respond to possible outbreaks. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) were used to compare outbreak preparedness and management strategies for this report.

The modernity of nations. A tribute to Walker Connor

AbstractTo fully appreciate Walker Connor's contribution to the foundation of the contemporary study of nationalism, two main factors must be taken into account. First, the context of positivist behavioural political science within which in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s, he articulated his critique of the concept of nation‐building. In this context, Connor emerged as a critic of the limitations and the naivité of positivist modernization theory. His dissenting voice called for critical rethinking and revision of the central concepts of the theory of political development, some of which enjoyed almost doctrinal status. Second, despite his criticism of modernization theory, Connor retained a strong conviction that nations and national sentiment were the products of modernity; indeed, in his judgement, they formed the primary content of modernity. This too was a critical stance within the rising tide of nationalism studies since 1989–1990, when ideology and wishful thinking influenced to a considerable extent the interpretation of nationalism. Walker Connor's intellectual legacy should thus be understood as a heritage of critical thought that is informed by a noteworthy awareness of the moral responsibilities of scholarly analysis.

Introduction to Global Health Promotion

Global health education is becoming increasingly prominent in universities throughout the country especially in programs focused on health and behavioral sciences, law, economics, and political science. Introduction to Global Health Promotion is a book that can be used by both instructors and students in the field of global health. The book provides theories and models, human rights, and technology relevant to the field. In addition the book is designed to share best evidence for promoting health and reducing morbidity and mortality in a variety of areas. The book can be used by health educators, public health practitioners, professors, and students as a resource for research and practice in the field of health promotion and disease prevention.

Is Voter Competence Good for Voters?: Information, Rationality, and Democratic Performance

A long research tradition in behavioral political science evaluates the performance of democracy by examining voter competence. This literature got its start arguing that voters' lack of information undermines a defense of democracy rooted in electoral accountability. A more recent literature deepens the debate, with some authors claiming that voters effectively use cues to substitute for information about candidates and policies, and other authors claiming that voters are insufficiently rational to do so. We argue that, regardless of its conclusions about voter competence, this literature’s single-minded focus on voter behavior is misguided. We use a sequence of formal models to show that traditional intuitions are incomplete because they ignore the effect that changes in voter behavior have on the equilibrium behavior of politicians. When this strategic interaction is taken into account, increases in voter information or voter rationality sometimes make democratic performance better and sometimes make democratic performance worse. One simply cannot assess the implications of voter characteristics for democratic performance without also studying how those characteristics affect the behavior of politicians.

Quality of Life and Diagnostic Imaging Outcomes

The US Preventive Services Task Force recently promulgated revised guidelines for screening mammography. Criticisms were related to the undervaluation of future lives saved and the overvaluation of negative impacts of mammography. Radiologists downplayed quality-of-life factors, potentially understating the value of all imaging procedures. The task force's recommendations for core needle biopsy, based on similar conceptual frameworks, were not met with equivalent responses. Full appreciation of the costs and benefits of screening provides the basis for making the best decisions for individuals and populations. This is undermined by the mixed messages that patients and physicians receive during clinical encounters and through other means. Quantitative approaches to medical care are valid on their own terms and when evaluated in the individual context. Insights from behavioral economics and political science inform discussion of population-based medical interventions. Preventing harm from medical interventions satisfies both the "primum non nocere" dictum and the loss aversion heuristic concordantly. The most effective medical care is provided when benefits are maximized and complications are minimized, especially when the harms occur immediately and the benefits are delayed. The importance of both quality of life and longevity in health care decision making require minimizing negative impacts of mammography when screening low-risk populations. Current practice differs significantly from the successful randomized trials, front-loading costs of false-positive examinations, and overtreatment. By decreasing false-positive mammographic results through adherence to ACR BI-RADS recommendations, radiologists can answer critics of early and frequent screening while still reducing cancer deaths.

The european geneses of american political science

Although American political science is, as Bernard Crick emphasised, in many respects a distinctly American science of politics, its evolution has been deeply informed by European ideas. This was quite obviously the case during the nineteenth century, when the German concept of the state dominated the discourse of the field, as well as in the early part of the twentieth century, when English scholars made significant contributions to the theory of democratic pluralism. By the middle of the century, German emigres had contributed to a fundamental transformation in political theory which challenged the mainstream vision of political enquiry; but what is less well understood is the extent to which the reaction to this challenge in behavioural political science was also based on ideas that were the product of the European exodus.

Giving Hands and Feet to Morality

I f you look closely at the stone engraving that names the Social Science Research building at the University of Chicago, you can see a curious patch after the e in Science. Legend has it the patch covers an s that Robert Maynard Hutchins ordered stricken; there is only one social science, Hutchins insisted. I do not know whether the legend is true, but it casts in an interesting light the late Gabriel Almond’s critique of Hutchins for “losing” the Chicago school of political science. Lamenting the loss, Almond tries to explain the rise of behavioral political science at Chicago and its subsequent fall into institutional neglect. Ironically, given the topic, he alights on ideographic explanations for both phenomena, locating them in the persons of Charles Merriam and Hutchins, respectively. I want to suggest some additional explanations rooted in the broader intellectual currents of the day. I would like to think that Almond might have approved of these explanations, because they illuminate why, at the end of his life, a great political scientist might return to this particular moment in the discipline’s history. Behavioral political science did not spring full-grown from Merriam’s head. Rather, its origin owes a clear and massive debt to philosophical pragmatism, especially as represented by John Dewey, whose legacy still dominated the university’s intellectual milieu at the time. Indeed, many of Merriam’s and Harold Lasswell’s writings in philosophically oriented journals such as Ethics read like conscious attempts to translate the spirit of the Progressive Era (and its intellectual articulation in the Deweyan system) into the academic study of politics. For example, in an essay redolent with Deweyan terminology and progressivist optimism, Merriam concludes:

The Failure of Constitutional Welfare Rights in the Warren Court

The study of judicial politics has long been characterized by disputes between normative jurisprudence and an empirically oriented political jurisprudence. Normative jurisprudence examines the principles and values embodied in the courts' constitutional and statutory decisions and consists of traditional public law and critical legal studies, which are both skeptical of the positivist bent of behavioral political science.1 Yet, public law and critical legal studies exhibit important differences in their understanding of the legal doctrines that courts formulate to justify their decisions. While public law treats legal doctrines as a form of normative political philosophy, critical legal studies conceptualize them as political ideology that rationalizes unequal power relations.

E. E. Schattschneider, the New Deal, and the Rejection of the Responsible Party Doctrine

E. E. Schattschneider's Party Government, published fifty years ago, is one of the early classics of behavioral political science. The enduring popularity of this book, however, stems less from its impressive analysis of the actual workings of American party politics than its advocacy of democratic reform. Party Government was a strong blow in behalf of “responsible party government,” a creed that has had an important influence on political science. Schattschneider later chaired the Committee on Political Parties of the American Political Science Association, which produced the famous report “Towards a More Responsible Two-Party System,” published in 1950. Much of the argument of the report was anticipated by Party Government, which advocated “party centralization” to overcome the local and sectional tendencies that defined traditional partisan politics in the United States (Schattschneider 1942; Committee on Political Parties 1950).Schattschneider considered political parties as perhaps the most archaic institutions in the United States: the American party system continued to operate as it had before the Civil War, that is, as two loose coalitions of state and local organizations, with very little national machinery and cohesion. The major parties were able to control the electoral process and bring people to the polls. Nevertheless, they failed to organize the nominees they elected to office into an effective, cohesive team for control of government. “Nearly all of the conflict and confusion of American government,” Schattschneider (1942, 30) claimed, “can be traced to the failure of the parties on this point.”With the growth of the federal government's responsibilities during the twentieth century, this failing of the traditional decentralized parties represented a distressing deterioration of representative democracy.

E. E. Schattschneider, the New Deal, and the Rejection of the Responsible Party Doctrine

E. E. Schattschneider's Party Government, published fifty years ago, is one of the early classics of behavioral political science. The enduring popularity of this book, however, stems less from its impressive analysis of the actual workings of American party politics than its advocacy of democratic reform. Party Government was a strong blow in behalf of “responsible party government,” a creed that has had an important influence on political science. Schattschneider later chaired the Committee on Political Parties of the American Political Science Association, which produced the famous report “Towards a More Responsible Two-Party System,” published in 1950. Much of the argument of the report was anticipated by Party Government, which advocated “party centralization” to overcome the local and sectional tendencies that defined traditional partisan politics in the United States (Schattschneider 1942; Committee on Political Parties 1950).Schattschneider considered political parties as perhaps the most archaic institutions in the United States: the American party system continued to operate as it had before the Civil War, that is, as two loose coalitions of state and local organizations, with very little national machinery and cohesion. The major parties were able to control the electoral process and bring people to the polls. Nevertheless, they failed to organize the nominees they elected to office into an effective, cohesive team for control of government. “Nearly all of the conflict and confusion of American government,” Schattschneider (1942, 30) claimed, “can be traced to the failure of the parties on this point.”With the growth of the federal government's responsibilities during the twentieth century, this failing of the traditional decentralized parties represented a distressing deterioration of representative democracy.

Why Political Science Needs History

This paper examines the changing relationship between the study of history and the study of political science. It reviews the tensions which produced a divorce between the two subjects, particularly in the United States when behavioural political science was dominant. It then examines five areas in which history has enriched the study of politics: as a source of material; as a demonstration of the links between the present and the past; as a body of knowledge to test theories; as a means of analysing political concepts and as a source of lessons. It concludes that the links between the two subjects today are strong, but that the contribution of history is more as a body of knowledge than as a set of distinctive methods.

Politics under the Microscope: Observational Methods in Political Research

Behavioral political science has not utilized observational methods and lacks the field research tradition found in other behavioral sciences. This paper explores the potential contribution of observational methods to behavioral studies in political science and illustrates their application with data developed around oral argument in the United States Supreme Court and the first Reagan-Mondale television debate in 1984.

Power Seekers are Different: Further Biochemical Evidence

In an article previously published in this Review I demonstrated that power-seeking, by which I mean the pursuit of social dominance, has a biochemical marker, namely, whole blood serotonin (WBS). Those individuals who are especially hard-charging and competitive have especially high WBS levels. This paper presents the results from an investigation of dynamics in the response of high WBS individuals to actual competition. My expectation—that they would exhibit special physiological activation in the face of challenge—is fully borne out by the evidence. Four hormonal indicators of activation were followed in blood samples taken during a series of social competitions. All four show distinctive patterns for the high WBS group. These results, in addition to providing new evidence on the behavior of the endocrine system in competitive settings, impressively support the view that WBS is a biological property having fundamental significance for behavioral political science.

How Can We Get There From Here? Thoughts on the Integration of American and Comparative Politics

The bifurcation of political science into American and comparative politics impoverishes both. The division parochializes them by encapsulating the study of politics within national boundaries. The result is to deprive each of the theoretical contributions generated by the other and to cut them off from the institutional and policy alternatives each has devised. The loss to the study of American politics is probably the more severe because its practitioners have not been prepared to recognize the limitations of their “area specialty.”Historical and institutional determinants help to explain the bifurcation. Because academic political science, that is, political science as a discipline and a profession is, as Bernard Crick has shown, American in its origins and early development, it has been less attentive to non-American contexts. More than other academic social science disciplines, political science's intellectual provenance is located in the new world. Unlike the other social sciences, political science lacks eighteenth and nineteenth century European masters. In the belief that America was showing the world its future, post-war behavioral political science like other aspects of the American way of life became an American export to Europe and the third world.

How Can We Get There From Here? Thoughts on the Integration of American and Comparative Politics

The bifurcation of political science into American and comparative politics impoverishes both. The division parochializes them by encapsulating the study of politics within national boundaries. The result is to deprive each of the theoretical contributions generated by the other and to cut them off from the institutional and policy alternatives each has devised. The loss to the study of American politics is probably the more severe because its practitioners have not been prepared to recognize the limitations of their “area specialty.”Historical and institutional determinants help to explain the bifurcation. Because academic political science, that is, political science as a discipline and a profession is, as Bernard Crick has shown, American in its origins and early development, it has been less attentive to non-American contexts. More than other academic social science disciplines, political science's intellectual provenance is located in the new world. Unlike the other social sciences, political science lacks eighteenth and nineteenth century European masters. In the belief that America was showing the world its future, post-war behavioral political science like other aspects of the American way of life became an American export to Europe and the third world.

How Can We Get There From Here? Thoughts on the Integration of American and Comparative Politics

The bifurcation of political science into American and comparative politics impoverishes both. The division parochializes them by encapsulating the study of politics within national boundaries. The result is to deprive each of the theoretical contributions generated by the other and to cut them off from the institutional and policy alternatives each has devised. The loss to the study of American politics is probably the more severe because its practitioners have not been prepared to recognize the limitations of their “area specialty.”Historical and institutional determinants help to explain the bifurcation. Because academic political science, that is, political science as a discipline and a profession is, as Bernard Crick has shown, American in its origins and early development, it has been less attentive to non-American contexts. More than other academic social science disciplines, political science's intellectual provenance is located in the new world. Unlike the other social sciences, political science lacks eighteenth and nineteenth century European masters. In the belief that America was showing the world its future, post-war behavioral political science like other aspects of the American way of life became an American export to Europe and the third world.

Political Culture and Political Symbolism: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis

The concept of political culture embraces some of the most basic, perennially fascinating concerns in behavioral political science; because of certain ambiguities in its theoretical formulation, however, there has been a tendency for the term to grow fuzzy with continued use. Its connection with related concepts, such as political psychology, political structure, and political language, has remained unclear, with the result that political culture has been difficult to isolate as an independent variable. Thus it has come to occupy a position on the periphery of politics, and is usually presumed to reinforce the status quo.This paper re-examines previous formulations of the concept and proposes a theoretical synthesis. The analytical framework is derived fromsemiological theory, a branch of science specifically designed for the analysis of meanings. The central variable is thepolitical symbol. By analyzing the interactions of political symbols within a comprehensive semiological framework, the traditional concerns of political culture can be accommodated in a more precise and systematic way.

Behavioralism, Post-Beliavioralism, and the Philosophy of Science: Two Houses. One Plague

In the past decade American political science has experienced considerable internal conflict and turmoil. To an extent, these disturbances were unexpected for in the early 1960's the “epitaph” for a “successful” behavioral movement had been written and the “credo” of behavioralism presented. Nevertheless, by the middle of the 1960's a “new revolution in political science” was under way, a revolution “directed against a developing behavioral orthodoxy.” Behavioral political science was challenged on many grounds, but of central importance were these

Creativity and the Political Community

I HE EXISTENCE of political communities is a fact. The causes and sources of their origins and demise is beclouded with fantasy as well as fact. Modern behavioural political science in accounting for the emergence of nations tends for the most part to focus upon the analyses of processes at the expense of individual creative efforts. Contemporary studies have ignored or bypassed an important aspect of their intellectual heritage, the tradition of the Law-Giver, the uniquely creative individual. Since that tradition is enigmatic, burdened with overlapping legends, historical accounts and conflicting definitions, its absence from current literature might be excused since it would appear too obscure to be of relevance. Yet, the achievements of a Napoleon, a Nasser, or a Lenin demonstrate that individuals can have an impact on law-giving in reality as well as in mythology. So social scientists should account for them. Since traditional political philosophers have studied the art, if not the science, of the Law-Giver, they could provide a useful point of departure. Their writings are not, however, directly comparable to current studies of emergent communities without a substantial analysis of their content. Therefore this article is devoted to the development of one framework of analysis which should bridge ancient and modern approaches to the rise of political communities. That past and present foci of study may not be mutually exclusive has found currency in the work of C. J. Friedrich. While acknowledging the validity of current emphases on process, he maintains that such preoccupation does not of itself account for the existence of political communities. He advises his readers to distinguish acts of foundation, which give rise to groups, from acts of institution, which establish order.' Thus he offers a means of salvaging the tradition of the Law-Giver from obscurity. He claims that acts of foundation are susceptible to impersonal treatments while acts of institution do establish an arena in which conscious human enterprise may directly contribute.2 This suggests the introduction of three categories of Law-Giver: the hero-founder, the constitution-maker and the codifier. The hero-founder forms a political community from chaos and void while the constitution-maker transforms that community into a political order. The codifier compiles and revises existing laws and practices into a unified coherent body. Initially, we can expect that it is the hero-founder whose efforts have been glorified in fantasy while the less exaulted role of constitution-maker or codifier remain closer to fact and modern usage. With these categories we will explore traditional treatments of the Law-Giver and thereupon undertake a salvage expedition.

Some Facts About Values

Leading articles in both the current issue ofAPSR(Winter 1969–70) and ofPS(Fall 1969) attack an identical quotation from my chapter in “The Public and the Polity” inContemporary Political Science. In reply to Professor Sheldon Wolin's article in APSR, I wrote a short reply for he clearly misinterpreted the quotation in an otherwise serious article. Professor Surkin's piece, “Sense and Non-sense in Politics” inPSfrustrates all my attempts at a short reply, for the issue is not the text of a particular quotation that has become a minor cause célebre, but rather the central thesis of his article that is in error. His is an error that has become sufficiently widely diffused these days that it needs a serious reply.The issue is the role of value judgments in political science. The common error is the assertion that modern political science has been non-normative and value-free, or at least has aimed at being so. The statement is usually made in criticism of so-called behavioral political science and in favor of a supposed post-behavioral revolution, which is alleged to be seeking a new concern for relevance. Professor Surkin's article is a particular variant on that theme. He states that his purpose is to show that a particular social science methodology, namely, “claimed objectivity and value neutrality” leads to a “non-objective role for social science knowledge in the service of the dominant institutions in American society”. Here is an important set of allegations.