Pub Date : 2019-11-26DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0294
B. Clift, Jacob J. Bustad
Since the early 1980s, the study of sport and politics has developed into a robust area of academic scholarship. Despite this growth, sport is often considered a phenomenon not associated with politics. Coupled with the popular perception that sport is too trivial or insignificant for serious research, sport and politics are not often connected or given significant consideration. One impetus for scholars of sport and politics is to demonstrate the important relationship between the two. As it has advanced, the study of the relationship between sport and politics has become an interdisciplinary endeavor. No one home of sport and politics exists. Decentralized, its study appears in a diversity of disciplines, notably within and in relation to cultural studies, economics, history, kinesiology, literature, geography, management, media and communications, political science, sociology, or urban studies. Political science alone is comprised of a range of fields and subfields (e.g., administration, policy, political theory, political economy, international relations, etc.). Acknowledging this diversity, both sport and politics come with definitional challenges. Sport is often associated with a structured organized activity that is goal-oriented, competitive, ludic, and physical. But commentators, critics, and everyday usage of the term often conflate it with exercise and physical activity, which are arguably less competitive and structured activities. Politics, too, can be taken in two common, and distinctive yet overlapping conceptual frames: The first involves the people, activities, processes, and decisions in the practices of governing a defined populace. The second takes a broader sense of the power relations and dynamics between people, which goes well beyond the strict understanding of institutions and government. Within the field, there is contention around whether or not the study of sport and politics should remain focused on practices of government alone, or if the latter conceptualization should be included. Regardless of where one sits on this issue, the study of sport and politics does indeed incorporate cross-cutting ideas of “sport” and “politics.” Early research on sport and politics focused on the more governmental side of politics, examining international relations, policy, diplomacy, or political ideology within specific countries, cities, or locales. This work has flourished since the early 1980s. Simultaneously, research foci pushed the boundaries of sport and politics by including broader understandings of power. Sporting organizations, teams, federations, international organizations, events, athletes, and celebrities, as well as exercise and physical activity practices, have been brought together with a range of politicized inquiry in relation to, for example, activism, conflict resolution, disability, environmental issues, ethnicity, health, human rights, gambling, gender, metal health, peace, pleasure, race, security, sexuality,
{"title":"Sport and Politics","authors":"B. Clift, Jacob J. Bustad","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0294","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0294","url":null,"abstract":"Since the early 1980s, the study of sport and politics has developed into a robust area of academic scholarship. Despite this growth, sport is often considered a phenomenon not associated with politics. Coupled with the popular perception that sport is too trivial or insignificant for serious research, sport and politics are not often connected or given significant consideration. One impetus for scholars of sport and politics is to demonstrate the important relationship between the two. As it has advanced, the study of the relationship between sport and politics has become an interdisciplinary endeavor. No one home of sport and politics exists. Decentralized, its study appears in a diversity of disciplines, notably within and in relation to cultural studies, economics, history, kinesiology, literature, geography, management, media and communications, political science, sociology, or urban studies. Political science alone is comprised of a range of fields and subfields (e.g., administration, policy, political theory, political economy, international relations, etc.). Acknowledging this diversity, both sport and politics come with definitional challenges. Sport is often associated with a structured organized activity that is goal-oriented, competitive, ludic, and physical. But commentators, critics, and everyday usage of the term often conflate it with exercise and physical activity, which are arguably less competitive and structured activities. Politics, too, can be taken in two common, and distinctive yet overlapping conceptual frames: The first involves the people, activities, processes, and decisions in the practices of governing a defined populace. The second takes a broader sense of the power relations and dynamics between people, which goes well beyond the strict understanding of institutions and government. Within the field, there is contention around whether or not the study of sport and politics should remain focused on practices of government alone, or if the latter conceptualization should be included. Regardless of where one sits on this issue, the study of sport and politics does indeed incorporate cross-cutting ideas of “sport” and “politics.” Early research on sport and politics focused on the more governmental side of politics, examining international relations, policy, diplomacy, or political ideology within specific countries, cities, or locales. This work has flourished since the early 1980s. Simultaneously, research foci pushed the boundaries of sport and politics by including broader understandings of power. Sporting organizations, teams, federations, international organizations, events, athletes, and celebrities, as well as exercise and physical activity practices, have been brought together with a range of politicized inquiry in relation to, for example, activism, conflict resolution, disability, environmental issues, ethnicity, health, human rights, gambling, gender, metal health, peace, pleasure, race, security, sexuality,","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2019-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43405097","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-11-26DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0290
H. Varkkey
Transboundary pollution problems have become increasingly important issues on the agenda of politicians, economists, and natural scientists. Transboundary pollution is defined legally as pollution that originates in one country but can cause damage in another country’s environment, by crossing borders through pathways like water or air. The problems of transboundary pollution include issues like the acidification of soils and lakes through acid rain, transboundary air pollution (known variably as smog, haze, or smoke), and downstream river or ocean pollution due to upstream activities. The traditional Westphalian approach that forms the cornerstone of the modern international system is based on the notion of geopolitical units, with borders indicating the limits of state jurisdiction. However, a distinctive characteristic of transboundary pollution problems is that pollution does not remain within political boundaries. Thus, this fluid nature of the environment has posed a challenge for environmental governance within this system. This article provides a bibliographic review of the literature on transboundary pollution as an international relations problem. This review is limited to works analyzing the problem of transboundary pollution through a mainly qualitative lens, mainly using works coming from international law, international relations, and public policy disciplines. After a brief discussion of some general works and issue-based journals, the first substantive section focuses on literature discussing the challenges of single-state regulation of transboundary pollution issues. Due to these difficulties, regulatory authority has gradually shifted from national to more international levels of governance. This is the focus of the second section, which compiles works that focus on developments in international law toward the regulation and governance of transboundary pollution at the international level. This section is broadly divided in two, firstly discussing literature looking at developments in customary international law, and secondly proceeding to look at more formal means through international environmental agreements (IEAs), conventions, and treaties. The third and final section of this bibliography compiles case studies on transboundary pollution governance arranged according to environmental pathways: air and water. While these case studies are not exhaustive, they are those that are most widely covered in the literature, covering regions like North America, Europe, Asia, and to a lesser extent Northeast Asia and Latin America. This work was partially supported by the Singapore Social Science Research Council (SSRC) grant on Sustainable Governance of Transboundary Environmental Commons in Southeast Asia, grant code MOE2016-SSRTG-068.
{"title":"Transboundary Pollution","authors":"H. Varkkey","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0290","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0290","url":null,"abstract":"Transboundary pollution problems have become increasingly important issues on the agenda of politicians, economists, and natural scientists. Transboundary pollution is defined legally as pollution that originates in one country but can cause damage in another country’s environment, by crossing borders through pathways like water or air. The problems of transboundary pollution include issues like the acidification of soils and lakes through acid rain, transboundary air pollution (known variably as smog, haze, or smoke), and downstream river or ocean pollution due to upstream activities. The traditional Westphalian approach that forms the cornerstone of the modern international system is based on the notion of geopolitical units, with borders indicating the limits of state jurisdiction. However, a distinctive characteristic of transboundary pollution problems is that pollution does not remain within political boundaries. Thus, this fluid nature of the environment has posed a challenge for environmental governance within this system. This article provides a bibliographic review of the literature on transboundary pollution as an international relations problem. This review is limited to works analyzing the problem of transboundary pollution through a mainly qualitative lens, mainly using works coming from international law, international relations, and public policy disciplines. After a brief discussion of some general works and issue-based journals, the first substantive section focuses on literature discussing the challenges of single-state regulation of transboundary pollution issues. Due to these difficulties, regulatory authority has gradually shifted from national to more international levels of governance. This is the focus of the second section, which compiles works that focus on developments in international law toward the regulation and governance of transboundary pollution at the international level. This section is broadly divided in two, firstly discussing literature looking at developments in customary international law, and secondly proceeding to look at more formal means through international environmental agreements (IEAs), conventions, and treaties. The third and final section of this bibliography compiles case studies on transboundary pollution governance arranged according to environmental pathways: air and water. While these case studies are not exhaustive, they are those that are most widely covered in the literature, covering regions like North America, Europe, Asia, and to a lesser extent Northeast Asia and Latin America. This work was partially supported by the Singapore Social Science Research Council (SSRC) grant on Sustainable Governance of Transboundary Environmental Commons in Southeast Asia, grant code MOE2016-SSRTG-068.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2019-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45026889","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-11-26DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0297
Kathleen Sullivan
The right to vote, equal protection under the law, and the right of privacy are the primary constitutional provisions that are pertinent to women as women. Formal recognition of these rights has failed to achieve full equality for women in the United States, however. The critical social and institutional analyses provided by political scientists can explain the failure of women’s rights to be realized. Adjudication of rights can be found in Supreme Court doctrine, but political scientists routinely look beyond the courts to consider that rights are political in their making, their operation, and their reception. Formal constitutional provisions were the product of social movements and political organization. The social hierarchies that impeded coalitions likewise inflected those victories with ongoing inequality between women, as well as inequality between men and women. Once achieved, those rights were shaped by ongoing legal mobilization, either to expand or to limit their reach. Even where the legal system legitimately sought to protect women’s rights, inadvertent institutional arrangements and practices have served to reproduce conditions of inequality. State-building and policy, then, are important in understanding the lived experience of rights. Finally, rights alone are unlikely to be honored if women lack the standing to be considered as legitimate exercisers of those rights. For that reason, scholars refer to rights in terms of citizenship, in which rights are protected and the polity recognizes the rights-holder as worthy of the claim.
{"title":"Women’s Legal and Constitutional Rights","authors":"Kathleen Sullivan","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0297","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0297","url":null,"abstract":"The right to vote, equal protection under the law, and the right of privacy are the primary constitutional provisions that are pertinent to women as women. Formal recognition of these rights has failed to achieve full equality for women in the United States, however. The critical social and institutional analyses provided by political scientists can explain the failure of women’s rights to be realized. Adjudication of rights can be found in Supreme Court doctrine, but political scientists routinely look beyond the courts to consider that rights are political in their making, their operation, and their reception. Formal constitutional provisions were the product of social movements and political organization. The social hierarchies that impeded coalitions likewise inflected those victories with ongoing inequality between women, as well as inequality between men and women. Once achieved, those rights were shaped by ongoing legal mobilization, either to expand or to limit their reach. Even where the legal system legitimately sought to protect women’s rights, inadvertent institutional arrangements and practices have served to reproduce conditions of inequality. State-building and policy, then, are important in understanding the lived experience of rights. Finally, rights alone are unlikely to be honored if women lack the standing to be considered as legitimate exercisers of those rights. For that reason, scholars refer to rights in terms of citizenship, in which rights are protected and the polity recognizes the rights-holder as worthy of the claim.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2019-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43344426","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-11-26DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0293
F. Volpi, F. Cavatorta
The issue of the democratization of the Muslim world has puzzled scholarship since the end of the Cold War, when the third wave of democratization swept across the world but seemed to bypass most Muslim-majority countries, particularly the Arab world. Central to the debate about democratization in the Muslim world is the relationship between the Islamic religion and the political system supposedly bound up with it. As we will see, for some authors there is an inherent contradiction between the precepts of the Muslim faith and the requirements of democracy, while for others the two can be compatible or causally separated. When the debate on democratization is framed in these terms, it becomes very important to specify the definitions, issues, and processes investigated and evaluated to avoid confusion. When discussing processes of democratization—the move away from authoritarian practices to a political system based on political pluralism—there is a tendency in the literature to consider primarily the emergence of a very specific form of democracy: liberal democracy. There is therefore an important difference between democracy and democratization. Democratization is concerned with the introduction of democratic mechanisms and procedures and not necessarily with the granting of extensive liberal individual rights. One can then imagine a democratic political system where individual rights are limited and focus on the minimal requirements for equal political participation. Liberal democracy for its part is concerned with democratic political systems seeking to operationalize the progressive extension of different liberal individual rights. When this distinction is taken into account, it becomes easier to interpret and explain the changes—or absence thereof—occurring across the Muslim world. At this stage, a further distinction is necessary: the one between the Muslim world as a geographical area, in which people belonging to the Muslim faith are the majority or a very significant part of the population, and an Islamic system in which religious precepts actually organize social and political life. In this respect, one finds that a significant number of Muslim-majority countries can be labeled procedural democratic, while authoritarianism characterizes in fact the Arab world (with exceptions) and not the Muslim world per se, suggesting that there is nothing inherently antidemocratic in the Islamic religion. It should also then be noted that an Islamic system is actually in place in a very limited number of countries and that authoritarianism in Muslim and Arab countries is commonly not the product of the adoption of an Islamic system of government.
{"title":"Democratization in the Muslim World","authors":"F. Volpi, F. Cavatorta","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0293","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0293","url":null,"abstract":"The issue of the democratization of the Muslim world has puzzled scholarship since the end of the Cold War, when the third wave of democratization swept across the world but seemed to bypass most Muslim-majority countries, particularly the Arab world. Central to the debate about democratization in the Muslim world is the relationship between the Islamic religion and the political system supposedly bound up with it. As we will see, for some authors there is an inherent contradiction between the precepts of the Muslim faith and the requirements of democracy, while for others the two can be compatible or causally separated. When the debate on democratization is framed in these terms, it becomes very important to specify the definitions, issues, and processes investigated and evaluated to avoid confusion. When discussing processes of democratization—the move away from authoritarian practices to a political system based on political pluralism—there is a tendency in the literature to consider primarily the emergence of a very specific form of democracy: liberal democracy. There is therefore an important difference between democracy and democratization. Democratization is concerned with the introduction of democratic mechanisms and procedures and not necessarily with the granting of extensive liberal individual rights. One can then imagine a democratic political system where individual rights are limited and focus on the minimal requirements for equal political participation. Liberal democracy for its part is concerned with democratic political systems seeking to operationalize the progressive extension of different liberal individual rights. When this distinction is taken into account, it becomes easier to interpret and explain the changes—or absence thereof—occurring across the Muslim world. At this stage, a further distinction is necessary: the one between the Muslim world as a geographical area, in which people belonging to the Muslim faith are the majority or a very significant part of the population, and an Islamic system in which religious precepts actually organize social and political life. In this respect, one finds that a significant number of Muslim-majority countries can be labeled procedural democratic, while authoritarianism characterizes in fact the Arab world (with exceptions) and not the Muslim world per se, suggesting that there is nothing inherently antidemocratic in the Islamic religion. It should also then be noted that an Islamic system is actually in place in a very limited number of countries and that authoritarianism in Muslim and Arab countries is commonly not the product of the adoption of an Islamic system of government.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2019-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43707056","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-11-26DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0288
Stephen P. Westcott
The Indo-Pacific region stretches from Japan in the north to Pakistan in the west to Australia in the south and the Micronesian islands in the east. When the various colonial empires withdrew from the region, they left numerous volatile interstate border disputes (IBDs) in their wake. With the balance of power shifting away from the Northern Atlantic and into the Indo-Pacific, the IBDs in the region are gaining more salience. Yet, within academic and public circles, the IBDs in the region have often been overshadowed by discussions over the military balance of power, nuclear brinkmanship, and political economy concerns such as trade route flows or resource competition. While these are unquestionably important issues, this focus on “high politics” tends to trivialize IBDs. This is problematic because, as numerous studies have demonstrated, IBDs have proven to be a leading cause of war and a primary source of international tension during peace. Indeed, many of the IBDs in the Indo-Pacific region are right at the center of the often-volatile region, fueled in part by a growing sense of nationalism within the region, by regional rivalries, and by the competition for strategic resources. Hence, developing a strong understanding of the IBDs that are, if not at the foundation of, the flint and tinder for international conflict is important. In the Indo-Pacific region, there are a number of highly diverse IBDs, ranging in size, salience, and type (territory and maritime). Some of these IBDs are major sources of tension in the region, such as the five-nation claim over the South China Sea at the heart of the Indo-Pacific or the notably bitter and fractious dispute between India and Pakistan over Jammu and Kashmir. The Indo-Pacific region also hosts some of the few remaining divided nations, namely, China’s claim of sovereignty over Taiwan and the two Koreas’ claims over each other. Others are relatively minor IBDs, such as Japan’s dispute with Korea over the Takeshima/Dokdo Island, which sees occasional demonstrations but otherwise has little impact on the two states’ bilateral relations. In between, there exist an array of IBDs of varying importance, ranging from the Sino-Indian border dispute, which often causes tension between the region’s rising nuclear armed superpowers, to the Thai-Cambodian dispute over the Preah Vihear temple complex, to the grossly under-researched Durand Line dispute between Afghanistan and Pakistan. This contribution to Oxford Bibliographies takes stock of the burgeoning literature on all of these issues.
{"title":"Interstate Border Dispute Management in the Indo-Pacific","authors":"Stephen P. Westcott","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0288","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0288","url":null,"abstract":"The Indo-Pacific region stretches from Japan in the north to Pakistan in the west to Australia in the south and the Micronesian islands in the east. When the various colonial empires withdrew from the region, they left numerous volatile interstate border disputes (IBDs) in their wake. With the balance of power shifting away from the Northern Atlantic and into the Indo-Pacific, the IBDs in the region are gaining more salience. Yet, within academic and public circles, the IBDs in the region have often been overshadowed by discussions over the military balance of power, nuclear brinkmanship, and political economy concerns such as trade route flows or resource competition. While these are unquestionably important issues, this focus on “high politics” tends to trivialize IBDs. This is problematic because, as numerous studies have demonstrated, IBDs have proven to be a leading cause of war and a primary source of international tension during peace. Indeed, many of the IBDs in the Indo-Pacific region are right at the center of the often-volatile region, fueled in part by a growing sense of nationalism within the region, by regional rivalries, and by the competition for strategic resources. Hence, developing a strong understanding of the IBDs that are, if not at the foundation of, the flint and tinder for international conflict is important. In the Indo-Pacific region, there are a number of highly diverse IBDs, ranging in size, salience, and type (territory and maritime). Some of these IBDs are major sources of tension in the region, such as the five-nation claim over the South China Sea at the heart of the Indo-Pacific or the notably bitter and fractious dispute between India and Pakistan over Jammu and Kashmir. The Indo-Pacific region also hosts some of the few remaining divided nations, namely, China’s claim of sovereignty over Taiwan and the two Koreas’ claims over each other. Others are relatively minor IBDs, such as Japan’s dispute with Korea over the Takeshima/Dokdo Island, which sees occasional demonstrations but otherwise has little impact on the two states’ bilateral relations. In between, there exist an array of IBDs of varying importance, ranging from the Sino-Indian border dispute, which often causes tension between the region’s rising nuclear armed superpowers, to the Thai-Cambodian dispute over the Preah Vihear temple complex, to the grossly under-researched Durand Line dispute between Afghanistan and Pakistan. This contribution to Oxford Bibliographies takes stock of the burgeoning literature on all of these issues.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2019-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49401089","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-11-26DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0287
S. Alles
Electoral rules have been considerably more fluid in developing than in consolidated democracies. Latin American democracies have experimented with a wide array of electoral rules to elect presidents and legislators. Moreover, reforms have not been limited to the national level. Politicians in second-level units such as states or provinces, when not constrained by the national constitution, often played the same game. In all these cases, since institutions have partisan consequences, the chance of a reform creates incentives for strategic manipulation. A growing body of literature, heavily influenced by distributive models used to examine reforms in consolidated democracies, has provided a better understanding of how politicians in Latin America craft the rules of the electoral game. Three main areas have attracted most of the research attention. First, research on presidential elections has examined the adoption of more permissive electoral formulas and the reform of reelection rules over recent decades. Second, literature on legislative elections has devoted considerable attention to the rules shaping the proportionality of the seat allocation, as well as to the adoption of affirmative mechanisms such as quotas and reserved seats. Third, research has analyzed changes in who is allowed to vote, i.e., the extension of voting rights; and in how voters cast their votes, i.e., the adoption of new voting procedures. Though this review will be specially focused on the adoption of new rules, it will also include research showing the consequences of those reforms.
{"title":"Electoral Reform in Latin America","authors":"S. Alles","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0287","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0287","url":null,"abstract":"Electoral rules have been considerably more fluid in developing than in consolidated democracies. Latin American democracies have experimented with a wide array of electoral rules to elect presidents and legislators. Moreover, reforms have not been limited to the national level. Politicians in second-level units such as states or provinces, when not constrained by the national constitution, often played the same game. In all these cases, since institutions have partisan consequences, the chance of a reform creates incentives for strategic manipulation. A growing body of literature, heavily influenced by distributive models used to examine reforms in consolidated democracies, has provided a better understanding of how politicians in Latin America craft the rules of the electoral game. Three main areas have attracted most of the research attention. First, research on presidential elections has examined the adoption of more permissive electoral formulas and the reform of reelection rules over recent decades. Second, literature on legislative elections has devoted considerable attention to the rules shaping the proportionality of the seat allocation, as well as to the adoption of affirmative mechanisms such as quotas and reserved seats. Third, research has analyzed changes in who is allowed to vote, i.e., the extension of voting rights; and in how voters cast their votes, i.e., the adoption of new voting procedures. Though this review will be specially focused on the adoption of new rules, it will also include research showing the consequences of those reforms.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2019-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41632521","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-11-26DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0289
S. Goodman
Immigration is among the most transformative experiences of postwar Europe. It has reoriented political parties, restructured the European party system, and given birth to new political parties, namely far-right exclusionary populist parties. Alongside these political changes, immigration presents innumerable social and economic challenges that have forced political elites to face hard questions about national belonging, economic growth, and demographic realities in aging nation-states. Reflecting the scale of this challenge, there are several branches of scholarship that strive to understanding and contextualize immigration in the European political landscape. There are three, general areas of immigration-related fields: immigration policy, immigration politics, and migrant politics. Immigration policy studies examine the rules and procedures that facilitate the entry, settlement, integration, and citizenship of a migrant. This is an admittedly maximalist definition—one can reserve the term “immigration policy” merely to the process and dynamics of admission. Yet, the reality of immigrant-related policy design and implementation shows policies as joined-up, aligned, and mutually reinforcing. As such, “immigration policy” incorporates all policies that address the condition of and consequences of migration. This body of work traditionally examines political, economic, and social determinants of policy and the effects of immigration policy on a variety of attitudinal and behavior outcomes, among both immigrant and native populations. The second group of scholarship looks at immigration politics. This body of work considers how political parties and elections structure and mobilize around immigration issues and saliency. Work within this strand may range from studying public opinion and electoral data to interviews that capture elite or other stakeholder (e.g., firm) preferences. This strand stretches across multiple levels of analysis, from the very local—like neighborhoods and city blocks, to regions, to national politics, to the supranational European Union. A final strand of literature looks at migrant politics. These are studies that look specifically at the formation of political identity, migrant political behavior, and migrant representation. Of course, these three strands of immigration studies are not mutually exclusive and often overlap, e.g., studies on how policies affect immigrant political behavior. Immigration politics is a critical factor shaping domestic politics and foreign policy alike. As immigration continues to fundamentally transform the European political space—immigration from both within Europe and without—we identify a number of critical pieces that help shape our understanding of this transition here to which scholars that seek to understand European politics today ignore at their own peril.
{"title":"Immigration and European Politics","authors":"S. Goodman","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0289","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0289","url":null,"abstract":"Immigration is among the most transformative experiences of postwar Europe. It has reoriented political parties, restructured the European party system, and given birth to new political parties, namely far-right exclusionary populist parties. Alongside these political changes, immigration presents innumerable social and economic challenges that have forced political elites to face hard questions about national belonging, economic growth, and demographic realities in aging nation-states. Reflecting the scale of this challenge, there are several branches of scholarship that strive to understanding and contextualize immigration in the European political landscape. There are three, general areas of immigration-related fields: immigration policy, immigration politics, and migrant politics. Immigration policy studies examine the rules and procedures that facilitate the entry, settlement, integration, and citizenship of a migrant. This is an admittedly maximalist definition—one can reserve the term “immigration policy” merely to the process and dynamics of admission. Yet, the reality of immigrant-related policy design and implementation shows policies as joined-up, aligned, and mutually reinforcing. As such, “immigration policy” incorporates all policies that address the condition of and consequences of migration. This body of work traditionally examines political, economic, and social determinants of policy and the effects of immigration policy on a variety of attitudinal and behavior outcomes, among both immigrant and native populations. The second group of scholarship looks at immigration politics. This body of work considers how political parties and elections structure and mobilize around immigration issues and saliency. Work within this strand may range from studying public opinion and electoral data to interviews that capture elite or other stakeholder (e.g., firm) preferences. This strand stretches across multiple levels of analysis, from the very local—like neighborhoods and city blocks, to regions, to national politics, to the supranational European Union. A final strand of literature looks at migrant politics. These are studies that look specifically at the formation of political identity, migrant political behavior, and migrant representation. Of course, these three strands of immigration studies are not mutually exclusive and often overlap, e.g., studies on how policies affect immigrant political behavior. Immigration politics is a critical factor shaping domestic politics and foreign policy alike. As immigration continues to fundamentally transform the European political space—immigration from both within Europe and without—we identify a number of critical pieces that help shape our understanding of this transition here to which scholars that seek to understand European politics today ignore at their own peril.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2019-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45637715","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-10-30DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0284
M. Hindman, Andrew B. Noland
In the waning decades of the 20th century, inequalities of wealth and political influence intensified amid what many scholars recognize as a “New Gilded Age.” Scholars point to manifold reasons for these inequalities, including globalization, the declining strength of organized labor, corporate political activity, a shrinking public sector, and tax reforms favoring the wealthy, to cite only a few. These various drivers of inequality, though, did not arise in isolation; an intelligible governing ethos underlies these various phenomena. This ethos is marked by its promotion of private-sector solutions to collective problems vis-à-vis government-led ones, its deference to markets vis-à-vis coordinated collective action, and its focus on entrepreneurialism and consumerism in nearly all facets of life. These features of contemporary political life all cohere into a concept recognized as “neoliberalism.” Depending on whom you ask, this term either helpfully assigns a logic to the amalgam of political problems confronting governance in the 21st century or, alternatively, serves as yet another hackneyed buzzword du jour. This article takes the former perspective, casting neoliberalism as a useful concept uniting a ranging of phenomena of which scholars of US politics ought to be familiar. This article describes and categorizes scholarship on neoliberalism according to three interrelated definitions of the term. Neoliberalism is: (1) a historical and intellectual trajectory that emerged in response to postwar Keynesianism; (2) a political project designed to foster a business-friendly social and political climate; and (3) an endeavor to transform citizenship itself. This article builds on these three characterizations, outlining the major works that explore and explain how neoliberal principles have impacted US politics, policy, and civic life. Scholarship on neoliberalism is vast and wide-ranging. Most of the works cited throughout this article explicitly note the influence of neoliberalism on one aspect or another of American life. Some works, however, uncover a critical aspect of neoliberalism without explicitly accepting or even mentioning the term itself. Collectively, however, these works will give readers a stronger grasp on what neoliberalism is and how the trends and principles associated with it have taken root within US politics and society.
{"title":"Neoliberalism in US Politics","authors":"M. Hindman, Andrew B. Noland","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0284","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0284","url":null,"abstract":"In the waning decades of the 20th century, inequalities of wealth and political influence intensified amid what many scholars recognize as a “New Gilded Age.” Scholars point to manifold reasons for these inequalities, including globalization, the declining strength of organized labor, corporate political activity, a shrinking public sector, and tax reforms favoring the wealthy, to cite only a few. These various drivers of inequality, though, did not arise in isolation; an intelligible governing ethos underlies these various phenomena. This ethos is marked by its promotion of private-sector solutions to collective problems vis-à-vis government-led ones, its deference to markets vis-à-vis coordinated collective action, and its focus on entrepreneurialism and consumerism in nearly all facets of life. These features of contemporary political life all cohere into a concept recognized as “neoliberalism.” Depending on whom you ask, this term either helpfully assigns a logic to the amalgam of political problems confronting governance in the 21st century or, alternatively, serves as yet another hackneyed buzzword du jour. This article takes the former perspective, casting neoliberalism as a useful concept uniting a ranging of phenomena of which scholars of US politics ought to be familiar. This article describes and categorizes scholarship on neoliberalism according to three interrelated definitions of the term. Neoliberalism is: (1) a historical and intellectual trajectory that emerged in response to postwar Keynesianism; (2) a political project designed to foster a business-friendly social and political climate; and (3) an endeavor to transform citizenship itself. This article builds on these three characterizations, outlining the major works that explore and explain how neoliberal principles have impacted US politics, policy, and civic life. Scholarship on neoliberalism is vast and wide-ranging. Most of the works cited throughout this article explicitly note the influence of neoliberalism on one aspect or another of American life. Some works, however, uncover a critical aspect of neoliberalism without explicitly accepting or even mentioning the term itself. Collectively, however, these works will give readers a stronger grasp on what neoliberalism is and how the trends and principles associated with it have taken root within US politics and society.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2019-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45801271","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-10-30DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0286
Adriana Boersner
Venezuela formally democratized in 1958 after several political and social forces fought together against the dictatorship of Marcos Pérez Jiménez. The evolution of this democracy was fast, partly due to the rapid economic growth and social mobility that prevailed as a result of oil wealth. In October 1958, three political parties, Acción Democrática, Comité de Organización Política Electoral Independiente, and Unión Republicana Democrática, signed a political pact, commonly known as Punto Fijo. In this document, all political parties committed themselves to respect the results of the elections and establish a government of national unity with equitable representation of the political forces. In 1961 a new constitution consolidated the principles of the nascent representative democracy. However, over time, economic inequality, power centralism, and patronage relationships led the country to fall into an institutional crisis. After a strong devaluation of the national currency in 1983, a critical event known as Viernes Negro, and fiscal adjustments, the government proposed macroeconomic adjustments in 1989, including cuts in subsidies on domestic gasoline. This resulted in massive riots across the country. This episode is historically known as El Caracazo or El Sacudón. Amid the economic and social turmoil, a lieutenant colonel named Hugo Chávez and other military leaders launched a military coup in 1992. Although the coup was unsuccessful in removing the president from power, Chávez became known at the national level. After two years in prison and launching a political party, Hugo Chávez won the presidential election in 1998. The contemporary literature on Venezuelan politics is periodized, emphasizing the division between the pre- and post-Chávez periods. Much of the work analyzing Venezuela prior to 1998 focuses on specific issues such as the economy and oil rentierism, El Caracazo, and the characteristics of the party system. Contrary, initial accounts of Chávez’s government mostly highlight his charismatic leadership. Later works, especially after the year 2002, focus much more on the authoritarian features of Chávez regime related to, for example, autocratic legalism, the supremacy of one-party regime, the connections between the government of Venezuela and other nondemocratic leaders in the world, and attacks against media and the press. Although experts do not agree about what type of authoritarianism exists is Venezuela, or even if one can characterize the first years of Chávez’s rule as an authoritarian one, since 2013, with Nicolás Maduro as president, the authoritarian features of the Venezuelan political regime are more manifest than ever.
{"title":"The Path Toward Authoritarianism in Venezuela","authors":"Adriana Boersner","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0286","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0286","url":null,"abstract":"Venezuela formally democratized in 1958 after several political and social forces fought together against the dictatorship of Marcos Pérez Jiménez. The evolution of this democracy was fast, partly due to the rapid economic growth and social mobility that prevailed as a result of oil wealth. In October 1958, three political parties, Acción Democrática, Comité de Organización Política Electoral Independiente, and Unión Republicana Democrática, signed a political pact, commonly known as Punto Fijo. In this document, all political parties committed themselves to respect the results of the elections and establish a government of national unity with equitable representation of the political forces. In 1961 a new constitution consolidated the principles of the nascent representative democracy. However, over time, economic inequality, power centralism, and patronage relationships led the country to fall into an institutional crisis. After a strong devaluation of the national currency in 1983, a critical event known as Viernes Negro, and fiscal adjustments, the government proposed macroeconomic adjustments in 1989, including cuts in subsidies on domestic gasoline. This resulted in massive riots across the country. This episode is historically known as El Caracazo or El Sacudón. Amid the economic and social turmoil, a lieutenant colonel named Hugo Chávez and other military leaders launched a military coup in 1992. Although the coup was unsuccessful in removing the president from power, Chávez became known at the national level. After two years in prison and launching a political party, Hugo Chávez won the presidential election in 1998. The contemporary literature on Venezuelan politics is periodized, emphasizing the division between the pre- and post-Chávez periods. Much of the work analyzing Venezuela prior to 1998 focuses on specific issues such as the economy and oil rentierism, El Caracazo, and the characteristics of the party system. Contrary, initial accounts of Chávez’s government mostly highlight his charismatic leadership. Later works, especially after the year 2002, focus much more on the authoritarian features of Chávez regime related to, for example, autocratic legalism, the supremacy of one-party regime, the connections between the government of Venezuela and other nondemocratic leaders in the world, and attacks against media and the press. Although experts do not agree about what type of authoritarianism exists is Venezuela, or even if one can characterize the first years of Chávez’s rule as an authoritarian one, since 2013, with Nicolás Maduro as president, the authoritarian features of the Venezuelan political regime are more manifest than ever.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2019-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46054727","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-10-30DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0281
Bonnie N. Field, Shane Martin
A minority government is one that comprises ministers from one or more political parties where the party or parties represented in the cabinet do not simultaneously hold an absolute majority (50 percent plus one) of the seats in the parliament or legislature. Minority governments are particularly interesting in parliamentary systems, where the government is responsible to parliament, meaning that the parliament can remove the government with a vote of no confidence. Minority governments are puzzling in this environment because, presumably, the political composition of the parliament determines who will govern, and the parliament can remove a sitting government that it does not support. This bibliography focuses primarily on parliamentary systems and national governments (we acknowledge, however, a growing literature on minority governments at the subnational level). Minority governments are common, representing approximately one-third of all governments in parliamentary systems. In the European context, minority governments have been particularly common in the Scandinavian democracies of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, and in Spain, Romania, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Ireland. They have also occurred in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and India, which historically were more accustomed to single-party majority governments. Minority governments also frequently occur at the regional and local level. Several questions drive research on minority governments. The first is why minority governments form. Are they an illogical outcome or one that a troubled political environment produces, or are they the consequences of rational decisions by political parties? Are there certain political or institutional characteristics that favor the formation of minority governments? A second line of research delves into how minority governments govern. This includes whether they govern with formal agreements with other parties in parliament, and through their alliance-building strategies within parliament. It also includes investigations into parties that provide support to minority governments within parliament—what scholars term “support parties.” A third line of research investigates the performance of minority governments. In particular, how does minority status affect the duration of the government and its ability to accomplish its policy goals and generate public support? While the research on minority governments varies, in general it has moved from viewing minority governments as peculiar and potentially problematic toward seeing them as rational cabinet solutions capable of effective governance.
{"title":"Minority Governments","authors":"Bonnie N. Field, Shane Martin","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0281","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0281","url":null,"abstract":"A minority government is one that comprises ministers from one or more political parties where the party or parties represented in the cabinet do not simultaneously hold an absolute majority (50 percent plus one) of the seats in the parliament or legislature. Minority governments are particularly interesting in parliamentary systems, where the government is responsible to parliament, meaning that the parliament can remove the government with a vote of no confidence. Minority governments are puzzling in this environment because, presumably, the political composition of the parliament determines who will govern, and the parliament can remove a sitting government that it does not support. This bibliography focuses primarily on parliamentary systems and national governments (we acknowledge, however, a growing literature on minority governments at the subnational level). Minority governments are common, representing approximately one-third of all governments in parliamentary systems. In the European context, minority governments have been particularly common in the Scandinavian democracies of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, and in Spain, Romania, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Ireland. They have also occurred in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and India, which historically were more accustomed to single-party majority governments. Minority governments also frequently occur at the regional and local level. Several questions drive research on minority governments. The first is why minority governments form. Are they an illogical outcome or one that a troubled political environment produces, or are they the consequences of rational decisions by political parties? Are there certain political or institutional characteristics that favor the formation of minority governments? A second line of research delves into how minority governments govern. This includes whether they govern with formal agreements with other parties in parliament, and through their alliance-building strategies within parliament. It also includes investigations into parties that provide support to minority governments within parliament—what scholars term “support parties.” A third line of research investigates the performance of minority governments. In particular, how does minority status affect the duration of the government and its ability to accomplish its policy goals and generate public support? While the research on minority governments varies, in general it has moved from viewing minority governments as peculiar and potentially problematic toward seeing them as rational cabinet solutions capable of effective governance.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2019-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41293084","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：