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":" ","pages":""},"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":" ","pages":""},"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":" ","pages":""},"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":"20 6","pages":""},"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}
Pub Date : 2019-10-30DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0283
Umut Özkırımlı
Nationalism is the belief that the interests and values of a particular nation are prior to, and often superior to, those of others. Etymologically, the origins of the term can be traced back to the Latin word natio, or “something born,” which was used by Romans to refer to a community of foreigners. It is commonly believed that in its modern sense of “love for a particular nation,” the term was first used in 1798. Nationalism refers to both an ideology and a political movement. In the context of the French Revolution, nationalism has come to be associated with the more inclusive idea of popular sovereignty based on shared and equal citizenship. Later, under the impact of German Romantic thought, it has also been connected to exclusivist notions of ethnic and cultural distinctiveness. As a political movement, nationalism has often entailed the fusion of these two ideals, presupposing a world composed of “nation-states” in which, at least in theory, each nation has a right to a state of its own, later called the principle of national self-determination. Nationalism has outlived the expectations of a great many thinkers, both on the right and the left, who predicted its imminent demise, and reasserted itself as a powerful tool for mobilization in the wake of the end of the Cold War, inspiring or energizing a vast array of political projects, from independentism and isolationism to authoritarianism and populism. Despite attempts to pool sovereignty in supranational or transnational bodies, mostly to counter the corrosive and uneven impact of globalization, nationalism remains the fundamental organizing principle of interstate order and the ultimate source of political legitimacy. For many, it is also the taken-for-granted context of everyday life and a readily available cognitive and discursive frame to make sense of the world that surrounds them.
{"title":"Nationalism","authors":"Umut Özkırımlı","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0283","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0283","url":null,"abstract":"Nationalism is the belief that the interests and values of a particular nation are prior to, and often superior to, those of others. Etymologically, the origins of the term can be traced back to the Latin word natio, or “something born,” which was used by Romans to refer to a community of foreigners. It is commonly believed that in its modern sense of “love for a particular nation,” the term was first used in 1798. Nationalism refers to both an ideology and a political movement. In the context of the French Revolution, nationalism has come to be associated with the more inclusive idea of popular sovereignty based on shared and equal citizenship. Later, under the impact of German Romantic thought, it has also been connected to exclusivist notions of ethnic and cultural distinctiveness. As a political movement, nationalism has often entailed the fusion of these two ideals, presupposing a world composed of “nation-states” in which, at least in theory, each nation has a right to a state of its own, later called the principle of national self-determination. Nationalism has outlived the expectations of a great many thinkers, both on the right and the left, who predicted its imminent demise, and reasserted itself as a powerful tool for mobilization in the wake of the end of the Cold War, inspiring or energizing a vast array of political projects, from independentism and isolationism to authoritarianism and populism. Despite attempts to pool sovereignty in supranational or transnational bodies, mostly to counter the corrosive and uneven impact of globalization, nationalism remains the fundamental organizing principle of interstate order and the ultimate source of political legitimacy. For many, it is also the taken-for-granted context of everyday life and a readily available cognitive and discursive frame to make sense of the world that surrounds them.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2019-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47566199","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 : 2019-09-25DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0278
Juan Pablo Micozzi
Even long before its last democratic restoration in 1983, Argentina has been a salient case for comparative political analyses. Several relevant concepts and events—such as the bureaucratic-authoritarian state and the presence of an impossible game developed by O’Donnell; the paradox of underdevelopment compared to Australia or Canada, as explained by Platt, Martin, and Di Tella; the emergence of a rara avis called Peronism in the work of Gino Germani and others; or the path of transition by collapse depicted by O’Donnell, Schmitter, and Whitehead—kept the profile of this country high in the consideration of academic scholarship. History helped to bring about this high profile in an undeniable manner. Within a century, Argentina hosted multiple military coups and further democratic restorations, successive calls for elections where the plurality party was banned from competition, an almost never-ending cycle of economic crises, and even a war against a NATO member that triggered the last return to democracy in 1983. Throughout the more than three straight decades of contemporary democracy, different dimensions of politics and government in Argentina have been analyzed by the literature. The complex interactions among actors and institutions in a country characterized by presidentialism, federalism, political mobilization, interruptions of executive mandates, a wide middle class, redistributive claims, a past of repression, and cyclical economic shocks, among others, forged substantive political dynamics. Most of these dimensions will be reviewed in this chapter, whose contributions have been published in the most relevant journals and presses, especially in the areas of institutions, subnational politics, and clientelism and patronage.
{"title":"Argentine Government and Politics","authors":"Juan Pablo Micozzi","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0278","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0278","url":null,"abstract":"Even long before its last democratic restoration in 1983, Argentina has been a salient case for comparative political analyses. Several relevant concepts and events—such as the bureaucratic-authoritarian state and the presence of an impossible game developed by O’Donnell; the paradox of underdevelopment compared to Australia or Canada, as explained by Platt, Martin, and Di Tella; the emergence of a rara avis called Peronism in the work of Gino Germani and others; or the path of transition by collapse depicted by O’Donnell, Schmitter, and Whitehead—kept the profile of this country high in the consideration of academic scholarship. History helped to bring about this high profile in an undeniable manner. Within a century, Argentina hosted multiple military coups and further democratic restorations, successive calls for elections where the plurality party was banned from competition, an almost never-ending cycle of economic crises, and even a war against a NATO member that triggered the last return to democracy in 1983. Throughout the more than three straight decades of contemporary democracy, different dimensions of politics and government in Argentina have been analyzed by the literature. The complex interactions among actors and institutions in a country characterized by presidentialism, federalism, political mobilization, interruptions of executive mandates, a wide middle class, redistributive claims, a past of repression, and cyclical economic shocks, among others, forged substantive political dynamics. Most of these dimensions will be reviewed in this chapter, whose contributions have been published in the most relevant journals and presses, especially in the areas of institutions, subnational politics, and clientelism and patronage.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2019-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42271058","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 : 2019-09-25DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0280
K. Victor
The movement of people within states and across state borders has occurred for hundreds of years. Research examining how, when, and why domestic populations perceive of positive or negative impacts from the rise or fall of immigration is examined in the following sections. Within the literature on public opinion and immigration, various themes, immigrant groups, and domestic populations are examined; public opinion in receiving countries tends to be limited to North America, western Europe, and Australia. The first theme examines the impact of immigrant types—certain immigrants are viewed more favorably than others. The frames used by elites and the news media help to develop the notion of deservedness or usefulness of immigrant types. How often the immigration issue is in the news or in the political sphere, along with the tone of the coverage, heightens the salience and can influence public opinion on immigration. The second theme examines the role of economics at the personal, regional, or national levels. This research examines more than just personal or national economic context; it also examines additional underlying attitudes and beliefs about racial and ethnic groups, such as group threat and proximity to immigrant groups, that may be active or latent and influence public opinion on immigration. The third theme examines when and how public opinion on immigration influences other policy areas, such as individual preferences for further integration in the European Union (EU), or support for welfare and other redistributive programs sponsored by the state. The fourth theme is how and when public opinion on immigration changes—what explains periods of slow and steady support or opposition, versus periods of rapid or volatile changes to public opinion on immigration. There are a few recurring points of interest across the several broad themes outlined above: (1) perceptions of positive or negative impact of immigrants in the receiving country, (2) perceptions of the number of immigrants compared to domestic populations in receiving country, and (3) the current salience and context of the immigration issue in the receiving country.
{"title":"Public Opinion on Immigration","authors":"K. Victor","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0280","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0280","url":null,"abstract":"The movement of people within states and across state borders has occurred for hundreds of years. Research examining how, when, and why domestic populations perceive of positive or negative impacts from the rise or fall of immigration is examined in the following sections. Within the literature on public opinion and immigration, various themes, immigrant groups, and domestic populations are examined; public opinion in receiving countries tends to be limited to North America, western Europe, and Australia. The first theme examines the impact of immigrant types—certain immigrants are viewed more favorably than others. The frames used by elites and the news media help to develop the notion of deservedness or usefulness of immigrant types. How often the immigration issue is in the news or in the political sphere, along with the tone of the coverage, heightens the salience and can influence public opinion on immigration. The second theme examines the role of economics at the personal, regional, or national levels. This research examines more than just personal or national economic context; it also examines additional underlying attitudes and beliefs about racial and ethnic groups, such as group threat and proximity to immigrant groups, that may be active or latent and influence public opinion on immigration. The third theme examines when and how public opinion on immigration influences other policy areas, such as individual preferences for further integration in the European Union (EU), or support for welfare and other redistributive programs sponsored by the state. The fourth theme is how and when public opinion on immigration changes—what explains periods of slow and steady support or opposition, versus periods of rapid or volatile changes to public opinion on immigration. There are a few recurring points of interest across the several broad themes outlined above: (1) perceptions of positive or negative impact of immigrants in the receiving country, (2) perceptions of the number of immigrants compared to domestic populations in receiving country, and (3) the current salience and context of the immigration issue in the receiving country.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2019-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48717117","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 : 2019-09-25DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0282
Alexa Bankert
Partisanship is omnipresent in American politics. Even in European multiparty systems and emerging democracies in Africa, attachments to political parties form easily, enduringly, and almost instantly. Given its potent role in impacting citizens’ political attitudes and behavior, it is no surprise that political scientists have dedicated a tremendous amount of effort and time to examining the origins, conceptualization, and measurement of partisanship. Yet important questions remain: Is partisanship purely psychological, or is it grounded in strong political attitudes and ideologies? Is partisanship influenced by political preferences, or does partisanship influence political preferences? And how does partisanship influence attitudes toward the out-party? This bibliography will introduce readings that address these questions. At the same time, this entry will go beyond the canonical work on positive partisan attachments and introduce the work on negative partisanship—the notion that citizens increasingly feel lukewarm about their own party and primarily define themselves by which political party they do not belong to. The reader can utilize this overview to identify new research avenues.
{"title":"Positive and Negative Partisanship","authors":"Alexa Bankert","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0282","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0282","url":null,"abstract":"Partisanship is omnipresent in American politics. Even in European multiparty systems and emerging democracies in Africa, attachments to political parties form easily, enduringly, and almost instantly. Given its potent role in impacting citizens’ political attitudes and behavior, it is no surprise that political scientists have dedicated a tremendous amount of effort and time to examining the origins, conceptualization, and measurement of partisanship. Yet important questions remain: Is partisanship purely psychological, or is it grounded in strong political attitudes and ideologies? Is partisanship influenced by political preferences, or does partisanship influence political preferences? And how does partisanship influence attitudes toward the out-party? This bibliography will introduce readings that address these questions. At the same time, this entry will go beyond the canonical work on positive partisan attachments and introduce the work on negative partisanship—the notion that citizens increasingly feel lukewarm about their own party and primarily define themselves by which political party they do not belong to. The reader can utilize this overview to identify new research avenues.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2019-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44383969","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 : 2019-09-02DOI: 10.1080/00323187.2020.1781541
Sergiu Gherghina, A. Racu, Aurelian Giugăl, A. Gavriș, Nanuli Silagadze, R. Johnston
ABSTRACT The requirement of a participation quorum for validity makes non-voting in referendums an important type of voting behaviour. This article seeks to explain non-voting in a referendum where the expectation was to have high turnout but where in reality only few voted, i.e. the 2018 referendum on the topic of same-sex marriage in Romania. Our explanations are inspired by the literature on turnout on elections to which we add several specific features of referendums. We propose three major sets of factors derived from the literature: access to resources, strategic decisions and campaign issues. The analysis relies on 36 semi-structured interviews with individuals aged 18 and above conducted in several urban and rural localities throughout Romania between December 2018 and March 2019.
{"title":"Non-voting in the 2018 Romanian referendum: the importance of initiators, campaigning and issue saliency","authors":"Sergiu Gherghina, A. Racu, Aurelian Giugăl, A. Gavriș, Nanuli Silagadze, R. Johnston","doi":"10.1080/00323187.2020.1781541","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00323187.2020.1781541","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The requirement of a participation quorum for validity makes non-voting in referendums an important type of voting behaviour. This article seeks to explain non-voting in a referendum where the expectation was to have high turnout but where in reality only few voted, i.e. the 2018 referendum on the topic of same-sex marriage in Romania. Our explanations are inspired by the literature on turnout on elections to which we add several specific features of referendums. We propose three major sets of factors derived from the literature: access to resources, strategic decisions and campaign issues. The analysis relies on 36 semi-structured interviews with individuals aged 18 and above conducted in several urban and rural localities throughout Romania between December 2018 and March 2019.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":"71 1","pages":"193 - 213"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2019-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00323187.2020.1781541","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45345538","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 : 2019-09-02DOI: 10.1080/00323187.2020.1771883
Sian Troath
{"title":"The US lobby and Australian defence policy","authors":"Sian Troath","doi":"10.1080/00323187.2020.1771883","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00323187.2020.1771883","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":"71 1","pages":"214 - 215"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2019-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00323187.2020.1771883","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45320167","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：