Pub Date : 2020-10-28DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0316
S. Mirza
Waste studies is premised on the understanding that waste is not essentially dirty or invaluable, but rather an arena through which classification, social boundaries, and state-making takes place. Mary Douglas’s structural approach in Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (2002) forms the cornerstone of waste studies by seeing waste as “matter out of place.” It explores the social function of waste as posing a problem of the unknown, disorderly and disturbing. The terming of something as “disorderly,” “risky,” “insanitary,” or “polluted,” Douglas argues, constitutes dominant power structures of states and scientific and religious institutions that determine the drawing of individual, social, and cultural boundaries. Douglas’s insights are used to recognize the ways the categories of value-non-value, norm-exception, structure-deviation, nature-culture, and object-subject get made. As a constructed category, waste in the context of Indian cities is seen to exacerbate existing class inequalities as well as to express and reify caste structures, together constituting a distinct postcolonial urbanism. Urban waste practices lay bare disjunctures of India’s postcolonial modernity in the everyday functioning of the state, labor, and economy for urban sanitation, which deploy caste-community labor of the former untouchable castes for waste-work. At the same time, colonially constituted sanitary science and advanced waste technology adopted by municipalities frame a circular relationship between poverty and disease, deeming the urban poor, their dwellings in crowded slums, and the work of sanitation as the cause of filth, squalor, and the contamination of cities. The prevalence and dominance of particular cultures of sanitation can be linked to social location, including an intersection of caste, class, minority, linguistic, and gender identities, requiring a political understanding of social interests within urban governance and the science of sanitation. In describing these disjunctures at the heart of India’s urbanism, this review will outline five conceptual tropes through which waste in Indian cities has been viewed: (1) as a common resource in a fluid terrain of property rights; (2) as informal and enabling the right to the city; (3) in terms of the colonial making of waste infrastructure, as highly unequal and differentiated; (4) as socially reproducing stigmatized caste labor through a social division of purity and pollution; and (5) as involving multiple stakeholders, including private initiatives, neoliberal policies, international networks, and global circuits.
废物研究的前提是，废物本质上不是肮脏或宝贵的，而是一个进行分类、社会边界和国家制定的舞台。玛丽·道格拉斯（Mary Douglas）在《纯粹与危险：污染与禁忌概念分析》（Purity and Danger:An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo，2002）一书中采用的结构性方法，将废物视为“不合时宜的物质”，构成了废物研究的基石。该书探讨了废物的社会功能，即构成未知、无序和令人不安的问题。道格拉斯认为，将某些东西称为“无序”、“危险”、“不卫生”或“污染”，构成了国家、科学和宗教机构的主导权力结构，决定了个人、社会和文化边界的划定。道格拉斯的见解被用来识别价值非价值、规范例外、结构偏差、自然文化和客体主体类别的形成方式。作为一种构建的类别，印度城市中的废物被视为加剧了现有的阶级不平等，并表达和具体化了种姓结构，共同构成了一种独特的后殖民城市主义。城市垃圾处理的做法暴露了印度后殖民现代性在国家、劳动力和经济的日常运作中对城市卫生的脱节，城市卫生利用了前贱民种姓的种姓社区劳动力进行垃圾处理。与此同时，殖民地建立的卫生科学和市政当局采用的先进废物技术在贫困和疾病之间建立了循环关系，认为城市穷人、他们在拥挤的贫民窟中的住所以及卫生工作是城市肮脏、肮脏和污染的原因。特定卫生文化的盛行和主导可能与社会位置有关，包括种姓、阶级、少数民族、语言和性别身份的交叉，这需要对城市治理和卫生科学中的社会利益有政治理解。在描述印度城市主义核心的这些脱节时，这篇综述将概述五个概念比喻，通过这些比喻，人们可以看待印度城市中的废物：（1）作为产权流动地带的共同资源；（2） 作为非正式的和有利于城市权利的；（3） 就殖民地制造废物基础设施而言，这是高度不平等和有区别的；（4） 通过纯洁和污染的社会划分，在社会上复制被污名化的种姓劳动；以及（5）涉及多个利益攸关方，包括私人倡议、新自由主义政策、国际网络和全球电路。
{"title":"The Politics of Waste and Social Inequalities in Indian Cities","authors":"S. Mirza","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0316","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0316","url":null,"abstract":"Waste studies is premised on the understanding that waste is not essentially dirty or invaluable, but rather an arena through which classification, social boundaries, and state-making takes place. Mary Douglas’s structural approach in Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (2002) forms the cornerstone of waste studies by seeing waste as “matter out of place.” It explores the social function of waste as posing a problem of the unknown, disorderly and disturbing. The terming of something as “disorderly,” “risky,” “insanitary,” or “polluted,” Douglas argues, constitutes dominant power structures of states and scientific and religious institutions that determine the drawing of individual, social, and cultural boundaries. Douglas’s insights are used to recognize the ways the categories of value-non-value, norm-exception, structure-deviation, nature-culture, and object-subject get made. As a constructed category, waste in the context of Indian cities is seen to exacerbate existing class inequalities as well as to express and reify caste structures, together constituting a distinct postcolonial urbanism. Urban waste practices lay bare disjunctures of India’s postcolonial modernity in the everyday functioning of the state, labor, and economy for urban sanitation, which deploy caste-community labor of the former untouchable castes for waste-work. At the same time, colonially constituted sanitary science and advanced waste technology adopted by municipalities frame a circular relationship between poverty and disease, deeming the urban poor, their dwellings in crowded slums, and the work of sanitation as the cause of filth, squalor, and the contamination of cities. The prevalence and dominance of particular cultures of sanitation can be linked to social location, including an intersection of caste, class, minority, linguistic, and gender identities, requiring a political understanding of social interests within urban governance and the science of sanitation. In describing these disjunctures at the heart of India’s urbanism, this review will outline five conceptual tropes through which waste in Indian cities has been viewed: (1) as a common resource in a fluid terrain of property rights; (2) as informal and enabling the right to the city; (3) in terms of the colonial making of waste infrastructure, as highly unequal and differentiated; (4) as socially reproducing stigmatized caste labor through a social division of purity and pollution; and (5) as involving multiple stakeholders, including private initiatives, neoliberal policies, international networks, and global circuits.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44041451","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 : 2020-10-28DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0320
Lauren Peterson, C. Grogan
Comparative studies of health care in the United States and peer nations often highlight a number of distinct features of the American system including high costs, fragmentation, and health inequities. While unique political factors and institutions in the United States are prominent reasons for these disparities, there are also distinct interactions between American politics and cultural, economic, racial, and social factors. Many comprehensive overviews of American health politics and policy begin in the 20th century highlighting the important influence of global and national historical events, such as World Wars I and II, and social movements, including the civil rights movement. Yet, health-care politics in the United States also continues to be shaped by early American history, government institutions, and systems. To understand health-care policy in the United States, it is also necessary to consider the legacy of other non-health factors and their intersections with health politics, including slavery and ongoing racism, early Protestant notions of mortality and self-reliance, the localized nature of private charity and volunteerism, federalism, a public distrust of federal government, and the evolution of health professions, among other factors. Often these historical events and other cultural, economic, or social factors significantly shape public opinion, political participation, and health-care inequities, and in some cases, provide a window of opportunity to advance important health-care reforms. The structure of American government institutions, political parties and growing polarization, unique attributes of elected leaders or policy entrepreneurs, and the power of interest groups, particularly private actors in the health care delivery system, are all significant factors that shape health-care politics in the United States. Contemporary American public health policy literature focuses on efforts to reduce health inequities and improve access to health care as well as the politics of recent reform ideas that promote government regulation and investments in non-health factors such as the environment and social services to reduce population health inequities.
{"title":"Health-Care Politics in the United States","authors":"Lauren Peterson, C. Grogan","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0320","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0320","url":null,"abstract":"Comparative studies of health care in the United States and peer nations often highlight a number of distinct features of the American system including high costs, fragmentation, and health inequities. While unique political factors and institutions in the United States are prominent reasons for these disparities, there are also distinct interactions between American politics and cultural, economic, racial, and social factors. Many comprehensive overviews of American health politics and policy begin in the 20th century highlighting the important influence of global and national historical events, such as World Wars I and II, and social movements, including the civil rights movement. Yet, health-care politics in the United States also continues to be shaped by early American history, government institutions, and systems. To understand health-care policy in the United States, it is also necessary to consider the legacy of other non-health factors and their intersections with health politics, including slavery and ongoing racism, early Protestant notions of mortality and self-reliance, the localized nature of private charity and volunteerism, federalism, a public distrust of federal government, and the evolution of health professions, among other factors. Often these historical events and other cultural, economic, or social factors significantly shape public opinion, political participation, and health-care inequities, and in some cases, provide a window of opportunity to advance important health-care reforms. The structure of American government institutions, political parties and growing polarization, unique attributes of elected leaders or policy entrepreneurs, and the power of interest groups, particularly private actors in the health care delivery system, are all significant factors that shape health-care politics in the United States. Contemporary American public health policy literature focuses on efforts to reduce health inequities and improve access to health care as well as the politics of recent reform ideas that promote government regulation and investments in non-health factors such as the environment and social services to reduce population health inequities.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42347111","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 : 2020-10-28DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0322
M. Haddad
Civil society in East Asia emerged from two community-generated needs: Rural villages relying primarily on rice farming had to work together to manage collective water supplies, and urban residents in densely packed housing similarly required neighborhood-based associations to fight fire, promote public health, and alleviate intense poverty. Mutual aid organizations rooted in these premodern traditions have not died off and continue to thrive across the region in the form of neighborhood associations, volunteer fire departments, and the like. With the introduction of Christian churches, democratic thought, and the increasingly diverse and complex lifestyles associated with capitalist development, the region has also seen the introduction of other forms of civil society organizations emerge, such as charity groups, reading circles, hobby groups, nonprofit welfare service organizations, ethnic and identity-based mutual aid groups, and advocacy organizations. Because East Asia did not experience the European Enlightenment, with its ideas of separating the public sphere from private interests, and has continued to be strongly influenced by Confucian traditions that emphasize the importance of self-cultivation and social order, civil society in East Asia has tended to be less confrontational toward the state than in other parts of the world. Laws across the region often require that nonprofit organizations register with a “supervising” government ministry, there are strict limits on political lobbying, and personal and corporate donations are often not tax-free. As with other parts of the world, individual citizens and communities do organize and engage in protests, demanding government accountability after corruption scandals, cleaner air and water, and increased protection for ethnic and social minorities, as well as organizing to promote specific policy outcomes. These grassroots movements have sometimes been successful, and both South Korea and Taiwan experienced peaceful transitions to democracy directly as a result of democratic social movements. In East Asia today, we find the same range of civil society organizations that exist across all advanced capitalist societies. As with counterparts elsewhere, civil society in the region is constantly evolving, combining the unique culture of the place in which it operates with influences from abroad.
{"title":"Civil Society and Social Movements in East Asia","authors":"M. Haddad","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0322","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0322","url":null,"abstract":"Civil society in East Asia emerged from two community-generated needs: Rural villages relying primarily on rice farming had to work together to manage collective water supplies, and urban residents in densely packed housing similarly required neighborhood-based associations to fight fire, promote public health, and alleviate intense poverty. Mutual aid organizations rooted in these premodern traditions have not died off and continue to thrive across the region in the form of neighborhood associations, volunteer fire departments, and the like. With the introduction of Christian churches, democratic thought, and the increasingly diverse and complex lifestyles associated with capitalist development, the region has also seen the introduction of other forms of civil society organizations emerge, such as charity groups, reading circles, hobby groups, nonprofit welfare service organizations, ethnic and identity-based mutual aid groups, and advocacy organizations. Because East Asia did not experience the European Enlightenment, with its ideas of separating the public sphere from private interests, and has continued to be strongly influenced by Confucian traditions that emphasize the importance of self-cultivation and social order, civil society in East Asia has tended to be less confrontational toward the state than in other parts of the world. Laws across the region often require that nonprofit organizations register with a “supervising” government ministry, there are strict limits on political lobbying, and personal and corporate donations are often not tax-free. As with other parts of the world, individual citizens and communities do organize and engage in protests, demanding government accountability after corruption scandals, cleaner air and water, and increased protection for ethnic and social minorities, as well as organizing to promote specific policy outcomes. These grassroots movements have sometimes been successful, and both South Korea and Taiwan experienced peaceful transitions to democracy directly as a result of democratic social movements. In East Asia today, we find the same range of civil society organizations that exist across all advanced capitalist societies. As with counterparts elsewhere, civil society in the region is constantly evolving, combining the unique culture of the place in which it operates with influences from abroad.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49127864","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 : 2020-10-28DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0319
Zuzana Ringlerova
The European Union (EU) is a supranational political system that unites more than twenty-five European countries. European integration began to facilitate economic cooperation. Over time, it evolved into both an economic and political union. The progress in European integration accelerated in the 1980s and the 1990s. As a result, the European Union was established in 1993 and assumed more political power. The process of establishing the European Union was slowed by the results of a referendum in Denmark, which at first did not approve the treaty establishing the EU. This referendum made it clear that public support for European integration could no longer be taken for granted and that public attitudes toward the EU are crucial for the European Union’s future development. In other words, the era of permissive consensus ended and it became clear that public opinion has become a powerful force in the development of European integration. Since then, public opinion has had a clear influence on the direction of European integration in a number of ways. Examples of this influence include the rejection of the single European currency in Sweden, the failure of the Constitution for Europe, and, most notably, the United Kingdom’s decision to exit the EU. Public opinion has influenced European politics in other ways as well. For example, national political elites, acting at the European level, are constrained in their decisions by public opinion at home. The importance of understanding public opinion toward the EU has given rise to a lively research program. In their quest to understand citizens’ attitudes toward the EU, researchers first had to conceptualize the key concepts in this field, in particular the meaning of public support for the EU. Following this, scholars began to investigate why people support or oppose the European Union, which became the most widely studied topic in this field. In addition, studies have examined public support for specific European policies, determinants of voting in EU-related referendums, public support for EU membership in countries outside the EU, and the extent to which public opinion matters for policymaking in the EU. All these topics are included in this annotated bibliography. The section devoted to General Introductions and Review Articles lists review articles and textbook chapters that provide a quick overview of the topic as a whole. The next section, What Is Public Support for the EU and How Do We Explain It?, digs deeper into the concept of public support for the EU, asking how the concept is defined and what explains support for the EU. The following three sections deal with public opinion toward specific EU policies (Public Opinion toward Specific EU Policies), public support for the EU in nonmember states (Public Support for the EU in Candidate Countries and Other Nonmember States), and the question of public opinion’s influence on policymaking in the EU (Does Public Opinion Matter for Policymaking in the
{"title":"Public Opinion in Europe toward the European Union","authors":"Zuzana Ringlerova","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0319","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0319","url":null,"abstract":"The European Union (EU) is a supranational political system that unites more than twenty-five European countries. European integration began to facilitate economic cooperation. Over time, it evolved into both an economic and political union. The progress in European integration accelerated in the 1980s and the 1990s. As a result, the European Union was established in 1993 and assumed more political power. The process of establishing the European Union was slowed by the results of a referendum in Denmark, which at first did not approve the treaty establishing the EU. This referendum made it clear that public support for European integration could no longer be taken for granted and that public attitudes toward the EU are crucial for the European Union’s future development. In other words, the era of permissive consensus ended and it became clear that public opinion has become a powerful force in the development of European integration. Since then, public opinion has had a clear influence on the direction of European integration in a number of ways. Examples of this influence include the rejection of the single European currency in Sweden, the failure of the Constitution for Europe, and, most notably, the United Kingdom’s decision to exit the EU. Public opinion has influenced European politics in other ways as well. For example, national political elites, acting at the European level, are constrained in their decisions by public opinion at home. The importance of understanding public opinion toward the EU has given rise to a lively research program. In their quest to understand citizens’ attitudes toward the EU, researchers first had to conceptualize the key concepts in this field, in particular the meaning of public support for the EU. Following this, scholars began to investigate why people support or oppose the European Union, which became the most widely studied topic in this field. In addition, studies have examined public support for specific European policies, determinants of voting in EU-related referendums, public support for EU membership in countries outside the EU, and the extent to which public opinion matters for policymaking in the EU. All these topics are included in this annotated bibliography. The section devoted to General Introductions and Review Articles lists review articles and textbook chapters that provide a quick overview of the topic as a whole. The next section, What Is Public Support for the EU and How Do We Explain It?, digs deeper into the concept of public support for the EU, asking how the concept is defined and what explains support for the EU. The following three sections deal with public opinion toward specific EU policies (Public Opinion toward Specific EU Policies), public support for the EU in nonmember states (Public Support for the EU in Candidate Countries and Other Nonmember States), and the question of public opinion’s influence on policymaking in the EU (Does Public Opinion Matter for Policymaking in the ","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43563382","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 : 2020-10-28DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0325
E. Tsang
This article explores why the younger generation of China’s emergent middle class embraces conspicuous consumption but is not interested in politics. Collectively, this behavior is motivated by the quest for social recognition and status, but there are also signs the behavior is sanctioned—if not subtly guided—by the ruling Communist party’s logic of governing. Using the Foucauldian concept of “governmentality,” this article posits that the authoritarian Chinese regime tacitly utilizes noncoercive means to direct the middle class away from activism toward conspicuous consumption. Specifically, through tactics like real name registration (RNR) and value-laden mass media ads and programs, an environment is created that encourages conspicuous consumption as a form of calculated “pastoral” control. This allows government to guide without confrontation. Consequently, the emergent middle class is confronted with the pressure to navigate their own consumption patterns to align with the government’s quasi-veiled preferences that the citizenry should engage with materialist consumption rather than politics. China uses governmentality to orient the new middle-class citizen to consume and to steer away from political engagement that poses a possible threat to the communist regime. Despite insightful arguments about both consumption and governmentality and a growing scholarly interest in the rise of the middle class in China few studies examine the relationship between the conspicuous consumption habits of the Chinese middle class and the governmentality of the ruling party, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Mass media and consumer culture reinforce each other to create a stable climate based upon market rationality and consumerism. The CCP has two roles in indoctrinating the new middle class through noncoercive ways. The mobilization of mass media in terms of real name registration and traditional media outlets such as newspapers reflect a way of life that allows middle class citizens to maintain their good life and status to pursue their dreams under Xi’s regime. This status persists through consumption for the self and others (as a practice of gift giving) alongside apolitical involvement. The CCP focuses on entrepreneurs’ success stories as the epitome of good citizenship. Participation in political activities is discouraged by removing it from even being mentioned, discussed, or even shown in any of these accounts. This indirectly positions apolitical involvement as a lifestyle that allows citizens to be cosmopolitan individuals and quality (suzhi素質) citizens in post-Reform China.
{"title":"Political Economy of China","authors":"E. Tsang","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0325","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0325","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores why the younger generation of China’s emergent middle class embraces conspicuous consumption but is not interested in politics. Collectively, this behavior is motivated by the quest for social recognition and status, but there are also signs the behavior is sanctioned—if not subtly guided—by the ruling Communist party’s logic of governing. Using the Foucauldian concept of “governmentality,” this article posits that the authoritarian Chinese regime tacitly utilizes noncoercive means to direct the middle class away from activism toward conspicuous consumption. Specifically, through tactics like real name registration (RNR) and value-laden mass media ads and programs, an environment is created that encourages conspicuous consumption as a form of calculated “pastoral” control. This allows government to guide without confrontation. Consequently, the emergent middle class is confronted with the pressure to navigate their own consumption patterns to align with the government’s quasi-veiled preferences that the citizenry should engage with materialist consumption rather than politics. China uses governmentality to orient the new middle-class citizen to consume and to steer away from political engagement that poses a possible threat to the communist regime. Despite insightful arguments about both consumption and governmentality and a growing scholarly interest in the rise of the middle class in China few studies examine the relationship between the conspicuous consumption habits of the Chinese middle class and the governmentality of the ruling party, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Mass media and consumer culture reinforce each other to create a stable climate based upon market rationality and consumerism. The CCP has two roles in indoctrinating the new middle class through noncoercive ways. The mobilization of mass media in terms of real name registration and traditional media outlets such as newspapers reflect a way of life that allows middle class citizens to maintain their good life and status to pursue their dreams under Xi’s regime. This status persists through consumption for the self and others (as a practice of gift giving) alongside apolitical involvement. The CCP focuses on entrepreneurs’ success stories as the epitome of good citizenship. Participation in political activities is discouraged by removing it from even being mentioned, discussed, or even shown in any of these accounts. This indirectly positions apolitical involvement as a lifestyle that allows citizens to be cosmopolitan individuals and quality (suzhi素質) citizens in post-Reform China.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41331994","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 : 2020-10-28DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0324
Shaul R. Shenhav
One may plausibly assume that the current academic interest in narrative research stems from a growing awareness that human beings are by their very nature storytellers, and that the stories we make become part of who we are, be it as individuals or groups. Indeed, narrative analysis has gained wide ground in many fields of the humanities and social sciences. This bibliography article is intended primarily for students and scholars of politics, but it can be of use for readers and researchers from other disciplinary backgrounds in the social sciences. While political scholars may not be among the pioneers that embraced “the narrative turn,” the connection between politics and narratives is of very long standing. A common reference in this regard is Plato’s discussion on the education of the guardians in the third book of his Republic. For all that, scholars and students of politics who wish to get acquainted with seminal works in narrative research should venture beyond political science into literature studies, sociology, communication, linguistics, historiography, psychology, and many other fields. In fact, the leading approach to systematic study of narratives, known as “narratology,” was developed mainly by literary scholars and is yet to be adapted to questions salient to politics. Therefore it is only right that scholars who wish to engage in narrative study should be able to familiarize themselves with works outside their particular field of expertise. Even a cursory overview of the use of narratives in political science reveals a wide diversity of epistemological and ontological trajectories. The reason is that narrative analysis in political science does not emanate from a preexisting tradition or stream of research, but rather is based on an adaptation of various narrative elements to address an array of questions related to that discipline. Moreover, the variety of assumptions regarding the concept of narrative, manifested in other disciplines, is typical of political studies as well. Such a plurality of definitions and concepts makes the review of selected narrative studies a veritably daunting task. Given the rich, broad, and diverse contents, issues, and methodologies addressed and utilized by scholars who apply narrative analysis in political science, organizing the body of narrative research into clear-cut sections and avoiding overlaps is not always feasible. It is possible, however, to map main trends in the study of narrative analysis in political science. This bibliography begins with a General Overviews and Methodological Sources section. The next several sections largely proceed from studies that emphasize individual perspectives, to research targeting groups and national states, to examinations of the international arena. Several subsequent sections cite mainly investigations concerned with theoretical issues regarding the use of narrative approaches in the political domain. The concluding section comprises a list of fundam
{"title":"Narrative Analysis","authors":"Shaul R. Shenhav","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0324","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0324","url":null,"abstract":"One may plausibly assume that the current academic interest in narrative research stems from a growing awareness that human beings are by their very nature storytellers, and that the stories we make become part of who we are, be it as individuals or groups. Indeed, narrative analysis has gained wide ground in many fields of the humanities and social sciences. This bibliography article is intended primarily for students and scholars of politics, but it can be of use for readers and researchers from other disciplinary backgrounds in the social sciences. While political scholars may not be among the pioneers that embraced “the narrative turn,” the connection between politics and narratives is of very long standing. A common reference in this regard is Plato’s discussion on the education of the guardians in the third book of his Republic. For all that, scholars and students of politics who wish to get acquainted with seminal works in narrative research should venture beyond political science into literature studies, sociology, communication, linguistics, historiography, psychology, and many other fields. In fact, the leading approach to systematic study of narratives, known as “narratology,” was developed mainly by literary scholars and is yet to be adapted to questions salient to politics. Therefore it is only right that scholars who wish to engage in narrative study should be able to familiarize themselves with works outside their particular field of expertise. Even a cursory overview of the use of narratives in political science reveals a wide diversity of epistemological and ontological trajectories. The reason is that narrative analysis in political science does not emanate from a preexisting tradition or stream of research, but rather is based on an adaptation of various narrative elements to address an array of questions related to that discipline. Moreover, the variety of assumptions regarding the concept of narrative, manifested in other disciplines, is typical of political studies as well. Such a plurality of definitions and concepts makes the review of selected narrative studies a veritably daunting task. Given the rich, broad, and diverse contents, issues, and methodologies addressed and utilized by scholars who apply narrative analysis in political science, organizing the body of narrative research into clear-cut sections and avoiding overlaps is not always feasible. It is possible, however, to map main trends in the study of narrative analysis in political science. This bibliography begins with a General Overviews and Methodological Sources section. The next several sections largely proceed from studies that emphasize individual perspectives, to research targeting groups and national states, to examinations of the international arena. Several subsequent sections cite mainly investigations concerned with theoretical issues regarding the use of narrative approaches in the political domain. The concluding section comprises a list of fundam","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48951772","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 : 2020-10-28DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0321
Louise K. Davidson-Schmich
Due to Germany’s prior history of foreign aggression, its important role in the contemporary global economy, and its unique social market economy, the post–World War II German political system has been widely studied by both German- and English-speaking scholars. This article begins by outlining some general overviews of German politics and history as well as textbooks and academic journals covering the subject. It also includes links to leading German-language news sources. It then turns its attention to German political institutions and depicts treatments of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government followed by studies of multilevel governance at the European, state, and local levels. The subsequent section delves into the important role played by political parties in Germany; this section also explores treatments of individual parties. Then the bibliography covers the German electoral system, voting behavior, and specific national elections. It then covers scholarly treatments of the political elites. The discussion then turns away from formal political institutions and leaders toward the societal influences on them. This portion of the article begins by examining literature on political culture, immigration, and social movements in Germany. The final portion of the bibliography focuses on interest groups and policy making in a number of areas, including economic and foreign policy.
{"title":"German Politics and Government","authors":"Louise K. Davidson-Schmich","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0321","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0321","url":null,"abstract":"Due to Germany’s prior history of foreign aggression, its important role in the contemporary global economy, and its unique social market economy, the post–World War II German political system has been widely studied by both German- and English-speaking scholars. This article begins by outlining some general overviews of German politics and history as well as textbooks and academic journals covering the subject. It also includes links to leading German-language news sources. It then turns its attention to German political institutions and depicts treatments of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government followed by studies of multilevel governance at the European, state, and local levels. The subsequent section delves into the important role played by political parties in Germany; this section also explores treatments of individual parties. Then the bibliography covers the German electoral system, voting behavior, and specific national elections. It then covers scholarly treatments of the political elites. The discussion then turns away from formal political institutions and leaders toward the societal influences on them. This portion of the article begins by examining literature on political culture, immigration, and social movements in Germany. The final portion of the bibliography focuses on interest groups and policy making in a number of areas, including economic and foreign policy.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47381862","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 : 2020-10-28DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0323
M. Qvortrup
Referendums have been defined as popular votes on bills before they become laws. However, referendums can also be held on existing laws or constitutions (as in the cases of the British referendum on membership in the European Union in 2016 or the Irish vote on abortion in 2017). In addition to these types, there are initiatives, defined as popular votes on laws proposed by the citizens, and plebiscites, which are votes by the whole population in authoritarian states. Scholars have sometimes disagreed as to the definition of referendums. Some have adopted the general umbrella term MDD (Mechanisms of Direct Democracy) to cover all these different types of institutionalized direct or semidirect democracy. But the word referendum has been used as the general signifier.
{"title":"Referendums and Direct Democracy","authors":"M. Qvortrup","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0323","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0323","url":null,"abstract":"Referendums have been defined as popular votes on bills before they become laws. However, referendums can also be held on existing laws or constitutions (as in the cases of the British referendum on membership in the European Union in 2016 or the Irish vote on abortion in 2017). In addition to these types, there are initiatives, defined as popular votes on laws proposed by the citizens, and plebiscites, which are votes by the whole population in authoritarian states. Scholars have sometimes disagreed as to the definition of referendums. Some have adopted the general umbrella term MDD (Mechanisms of Direct Democracy) to cover all these different types of institutionalized direct or semidirect democracy. But the word referendum has been used as the general signifier.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48411923","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 : 2020-09-24DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0318
Jeffrey Conroy-Krutz
Projects to measure public opinion in Africa have increased considerably in the last two decades. Earlier data-collection efforts focused on health and economic development, with limited attempts to gauge public opinion before the late 1990s. Possibilities expanded as a wave of political liberalizations swept the continent after the Cold War, and as government limitations on speech freedoms and survey research loosened. Knowledge about public opinion remains uneven, however; more surveys are conducted in wealthier, more stable, and more democratic countries. Various actors are leading these efforts. Academic and research organizations have been at the forefront, with Afrobarometer, which has conducted surveys in about two-thirds of African countries since 1999, the most prominent. The majority of studies are conducted by for-profit companies, media houses, and political campaigns, and many results are never publicly released. The growth in surveys of public opinion in Africa has had important ramifications across a number of realms. Academics have developed and tested new theories on how Africans respond to and shape their political and economic systems, and some long-standing theories have been challenged with newly available empirical evidence. Candidates and parties attempt to measure public opinion as they develop mobilizational and persuasive campaign strategies. Election observers have used survey data collected before and after voting to assess whether official results comport with citizens’ preferences. And international and domestic policymakers have increasingly used public opinion data from Africa to determine economic and political development priorities, and to assess the effectiveness of various programs. However, there is evidence that the survey enterprise in Africa is becoming increasingly politicized, with some officials attempting to block the release of potentially embarrassing results, or preventing surveys from being conducted altogether, and other political actors attacking survey organizations when they do not like what the data show. As organizations conducting public opinion surveys in Africa modify their strategies in the face of new technologies and changing political contexts, the ever-increasing availability of data on what Africans think about how their countries are and should be governed continues to fundamentally change academic understanding, policymaking, and actual political competition.
{"title":"Public Opinion in Africa","authors":"Jeffrey Conroy-Krutz","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0318","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0318","url":null,"abstract":"Projects to measure public opinion in Africa have increased considerably in the last two decades. Earlier data-collection efforts focused on health and economic development, with limited attempts to gauge public opinion before the late 1990s. Possibilities expanded as a wave of political liberalizations swept the continent after the Cold War, and as government limitations on speech freedoms and survey research loosened. Knowledge about public opinion remains uneven, however; more surveys are conducted in wealthier, more stable, and more democratic countries. Various actors are leading these efforts. Academic and research organizations have been at the forefront, with Afrobarometer, which has conducted surveys in about two-thirds of African countries since 1999, the most prominent. The majority of studies are conducted by for-profit companies, media houses, and political campaigns, and many results are never publicly released. The growth in surveys of public opinion in Africa has had important ramifications across a number of realms. Academics have developed and tested new theories on how Africans respond to and shape their political and economic systems, and some long-standing theories have been challenged with newly available empirical evidence. Candidates and parties attempt to measure public opinion as they develop mobilizational and persuasive campaign strategies. Election observers have used survey data collected before and after voting to assess whether official results comport with citizens’ preferences. And international and domestic policymakers have increasingly used public opinion data from Africa to determine economic and political development priorities, and to assess the effectiveness of various programs. However, there is evidence that the survey enterprise in Africa is becoming increasingly politicized, with some officials attempting to block the release of potentially embarrassing results, or preventing surveys from being conducted altogether, and other political actors attacking survey organizations when they do not like what the data show. As organizations conducting public opinion surveys in Africa modify their strategies in the face of new technologies and changing political contexts, the ever-increasing availability of data on what Africans think about how their countries are and should be governed continues to fundamentally change academic understanding, policymaking, and actual political competition.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49546773","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 : 2020-09-24DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0317
Lisa Anderson
Over the last century, thanks to the greater number of independent countries and longer human life spans, there is a larger pool of former presidents and prime ministers than at any time in history. The existence of this unusual collection of political figures—at once publicly renowned and potentially influential yet technically powerless—has triggered several lines of academic research. Scholars have asked whether the prospect of life-after-office shapes policy choices of leaders while they are in office, and if so how. This line of inquiry includes studies of both dictators and democratically elected presidents and prime ministers. In addition, scholars have examined what political leaders who retire, are term-limited, or are defeated in running for reelection—that is, democratic politicians—actually do after they are out of office. Three issues are thought to be uppermost in their minds: the mundane personal question of how to support themselves and their families; the somewhat loftier reputational issue of how to secure their standing and place in history; and the delicate political matter of how to deploy their accumulated skill and experience usefully and tactfully, without causing trouble to themselves or their political allies and enterprises. Finally, an emerging line of research examines how the increasingly large number of ex-presidents and former prime ministers in the world contribute to shaping global policy debates and institutions. In fact, however, all of this together does not constitute a large body of research and the student in this field is obliged to resort very quickly to primary sources, from self-serving memoirs and fawning mission statements to hostile investigative reporting and unfriendly partisan journalism; the compensatory reward is much livelier prose than the conventional academic treatise.
{"title":"Political Roles and Activities of Former Presidents and Prime Ministers","authors":"Lisa Anderson","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0317","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0317","url":null,"abstract":"Over the last century, thanks to the greater number of independent countries and longer human life spans, there is a larger pool of former presidents and prime ministers than at any time in history. The existence of this unusual collection of political figures—at once publicly renowned and potentially influential yet technically powerless—has triggered several lines of academic research. Scholars have asked whether the prospect of life-after-office shapes policy choices of leaders while they are in office, and if so how. This line of inquiry includes studies of both dictators and democratically elected presidents and prime ministers. In addition, scholars have examined what political leaders who retire, are term-limited, or are defeated in running for reelection—that is, democratic politicians—actually do after they are out of office. Three issues are thought to be uppermost in their minds: the mundane personal question of how to support themselves and their families; the somewhat loftier reputational issue of how to secure their standing and place in history; and the delicate political matter of how to deploy their accumulated skill and experience usefully and tactfully, without causing trouble to themselves or their political allies and enterprises. Finally, an emerging line of research examines how the increasingly large number of ex-presidents and former prime ministers in the world contribute to shaping global policy debates and institutions. In fact, however, all of this together does not constitute a large body of research and the student in this field is obliged to resort very quickly to primary sources, from self-serving memoirs and fawning mission statements to hostile investigative reporting and unfriendly partisan journalism; the compensatory reward is much livelier prose than the conventional academic treatise.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42075699","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：