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":" ","pages":""},"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":" ","pages":""},"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":" ","pages":""},"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":" ","pages":""},"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}
Pub Date : 2020-01-15DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0296
D. Kingsbury
Indonesia is often referred to as the world’s largest Muslim democracy. This characterization testifies to the country’s large population (at approximately 270 million, it is the world’s fourth most populous) and to the vast majority (approximately 87 percent) professing the Islamic faith. But Indonesia is also a country of immense ethno-linguistic heterogeneity, even among its dominant Muslim demographic. While this complex social fabric is reflected in the state motto of “Unity in Diversity,” it also has contributed to contentious processes of nation-building over decades wherein different forms of collective violence have figured prominently. Dutch traders arrived in the archipelago in the 16th century, but not until the mid-19th century did a colonial administration gain coherence on the main island of Java. This bureaucracy made uneven headway in the more sparsely populated outer islands. Colonialization spurred an inclusive anticolonial nationalist movement, despite the existence and persistence of deep factions along religious, ethnic, and ideological lines. The movement’s leaders proclaimed independence following Japan’s surrender in World War II, although it took a bloody revolutionary war, coupled with intense negotiations, for the country’s sovereignty to be formally recognized in 1949. Less than two decades of shaky parliamentary democracy followed, but democracy was replaced by authoritarianism, first gradually by President Sukarno (or Soekarno), and then more violently by General Suharto (or Soeharto), who gained power via an anti-Communist massacre in 1965 and 1966. The Cold War strongman also dedicated his New Order regime to developing the country economically, despite his government’s legendary corruption. Before the authoritarian Suharto was forced to resign following three decades in power in 1998, amid the Asian Financial Crisis, the World Bank had classified Indonesia as a lower-middle-income country. Today, Indonesia is a procedural democracy with a mixed presidential and parliamentary system, although the president has tended to outmuscle the legislature. Indonesiaand regularly holds competitive national and local elections, leading the country to be hailed as a successful case of a stable Muslim democracy. But mounting and destabilizing Islamism has led scholars of late to reexamine how consolidated Indonesia’s democracy actually is. State institutions are weak, for example, and corrupt political parties have enabled worrisome polarization. Debates on improving the country’s democratic deficits, such as alleviating poverty more swiftly and institutionalizing the rule of law, consume scholars and observers alike, as do discussions on protecting public civility and minority rights (even for key sectors of Muslims) amid rising religious nationalism.
{"title":"Politics of Indonesia","authors":"D. Kingsbury","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0296","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0296","url":null,"abstract":"Indonesia is often referred to as the world’s largest Muslim democracy. This characterization testifies to the country’s large population (at approximately 270 million, it is the world’s fourth most populous) and to the vast majority (approximately 87 percent) professing the Islamic faith. But Indonesia is also a country of immense ethno-linguistic heterogeneity, even among its dominant Muslim demographic. While this complex social fabric is reflected in the state motto of “Unity in Diversity,” it also has contributed to contentious processes of nation-building over decades wherein different forms of collective violence have figured prominently. Dutch traders arrived in the archipelago in the 16th century, but not until the mid-19th century did a colonial administration gain coherence on the main island of Java. This bureaucracy made uneven headway in the more sparsely populated outer islands. Colonialization spurred an inclusive anticolonial nationalist movement, despite the existence and persistence of deep factions along religious, ethnic, and ideological lines. The movement’s leaders proclaimed independence following Japan’s surrender in World War II, although it took a bloody revolutionary war, coupled with intense negotiations, for the country’s sovereignty to be formally recognized in 1949. Less than two decades of shaky parliamentary democracy followed, but democracy was replaced by authoritarianism, first gradually by President Sukarno (or Soekarno), and then more violently by General Suharto (or Soeharto), who gained power via an anti-Communist massacre in 1965 and 1966. The Cold War strongman also dedicated his New Order regime to developing the country economically, despite his government’s legendary corruption. Before the authoritarian Suharto was forced to resign following three decades in power in 1998, amid the Asian Financial Crisis, the World Bank had classified Indonesia as a lower-middle-income country. Today, Indonesia is a procedural democracy with a mixed presidential and parliamentary system, although the president has tended to outmuscle the legislature. Indonesiaand regularly holds competitive national and local elections, leading the country to be hailed as a successful case of a stable Muslim democracy. But mounting and destabilizing Islamism has led scholars of late to reexamine how consolidated Indonesia’s democracy actually is. State institutions are weak, for example, and corrupt political parties have enabled worrisome polarization. Debates on improving the country’s democratic deficits, such as alleviating poverty more swiftly and institutionalizing the rule of law, consume scholars and observers alike, as do discussions on protecting public civility and minority rights (even for key sectors of Muslims) amid rising religious nationalism.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48393516","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 : 2020-01-15DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0299
Michael FitzGerald, Melody E. Valdini
While there are many factors that drive women’s descriptive representation (i.e., the percentage of women in the legislature) the electoral institutions generate some of the most powerful and consistent effects. In the first breaths of this literature, the focus was firmly on the impact of majoritarian electoral systems versus proportional representation (PR) systems on women’s descriptive representation. Since then, the literature has grown to engage broader ideas regarding the complicated nature of analyzing institutions in different cultural contexts and under different social conditions. Particularly in the later decades of the 20th century, scholars found that structural factors, such as economic disparities between men and women and the balance of women in careers that are typical paths to political office, were important to consider in concert with electoral rules. More recently, as more women gain access to the economic elite, the literature has focused more on cultural factors such as the historical legacies of Communism and the general societal reactions to women’s leadership. These non-institutional factors are now widely engaged as an important component of understanding why and to what extent we can expect an electoral system to generate a certain outcome. Beyond the impact of the electoral system itself, there is also relevant literature that engages how electoral institutions such as gender quotas and candidate selection processes affect women’s descriptive representation. There is wide variation in the design of gender quotas as well as candidate selection processes, just as there is in the design of electoral systems, and therefore a fuller understanding of the relationship between electoral institutions and women’s representation requires consideration of the interaction of candidate selection procedures, gender quotas, and electoral systems. For example, the presence of a placement mandate (i.e., a requirement stipulating where on the list women candidates must be positioned) or a decentralized candidate selection process each has a different effect on women’s representation in an electoral system that includes a preference vote. The sections below highlight some of the existing literature on electoral institutions and their impact on women’s descriptive representation. This is by no means an exhaustive list but does offer insight into the general themes and research areas that are common in this field of study.
{"title":"Electoral Institutions and Women’s Representation","authors":"Michael FitzGerald, Melody E. Valdini","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0299","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0299","url":null,"abstract":"While there are many factors that drive women’s descriptive representation (i.e., the percentage of women in the legislature) the electoral institutions generate some of the most powerful and consistent effects. In the first breaths of this literature, the focus was firmly on the impact of majoritarian electoral systems versus proportional representation (PR) systems on women’s descriptive representation. Since then, the literature has grown to engage broader ideas regarding the complicated nature of analyzing institutions in different cultural contexts and under different social conditions. Particularly in the later decades of the 20th century, scholars found that structural factors, such as economic disparities between men and women and the balance of women in careers that are typical paths to political office, were important to consider in concert with electoral rules. More recently, as more women gain access to the economic elite, the literature has focused more on cultural factors such as the historical legacies of Communism and the general societal reactions to women’s leadership. These non-institutional factors are now widely engaged as an important component of understanding why and to what extent we can expect an electoral system to generate a certain outcome. Beyond the impact of the electoral system itself, there is also relevant literature that engages how electoral institutions such as gender quotas and candidate selection processes affect women’s descriptive representation. There is wide variation in the design of gender quotas as well as candidate selection processes, just as there is in the design of electoral systems, and therefore a fuller understanding of the relationship between electoral institutions and women’s representation requires consideration of the interaction of candidate selection procedures, gender quotas, and electoral systems. For example, the presence of a placement mandate (i.e., a requirement stipulating where on the list women candidates must be positioned) or a decentralized candidate selection process each has a different effect on women’s representation in an electoral system that includes a preference vote. The sections below highlight some of the existing literature on electoral institutions and their impact on women’s descriptive representation. This is by no means an exhaustive list but does offer insight into the general themes and research areas that are common in this field of study.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41830838","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 : 2020-01-15DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0291
Over the past thirty years, scholars have explored the myriad ways that gender stereotypes may explain the dearth of women in elected office in the United States. That is, do stereotypes about women and men affect the ability of women to seek and attain political leadership roles? Early research demonstrated that female and male politicians were viewed differently, along the lines of gender stereotypes, with regard to their traits, beliefs, or ideology and the issues they were perceived as competent to handle. Because politics is a masculine domain, this presents challenges to and for women seeking political leadership roles and elected office. A large portion of the work on gender stereotypes explores how they shape voter choices in elections, as well as how female candidates anticipate and change their campaign strategies relative to stereotypes. Numerous observational studies of elections have not connected gender stereotypes and voter choice and often demonstrate the overwhelming impact of party identification. However, experimental and observational research on gender stereotypes more precisely identifies the mechanisms by which—and the contexts in which—gender stereotypes may influence candidate evaluations and vote choice. Gender stereotypes shape candidate recruitment and characterize voter impressions of the Republican and Democratic political parties in the United States. Research on stereotype activation, stereotype threat, and measurement has fruitfully been imported from social psychology to understand and explain gender stereotyping in politics. In addition, gender politics scholars have worked to explore the intersection of gender stereotypes with other group stereotypes relevant in politics such as race, class, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Finally, a blossoming research area identifies various contexts in which gender stereotypes may hinder—or propel— women as political leaders. Media coverage of political campaigns—particularly coverage of female candidates for office—continues to reflect gender stereotypes, although coverage has improved over time and is shaped by a broader set of relevant factors such as partisanship and incumbency. In all, gender stereotypes have been and will continue to be an important area to explore in seeking to understand women’s descriptive underrepresentation in political office.
{"title":"Gender Stereotypes in Politics","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0291","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0291","url":null,"abstract":"Over the past thirty years, scholars have explored the myriad ways that gender stereotypes may explain the dearth of women in elected office in the United States. That is, do stereotypes about women and men affect the ability of women to seek and attain political leadership roles? Early research demonstrated that female and male politicians were viewed differently, along the lines of gender stereotypes, with regard to their traits, beliefs, or ideology and the issues they were perceived as competent to handle. Because politics is a masculine domain, this presents challenges to and for women seeking political leadership roles and elected office. A large portion of the work on gender stereotypes explores how they shape voter choices in elections, as well as how female candidates anticipate and change their campaign strategies relative to stereotypes. Numerous observational studies of elections have not connected gender stereotypes and voter choice and often demonstrate the overwhelming impact of party identification. However, experimental and observational research on gender stereotypes more precisely identifies the mechanisms by which—and the contexts in which—gender stereotypes may influence candidate evaluations and vote choice. Gender stereotypes shape candidate recruitment and characterize voter impressions of the Republican and Democratic political parties in the United States. Research on stereotype activation, stereotype threat, and measurement has fruitfully been imported from social psychology to understand and explain gender stereotyping in politics. In addition, gender politics scholars have worked to explore the intersection of gender stereotypes with other group stereotypes relevant in politics such as race, class, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Finally, a blossoming research area identifies various contexts in which gender stereotypes may hinder—or propel— women as political leaders. Media coverage of political campaigns—particularly coverage of female candidates for office—continues to reflect gender stereotypes, although coverage has improved over time and is shaped by a broader set of relevant factors such as partisanship and incumbency. In all, gender stereotypes have been and will continue to be an important area to explore in seeking to understand women’s descriptive underrepresentation in political office.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44514128","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 : 2020-01-15DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0298
Subhasis Ray
South Asia, a region comprising roughly one-fifth of the world’s population, is home to some of the most diverse nations in the contemporary world, encompassing social cleavages across multiple dimensions. A critical facet of this diversity is that it has persisted, even as state-builders, starting from the precolonial period, have sought to impose the writ of centralized authority to make such diversity legible and governable. Not surprisingly, therefore, the region offers a fascinating vantage point for social scientists to develop and test theories of a range of state-society linkages and how these reconstitute our understandings of both “state” and “society.” This bibliography aims to provide a window into this continuously evolving body of research. As with any such endeavor, it is not possible to capture the vast depth and breadth of this research within the confines of a single work. Hence, the goal here is to introduce academics and policy practitioners to some of the key conceptual developments and empirical findings in the field. In what follows, the cited works have been classified under the following headings: (i) Capital-State Linkages, (ii) Labor-State Linkages, (iii) Land-State Linkages, (iv) Party-State Linkages, (v) Region-State Linkages, (vi) Caste-State Linkages, (vii) Migrant-State Linkages, (viii) Gender-State Linkages, (ix) Breakdown of State-Society Relations, and (x) Law and State-Society Relations. This schematic was adopted to underscore the sheer variety of social actors and institutions that impinge on the exercise of state power in the region. The concluding section offers an overview of the core academic Journals in the field.
{"title":"State-Society Relations in South Asia","authors":"Subhasis Ray","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0298","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0298","url":null,"abstract":"South Asia, a region comprising roughly one-fifth of the world’s population, is home to some of the most diverse nations in the contemporary world, encompassing social cleavages across multiple dimensions. A critical facet of this diversity is that it has persisted, even as state-builders, starting from the precolonial period, have sought to impose the writ of centralized authority to make such diversity legible and governable. Not surprisingly, therefore, the region offers a fascinating vantage point for social scientists to develop and test theories of a range of state-society linkages and how these reconstitute our understandings of both “state” and “society.” This bibliography aims to provide a window into this continuously evolving body of research. As with any such endeavor, it is not possible to capture the vast depth and breadth of this research within the confines of a single work. Hence, the goal here is to introduce academics and policy practitioners to some of the key conceptual developments and empirical findings in the field. In what follows, the cited works have been classified under the following headings: (i) Capital-State Linkages, (ii) Labor-State Linkages, (iii) Land-State Linkages, (iv) Party-State Linkages, (v) Region-State Linkages, (vi) Caste-State Linkages, (vii) Migrant-State Linkages, (viii) Gender-State Linkages, (ix) Breakdown of State-Society Relations, and (x) Law and State-Society Relations. This schematic was adopted to underscore the sheer variety of social actors and institutions that impinge on the exercise of state power in the region. The concluding section offers an overview of the core academic Journals in the field.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45974081","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 : 2020-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00323187.2020.1856688
Guillem Riambau
ABSTRACT Māori in New Zealand have the right to choose which electorate to vote in: they can choose to vote in a ‘General district’ (with other Māori and all non- Māori), or to vote in a ‘Māori district’, where only Māori are allowed to register. Every five years there is a period known as Māori Electoral Option, during which Māori are given the option to either stay in their current district or switch. This offers an ideal setting to analyse whether Māori voters strategically choose to register where they expect the race to be closer. To that avail, I use data from two Māori Electoral Options, two general elections, and two censuses. Results suggest that only a very small fraction of Māori (less than 2%) seem to respond to the strategic incentives described. Two forces seem to play a much larger role in enrolment choices: cultural allegiances and socioeconomic status. Māori with a stronger sense of Māori identity and Māori living in socially disadvantaged areas tend to overwhelmingly enrol in the Māori districts. The implications of these results are discussed.
{"title":"Māori in New Zealand: voting with their feet?","authors":"Guillem Riambau","doi":"10.1080/00323187.2020.1856688","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00323187.2020.1856688","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Māori in New Zealand have the right to choose which electorate to vote in: they can choose to vote in a ‘General district’ (with other Māori and all non- Māori), or to vote in a ‘Māori district’, where only Māori are allowed to register. Every five years there is a period known as Māori Electoral Option, during which Māori are given the option to either stay in their current district or switch. This offers an ideal setting to analyse whether Māori voters strategically choose to register where they expect the race to be closer. To that avail, I use data from two Māori Electoral Options, two general elections, and two censuses. Results suggest that only a very small fraction of Māori (less than 2%) seem to respond to the strategic incentives described. Two forces seem to play a much larger role in enrolment choices: cultural allegiances and socioeconomic status. Māori with a stronger sense of Māori identity and Māori living in socially disadvantaged areas tend to overwhelmingly enrol in the Māori districts. The implications of these results are discussed.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":"72 1","pages":"93 - 117"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00323187.2020.1856688","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44788659","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 : 2020-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00323187.2020.1859337
Joshua Ferrer
ABSTRACT It is commonly believed that a norm of consensus-based election reform exists in New Zealand. However, this belief has yet to be tested with systematic study of changes to the democratic rules of the game. This article empirically analyzes the extent to which partisan and restrictive election rules have been proposed and enacted since passage of the Electoral Act 1956. Using a novel matrix of election lawmaking, a wealth of primary textual sources, and interviews with key actors, the data show clear evidence that election reforms are routinely partisan and have occasionally curtailed democratic participation. An analysis of election lawmaking by political party reveals that Labour is responsible for most partisan election reforms, whereas National has passed most demobilising enactments. These trends extend to proposed members’ bills and across multiple governments. The findings highlight the need for scholars to take seriously the importance of a broader array of election reforms beyond the electoral system, including voter and registration administration, franchise rules, ballot initiatives, electoral governance, and campaign finance. It also underscores the need for systematic study of election reforms in a wider variety of countries.
{"title":"Re-Evaluating consensus in New Zealand election reform","authors":"Joshua Ferrer","doi":"10.1080/00323187.2020.1859337","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00323187.2020.1859337","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT It is commonly believed that a norm of consensus-based election reform exists in New Zealand. However, this belief has yet to be tested with systematic study of changes to the democratic rules of the game. This article empirically analyzes the extent to which partisan and restrictive election rules have been proposed and enacted since passage of the Electoral Act 1956. Using a novel matrix of election lawmaking, a wealth of primary textual sources, and interviews with key actors, the data show clear evidence that election reforms are routinely partisan and have occasionally curtailed democratic participation. An analysis of election lawmaking by political party reveals that Labour is responsible for most partisan election reforms, whereas National has passed most demobilising enactments. These trends extend to proposed members’ bills and across multiple governments. The findings highlight the need for scholars to take seriously the importance of a broader array of election reforms beyond the electoral system, including voter and registration administration, franchise rules, ballot initiatives, electoral governance, and campaign finance. It also underscores the need for systematic study of election reforms in a wider variety of countries.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":"72 1","pages":"118 - 144"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00323187.2020.1859337","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41786883","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：