Pub Date : 2020-05-03DOI: 10.1080/00323187.2020.1827960
Lin Liu, Yi Yang
ABSTRACT Is power zero-sum (relative gain/loss) or variable-sum (absolute gain/loss)? The response to this century-old puzzle depends on how power manifests itself during human interactions in diverse contexts. While few theoretical contributions investigating this puzzle seek empirical assistance, this paper utilises two game theoretic experiments for an answer. Consisting of a randomly assigned priming treatment followed by a single round of decision-making in a choice game for three groups of participants, it tests how human subjective understanding of power translates into varied objective power exercises in different situations. Findings reveal that in a ‘power to’ context whereby people mentally value their individual agency more (i.e. freedom from others), they tend to pursue absolute than relative gains, displaying a variable-sum power exercise strategy; in contrast, in a ‘power over’ context whereby people value their ability to affect others more (i.e. interdependence with others), individuals become relative-gain maximisers, thus viewing the sum of each power exercise as zero. Therefore, we conclude that whether power is zero-sum or variable-sum is context-dependent because how power is framed and subjectively understood by agents (i.e., ‘power to’ vs. ‘power over’, as contexts) shape their objective behaviours in power transactions (i.e., ‘zero-sum’ vs. ‘variable-sum’ power exercise).
{"title":"Is power zero-sum or variable-sum? Conceptualizing a context-dependent answer to a century-old debate with two game theoretic experiments","authors":"Lin Liu, Yi Yang","doi":"10.1080/00323187.2020.1827960","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00323187.2020.1827960","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Is power zero-sum (relative gain/loss) or variable-sum (absolute gain/loss)? The response to this century-old puzzle depends on how power manifests itself during human interactions in diverse contexts. While few theoretical contributions investigating this puzzle seek empirical assistance, this paper utilises two game theoretic experiments for an answer. Consisting of a randomly assigned priming treatment followed by a single round of decision-making in a choice game for three groups of participants, it tests how human subjective understanding of power translates into varied objective power exercises in different situations. Findings reveal that in a ‘power to’ context whereby people mentally value their individual agency more (i.e. freedom from others), they tend to pursue absolute than relative gains, displaying a variable-sum power exercise strategy; in contrast, in a ‘power over’ context whereby people value their ability to affect others more (i.e. interdependence with others), individuals become relative-gain maximisers, thus viewing the sum of each power exercise as zero. Therefore, we conclude that whether power is zero-sum or variable-sum is context-dependent because how power is framed and subjectively understood by agents (i.e., ‘power to’ vs. ‘power over’, as contexts) shape their objective behaviours in power transactions (i.e., ‘zero-sum’ vs. ‘variable-sum’ power exercise).","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00323187.2020.1827960","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42632303","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 : 2020-05-03DOI: 10.1080/00323187.2020.1855992
Todd Donovan
ABSTRACT New Zealand First is occasionally misclassified as a ‘radical right’ and/or ‘right-wing populist party.’ This presents an opportunity to examine how parties might be placed into this family of parties. This paper draws from literature describing parties to propose five criteria to classify a party as radical right/right-wing populist, in part based on views in the electorate. Criteria include: (1) An intersection of populist style and antipathy to immigration; (2) Cultural authoritarianism; (3) Political authoritarianism; (4) Supporters who identify as right-wing; and (5) An electorate that views the party as far right. This study concludes that apart from perhaps two of these criteria, including the least discriminating, New Zealand First was not radical right/right wing populist. More broadly, this study expands on our understanding of ‘radical right’ and/or ‘right-wing populist’ parties by illustrating that the US Republican party, although classified less often with European radical right populist parties than New Zealand First, should be classified as such.
{"title":"Misclassifying parties as radical right / right wing populist: a comparative analysis of New Zealand First","authors":"Todd Donovan","doi":"10.1080/00323187.2020.1855992","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00323187.2020.1855992","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT New Zealand First is occasionally misclassified as a ‘radical right’ and/or ‘right-wing populist party.’ This presents an opportunity to examine how parties might be placed into this family of parties. This paper draws from literature describing parties to propose five criteria to classify a party as radical right/right-wing populist, in part based on views in the electorate. Criteria include: (1) An intersection of populist style and antipathy to immigration; (2) Cultural authoritarianism; (3) Political authoritarianism; (4) Supporters who identify as right-wing; and (5) An electorate that views the party as far right. This study concludes that apart from perhaps two of these criteria, including the least discriminating, New Zealand First was not radical right/right wing populist. More broadly, this study expands on our understanding of ‘radical right’ and/or ‘right-wing populist’ parties by illustrating that the US Republican party, although classified less often with European radical right populist parties than New Zealand First, should be classified as such.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00323187.2020.1855992","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48962070","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 : 2020-04-22DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0308
David S. Brown, Amy H. Liu
Language is one of the most important markers of a distinct group identity: It brings members together from the inside, and it demarcates boundaries from the outside. Accordingly, it is a common assumption in the literature on the politics of language—whether it is political science, sociology, linguistics, anthropology, or area studies—that minority groups want their languages recognized (or, at a minimum, left alone and not eradicated) by the government. But recognition of minority languages is inherently a political process. It requires the government to acknowledge that the vernacular spoken by the minority group is distinct from that of the majority (i.e., it is a language). When governments dismiss a vernacular as simply a derivative of the majority’s (i.e., it is a dialect), it suggests that speakers of that vernacular are inferior. Moreover, recognition requires some awareness to the differing language ideologies (i.e., how society should be linguistically organized). When the ideology of the politically dominant group is the only ideology in consideration, this influences the type of language policies. And whether governments acknowledge minority language ideologies and minority demands for linguistic recognition depends on a number of factors. One factor is whether the minority group is concentrated in a regional territory. Another factor is whether the political institutions in the country are generally more power sharing (e.g., proportional electoral rules and federalism). How the government accommodates minority languages—if it does, and if so, to what extent—can have far-reaching implications. Failure to accommodate minority demands can lead to intergroup social tensions, if not outright violent conflicts. Moreover, expecting minorities to learn a language that is not native to them—and especially if it is linguistically distant—can have economic ramifications, including higher levels of poverty and lower levels of literacy. However, by recognizing minority languages, governments allow for trust to build. This can manifest between members of different ethnic groups or among minorities toward the state. How governments accommodate minority languages can also affect local attitudes toward immigrants (e.g., when are they more likely to hold nativist viewpoints) and the assimilation of immigrants (e.g., what explains why some immigrant communities struggle to learn the language of the host country).
{"title":"Democracy and Minority Language Recognition","authors":"David S. Brown, Amy H. Liu","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0308","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0308","url":null,"abstract":"Language is one of the most important markers of a distinct group identity: It brings members together from the inside, and it demarcates boundaries from the outside. Accordingly, it is a common assumption in the literature on the politics of language—whether it is political science, sociology, linguistics, anthropology, or area studies—that minority groups want their languages recognized (or, at a minimum, left alone and not eradicated) by the government. But recognition of minority languages is inherently a political process. It requires the government to acknowledge that the vernacular spoken by the minority group is distinct from that of the majority (i.e., it is a language). When governments dismiss a vernacular as simply a derivative of the majority’s (i.e., it is a dialect), it suggests that speakers of that vernacular are inferior. Moreover, recognition requires some awareness to the differing language ideologies (i.e., how society should be linguistically organized). When the ideology of the politically dominant group is the only ideology in consideration, this influences the type of language policies. And whether governments acknowledge minority language ideologies and minority demands for linguistic recognition depends on a number of factors. One factor is whether the minority group is concentrated in a regional territory. Another factor is whether the political institutions in the country are generally more power sharing (e.g., proportional electoral rules and federalism). How the government accommodates minority languages—if it does, and if so, to what extent—can have far-reaching implications. Failure to accommodate minority demands can lead to intergroup social tensions, if not outright violent conflicts. Moreover, expecting minorities to learn a language that is not native to them—and especially if it is linguistically distant—can have economic ramifications, including higher levels of poverty and lower levels of literacy. However, by recognizing minority languages, governments allow for trust to build. This can manifest between members of different ethnic groups or among minorities toward the state. How governments accommodate minority languages can also affect local attitudes toward immigrants (e.g., when are they more likely to hold nativist viewpoints) and the assimilation of immigrants (e.g., what explains why some immigrant communities struggle to learn the language of the host country).","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43765451","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 : 2020-04-22DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0305
Farida Jalalzai
This article focuses on trends in women’s inclusion in executive cabinet positions. It discusses the factors facilitating women’s selection to these positions, the quality of portfolios held, and the benefits that gender diversity offers in the cabinet. The percentage of women cabinet ministers has increased worldwide since the 1990s. Moreover, women have started to obtain positions affording more power that are less traditional. At the same time, women still represent a very small portion of cabinet ministers. Conditions that help promote women to power include leftist governments, higher percentages of women in the legislature, and growing international norms valuing gender diversity. Only 21 percent of cabinet ministers are women, but that constitutes record levels. Increasingly, countries have women in at least 50 percent of cabinet positions. This article is organized as follows: It first provides an overview of theoretical foundations related to cabinet selection; it then assesses facilitating conditions related to women’s cabinet incorporation, focusing first on global findings, followed by regional findings. It then addresses types of positions held as well as gender differences in backgrounds. Finally, it outlines the benefits of diverse cabinets.
{"title":"Women’s Inclusion in Executive Cabinets","authors":"Farida Jalalzai","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0305","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0305","url":null,"abstract":"This article focuses on trends in women’s inclusion in executive cabinet positions. It discusses the factors facilitating women’s selection to these positions, the quality of portfolios held, and the benefits that gender diversity offers in the cabinet. The percentage of women cabinet ministers has increased worldwide since the 1990s. Moreover, women have started to obtain positions affording more power that are less traditional. At the same time, women still represent a very small portion of cabinet ministers. Conditions that help promote women to power include leftist governments, higher percentages of women in the legislature, and growing international norms valuing gender diversity. Only 21 percent of cabinet ministers are women, but that constitutes record levels. Increasingly, countries have women in at least 50 percent of cabinet positions. This article is organized as follows: It first provides an overview of theoretical foundations related to cabinet selection; it then assesses facilitating conditions related to women’s cabinet incorporation, focusing first on global findings, followed by regional findings. It then addresses types of positions held as well as gender differences in backgrounds. Finally, it outlines the benefits of diverse cabinets.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42563836","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 : 2020-04-22DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0307
Rosalyn Cooperman
Voter support for women candidates in American politics may best be summed up by the often-repeated phrase, “when women run, women win.” This statement indicates that when compared to male candidates running in a similar capacity, such as candidates for open seats in which no incumbent is present, female candidates are equally likely to win elected office. Voters, therefore, seem equally likely at face value to support female candidates. However, the literature on voter support for women candidates suggests that this voter support may be more conditional in nature. A central research thread on voters and women candidates is how voters perceive women candidates and, in turn, their electability. Research on gender stereotypes and candidates examines voter perceptions of the traits they typically associate with men and women, candidates, and officeholders and the circumstances under which these traits make gender and political candidacy more or less attractive. The literature on political party and voter support for women candidates explores how gender and party affect levels of voter support and is offered as one explanation for the party imbalance in women’s representation with female Democrats significantly outnumbering female Republicans as candidates and officeholders. Researchers have also examined how voters evaluate other components of women’s candidacies, including their party affiliation, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. In addition to personal characteristics, scholars have explored how the type or level of office impacts voter support of women candidates with certain types of elected positions often considered more or less well suited for women candidates. More recently, a thread of research on voter support for women candidates has focused on women’s absence from the nation’s highest elected position—the US presidency. Scholars, and the candidate herself, have assessed voter support for or opposition to Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful presidential bids in 2008 and 2016. This line of research includes public opinion polling that measures both the abstract idea of electing a woman president as well as electing a specific woman president, namely Clinton.
{"title":"Voter Support for Women Candidates","authors":"Rosalyn Cooperman","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0307","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0307","url":null,"abstract":"Voter support for women candidates in American politics may best be summed up by the often-repeated phrase, “when women run, women win.” This statement indicates that when compared to male candidates running in a similar capacity, such as candidates for open seats in which no incumbent is present, female candidates are equally likely to win elected office. Voters, therefore, seem equally likely at face value to support female candidates. However, the literature on voter support for women candidates suggests that this voter support may be more conditional in nature. A central research thread on voters and women candidates is how voters perceive women candidates and, in turn, their electability. Research on gender stereotypes and candidates examines voter perceptions of the traits they typically associate with men and women, candidates, and officeholders and the circumstances under which these traits make gender and political candidacy more or less attractive. The literature on political party and voter support for women candidates explores how gender and party affect levels of voter support and is offered as one explanation for the party imbalance in women’s representation with female Democrats significantly outnumbering female Republicans as candidates and officeholders. Researchers have also examined how voters evaluate other components of women’s candidacies, including their party affiliation, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. In addition to personal characteristics, scholars have explored how the type or level of office impacts voter support of women candidates with certain types of elected positions often considered more or less well suited for women candidates. More recently, a thread of research on voter support for women candidates has focused on women’s absence from the nation’s highest elected position—the US presidency. Scholars, and the candidate herself, have assessed voter support for or opposition to Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful presidential bids in 2008 and 2016. This line of research includes public opinion polling that measures both the abstract idea of electing a woman president as well as electing a specific woman president, namely Clinton.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46868071","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 : 2020-03-25DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0304
Jill S. Greenlee, Elizabeth A. Sharrow
As the rhetoric around parenthood has increased in the political world, so too has the scholarly focus on parenthood within political science and related fields. This article attempts to account for the many ways in which parenthood is political and has implications for the study of politics. In this article, we consider parenthood as a role, identity, and life event that has the potential to shape the attitudes and behaviors of individuals. We also review literature on the constitutive roles that public policies and political institutions play in structuring the meanings and practices of parenthood. In this survey, the unit and topics of analysis differ across areas of study, varying from parent, child, candidate, officeholder, historical era, or policy domain. The literature is also characterized by the use of different data sources, methodologies, and research designs, all of which vary in their ability to isolate the independent effect of parenthood on the outcome of interest and which we acknowledge is largely focused on heterosexual partnerships and two-parent households. The scholarship here is organized around four major themes: 1) Parenthood and political socialization, 2) Parenthood and political attitudes and behavior in the mass public, 3) Parenthood and political behavior among elites, and 4) Parenthood as terrain for state-building and public policies. In this structure, we first review some central works within the literature on parents as primary socializing agents of their children’s early political orientations, while also discussing the smaller literature on children as socializing agents onto parents. Second, we examine research on how parenthood shapes the political lives of adults in the mass public. We consider literature regarding how parenthood shapes the policy stances of political elites and literature examining the political attitudes and behaviors of voters and activists. We also review research on how parenthood shapes how voters evaluate political candidates. We then consider how parenthood operates as a landscape for state-building through public policy and political institutions, and how parenthood functions as a social arrangement around which public policies are built. While scholarship outside of political science examines aspects of parenthood with implications for politics, this review covers primarily research within political science. Moreover, we touch only lightly upon topics that have generated vast amounts of scholarship, such as the politics of women’s fertility and reproductive rights. Finally, we are mindful that approaches to the study of parenthood that examine how gender, gender identity, race, sexuality, disability, and class converge to shape distinct parenting experiences, identities, vulnerabilities, and policy needs are unfortunately uncommon within political science—we hope this bibliography might underscore the need for such research in the near future. While we primarily focus on work from
{"title":"The Politics of Parenthood: Attitudes, Behavior, Policy, and Theory","authors":"Jill S. Greenlee, Elizabeth A. Sharrow","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0304","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0304","url":null,"abstract":"As the rhetoric around parenthood has increased in the political world, so too has the scholarly focus on parenthood within political science and related fields. This article attempts to account for the many ways in which parenthood is political and has implications for the study of politics. In this article, we consider parenthood as a role, identity, and life event that has the potential to shape the attitudes and behaviors of individuals. We also review literature on the constitutive roles that public policies and political institutions play in structuring the meanings and practices of parenthood. In this survey, the unit and topics of analysis differ across areas of study, varying from parent, child, candidate, officeholder, historical era, or policy domain. The literature is also characterized by the use of different data sources, methodologies, and research designs, all of which vary in their ability to isolate the independent effect of parenthood on the outcome of interest and which we acknowledge is largely focused on heterosexual partnerships and two-parent households. The scholarship here is organized around four major themes: 1) Parenthood and political socialization, 2) Parenthood and political attitudes and behavior in the mass public, 3) Parenthood and political behavior among elites, and 4) Parenthood as terrain for state-building and public policies. In this structure, we first review some central works within the literature on parents as primary socializing agents of their children’s early political orientations, while also discussing the smaller literature on children as socializing agents onto parents. Second, we examine research on how parenthood shapes the political lives of adults in the mass public. We consider literature regarding how parenthood shapes the policy stances of political elites and literature examining the political attitudes and behaviors of voters and activists. We also review research on how parenthood shapes how voters evaluate political candidates. We then consider how parenthood operates as a landscape for state-building through public policy and political institutions, and how parenthood functions as a social arrangement around which public policies are built. While scholarship outside of political science examines aspects of parenthood with implications for politics, this review covers primarily research within political science. Moreover, we touch only lightly upon topics that have generated vast amounts of scholarship, such as the politics of women’s fertility and reproductive rights. Finally, we are mindful that approaches to the study of parenthood that examine how gender, gender identity, race, sexuality, disability, and class converge to shape distinct parenting experiences, identities, vulnerabilities, and policy needs are unfortunately uncommon within political science—we hope this bibliography might underscore the need for such research in the near future. While we primarily focus on work from","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48966930","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 : 2020-02-26DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0300
Lenka Buštíková, P. Guasti
Populism is an anti-establishment, anti-elite ideology and political strategy. Populism as an ideology adopts a discursive approach and focuses on the tensions between the “pure people” and the “corrupt elite.” The “people” can be subsumed into three discursive frames: the nation, the (economic) underdog, and the ordinary people (Canovan 1981, cited under Theoretical Approaches). The narrative of the people as a “nation” is hostile to migrants and ethnic minorities. The populist rhetoric of the “underdog’’ expresses anxieties related to economic differences. Finally, the language of the “ordinary people” resonates with visions of a simple, everyday life. Populism viewed as a political strategy focuses on its agency, or the ability of populist movements to instrumentally appeal to followers, to maintain a direct relationship between the leader and the followers, and to exploit existing institutional weaknesses. Populists target the establishment and the elites selectively. Populists can become the elite. Yet populist politicians (re)elected to office continue to use anti-elite appeals to delegitimize opponents, even after they have come to represent the very establishment they had attacked in the past. Scholarship on populism has grown exponentially in recent years. In Europe, it is rooted in the study of the radical right, which emphasizes exclusionary identity-driven politics. The rise of populism is often viewed as a consequence of an economic crisis or socioeconomic changes in general. Populist critique also targets the institutional underpinnings of liberal democracy. Populists seek to strengthen majoritarian elements of democracy and undermine minority protections. Populist leaders seek power, and the presence of populist parties in the electoral arena, parliament, government, or presidency reshapes political agendas. Media is a crucial tool of communication used by populist leaders to gain power and to stay in power. Social media, in particular, allows populists to establish and maintain a direct communication channel to their supporters, and populists accuse traditional media of being “corrupt.” Populists are omnipresent. In the West, populism is mostly exclusionary. In the Global South, and especially in Latin America, it is often inclusionary, as it broadens the scope of the people to the previously politically excluded poor and indigenous communities (Mudde and Rovira Kaltwasser 2013, cited under General Overviews). Regionally, this bibliography focuses on populism in Europe and Latin America, but it also includes the United States and other countries (Stockemer 2019, under General Overviews).
{"title":"Populism","authors":"Lenka Buštíková, P. Guasti","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0300","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0300","url":null,"abstract":"Populism is an anti-establishment, anti-elite ideology and political strategy. Populism as an ideology adopts a discursive approach and focuses on the tensions between the “pure people” and the “corrupt elite.” The “people” can be subsumed into three discursive frames: the nation, the (economic) underdog, and the ordinary people (Canovan 1981, cited under Theoretical Approaches). The narrative of the people as a “nation” is hostile to migrants and ethnic minorities. The populist rhetoric of the “underdog’’ expresses anxieties related to economic differences. Finally, the language of the “ordinary people” resonates with visions of a simple, everyday life. Populism viewed as a political strategy focuses on its agency, or the ability of populist movements to instrumentally appeal to followers, to maintain a direct relationship between the leader and the followers, and to exploit existing institutional weaknesses. Populists target the establishment and the elites selectively. Populists can become the elite. Yet populist politicians (re)elected to office continue to use anti-elite appeals to delegitimize opponents, even after they have come to represent the very establishment they had attacked in the past. Scholarship on populism has grown exponentially in recent years. In Europe, it is rooted in the study of the radical right, which emphasizes exclusionary identity-driven politics. The rise of populism is often viewed as a consequence of an economic crisis or socioeconomic changes in general. Populist critique also targets the institutional underpinnings of liberal democracy. Populists seek to strengthen majoritarian elements of democracy and undermine minority protections. Populist leaders seek power, and the presence of populist parties in the electoral arena, parliament, government, or presidency reshapes political agendas. Media is a crucial tool of communication used by populist leaders to gain power and to stay in power. Social media, in particular, allows populists to establish and maintain a direct communication channel to their supporters, and populists accuse traditional media of being “corrupt.” Populists are omnipresent. In the West, populism is mostly exclusionary. In the Global South, and especially in Latin America, it is often inclusionary, as it broadens the scope of the people to the previously politically excluded poor and indigenous communities (Mudde and Rovira Kaltwasser 2013, cited under General Overviews). Regionally, this bibliography focuses on populism in Europe and Latin America, but it also includes the United States and other countries (Stockemer 2019, under General Overviews).","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42137441","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 : 2020-02-26DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0303
M. Lizotte
In a representative democracy, policymakers, elected officials, and bureaucrats should heed public opinion. Research to date provides evidence that policymakers do care about the public’s positions on policy and that presidential administrations often seek public approval of their legislative agenda (see the Oxford Bibliographies in Political Science article, “Policy Responsiveness to Public Opinion” by Robert S. Erikson. Therefore, it is valuable to understand consistent and significant influences on the public’s policy positions and political attitudes. Gender appears to be a consistent and often significant influence on opinion. Generally, women tend to be more likely than men to adopt liberal positions on a long list of policies, including force issues, the size of the welfare state, the environment, and equal rights. For certain issues, gender seems to have a more complicated, or more conservative, influence, such as on abortion and on the legalization of marijuana. Overall, gender matters when considering public opinion in the United States. Moreover, issue gaps partially account for the gender gap in party identification and vote choice where women are more likely than men to identify as Democrats and vote for Democratic candidates. For example, in electoral simulations when women are given the same policy positions as men, a considerable reduction in the voting gender gap occurs. Readers interested in how gender influences political behavior should consult the Oxford Bibliographies in Political Science article, “Gender, Behavior, and Representation” by Elisabeth Gidengil. With women being slightly more than half of the population and being more likely to vote than men in recent elections, gender differences in policy preferences have substantial political consequences. This article discusses research on several issue areas with established gender gaps in opinion and provides a brief overview of scholarship investigating the origins of gender differences in public opinion. Much of the research cited here focuses on gender differences in public opinion but some material controls only for gender and finds a significant relationship.
{"title":"Gender Gap in US Public Opinion","authors":"M. Lizotte","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0303","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0303","url":null,"abstract":"In a representative democracy, policymakers, elected officials, and bureaucrats should heed public opinion. Research to date provides evidence that policymakers do care about the public’s positions on policy and that presidential administrations often seek public approval of their legislative agenda (see the Oxford Bibliographies in Political Science article, “Policy Responsiveness to Public Opinion” by Robert S. Erikson. Therefore, it is valuable to understand consistent and significant influences on the public’s policy positions and political attitudes. Gender appears to be a consistent and often significant influence on opinion. Generally, women tend to be more likely than men to adopt liberal positions on a long list of policies, including force issues, the size of the welfare state, the environment, and equal rights. For certain issues, gender seems to have a more complicated, or more conservative, influence, such as on abortion and on the legalization of marijuana. Overall, gender matters when considering public opinion in the United States. Moreover, issue gaps partially account for the gender gap in party identification and vote choice where women are more likely than men to identify as Democrats and vote for Democratic candidates. For example, in electoral simulations when women are given the same policy positions as men, a considerable reduction in the voting gender gap occurs. Readers interested in how gender influences political behavior should consult the Oxford Bibliographies in Political Science article, “Gender, Behavior, and Representation” by Elisabeth Gidengil. With women being slightly more than half of the population and being more likely to vote than men in recent elections, gender differences in policy preferences have substantial political consequences. This article discusses research on several issue areas with established gender gaps in opinion and provides a brief overview of scholarship investigating the origins of gender differences in public opinion. Much of the research cited here focuses on gender differences in public opinion but some material controls only for gender and finds a significant relationship.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42222921","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 : 2020-02-26DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0302
Sebastián Saiegh
The systematic study of how institutional rules and political practices influence the capacity of Latin American governments to adopt public policies is of relatively recent vintage. For decades, the fleeting and unstable democratic experiences in the region obfuscated the role of politics in the policymaking process. Policy analysis was more often than not motivated by the question of what governments should do rather what governments could do. With the restoration of democracy in Latin America in the 1980s, the view that a given set of “optimal policies” should or could be implemented against all political odds became untenable. In the ensuing decade, as the economic reforms inspired by the “Washington Consensus” swept the region, a growing concern with the timing, sequencing, and implementation of public policies materialized among both scholars and policymakers. This approach, however, proved insufficient to fully understand the political feasibility, but also the actual process by which public policies are discussed, approved, and implemented in the region. In the 2000s, a comprehensive, soul-searching research agenda about the politics of policies was launched by the leading development organizations, most notably, the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB). Since then, a voluminous literature studying how different constitutional structures, legislative institutions, electoral rules, bureaucracies, partisan organizations, and Interest Groups influence public policies in Latin America has emerged. The following bibliography identifies some general topics, as well as several sources to consult within each topic, for those readers interested in how politics shape policies in Latin America
{"title":"Political Institutions and the Policymaking Process in Latin America","authors":"Sebastián Saiegh","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0302","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0302","url":null,"abstract":"The systematic study of how institutional rules and political practices influence the capacity of Latin American governments to adopt public policies is of relatively recent vintage. For decades, the fleeting and unstable democratic experiences in the region obfuscated the role of politics in the policymaking process. Policy analysis was more often than not motivated by the question of what governments should do rather what governments could do. With the restoration of democracy in Latin America in the 1980s, the view that a given set of “optimal policies” should or could be implemented against all political odds became untenable. In the ensuing decade, as the economic reforms inspired by the “Washington Consensus” swept the region, a growing concern with the timing, sequencing, and implementation of public policies materialized among both scholars and policymakers. This approach, however, proved insufficient to fully understand the political feasibility, but also the actual process by which public policies are discussed, approved, and implemented in the region. In the 2000s, a comprehensive, soul-searching research agenda about the politics of policies was launched by the leading development organizations, most notably, the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB). Since then, a voluminous literature studying how different constitutional structures, legislative institutions, electoral rules, bureaucracies, partisan organizations, and Interest Groups influence public policies in Latin America has emerged. The following bibliography identifies some general topics, as well as several sources to consult within each topic, for those readers interested in how politics shape policies in Latin America","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48873470","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 : 2020-02-26DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0301
Félix Krawatzek
Scholarship on collective memory from an explicit political science perspective has expanded over the last decade. This growth speaks to political dynamics unfolding across the world, as history has once again become part of political confrontations. The ongoing dispute about an acceptable name for Macedonia, the role of truth commissions in post-conflict societies, and the international tensions stemming from the memories of Japanese aggression on the Asian continent during the Asia-Pacific War illustrate that political science needs to include questions of collective memory in its analysis. Although political science’s focus on collective memory is new, it would be erroneous to believe that memory has started to shape politics only recently. The study of the societal significance of present-day representations of past narratives has a long history. Its intellectual forebears can be found notably in late-19th-century French sociology, and the topic has gained in prominence in the humanities and sociology since the 1980s and is now marching into the political sciences. This latter expansion also changes the methods and research strategies that scholarship on collective memory employs. Nevertheless, studying collective memory will remain an inherently interdisciplinary endeavor and uniquely integrates the social sciences, humanities, and natural sciences. Given the field’s quick shifts, a number of central conceptual tools retain an elasticity less common in other branches of the discipline. Meanwhile, the number of topics that can be approached through the prism of collective memory is inexhaustible. The field is therefore held together primarily by its underlying conceptual apparatus. Conceptual clarity is thus particularly relevant for a dialogue within and across the disciplines, and also to integrate the insights related to collective memory generated in political and social theory. The state of the scholarship illustrates, however, that studies of collective memory have overwhelmingly been motivated by empirical puzzles and at times continue to analyze memory as being a tangible phenomenon. While not necessarily shortcomings, many of the empirical contributions have thereby shied away from a more thorough theoretical investigation.
{"title":"Collective Memory","authors":"Félix Krawatzek","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0301","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0301","url":null,"abstract":"Scholarship on collective memory from an explicit political science perspective has expanded over the last decade. This growth speaks to political dynamics unfolding across the world, as history has once again become part of political confrontations. The ongoing dispute about an acceptable name for Macedonia, the role of truth commissions in post-conflict societies, and the international tensions stemming from the memories of Japanese aggression on the Asian continent during the Asia-Pacific War illustrate that political science needs to include questions of collective memory in its analysis. Although political science’s focus on collective memory is new, it would be erroneous to believe that memory has started to shape politics only recently. The study of the societal significance of present-day representations of past narratives has a long history. Its intellectual forebears can be found notably in late-19th-century French sociology, and the topic has gained in prominence in the humanities and sociology since the 1980s and is now marching into the political sciences. This latter expansion also changes the methods and research strategies that scholarship on collective memory employs. Nevertheless, studying collective memory will remain an inherently interdisciplinary endeavor and uniquely integrates the social sciences, humanities, and natural sciences. Given the field’s quick shifts, a number of central conceptual tools retain an elasticity less common in other branches of the discipline. Meanwhile, the number of topics that can be approached through the prism of collective memory is inexhaustible. The field is therefore held together primarily by its underlying conceptual apparatus. Conceptual clarity is thus particularly relevant for a dialogue within and across the disciplines, and also to integrate the insights related to collective memory generated in political and social theory. The state of the scholarship illustrates, however, that studies of collective memory have overwhelmingly been motivated by empirical puzzles and at times continue to analyze memory as being a tangible phenomenon. While not necessarily shortcomings, many of the empirical contributions have thereby shied away from a more thorough theoretical investigation.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49427639","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：