首页 > 最新文献

Irish Political Studies最新文献

英文 中文
Brexit and prosperity but defeat: the economic vote conundrum in the 2020 Irish election 英国脱欧与繁荣但失败:2020年爱尔兰大选中的经济投票难题
IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE Pub Date : 2021-10-02 DOI: 10.1080/07907184.2021.1975433
M. Lewis-Beck, S. Quinlan
ABSTRACT At face, Ireland's economy had staged a remarkable recovery by 2020 since the devastating impact of the Global Financial Crisis. The economy was the fastest growing in Europe, unemployment had reached record lows, and Ireland's debt was back to its lowest level since 2009. The traditional economic voting model assumes voters punish outgoing governments for poor economic performance by voting against them but rewards incumbents for a sound economy by voting for them. Nevertheless, Irish voters delivered a stunning rebuke to the Fine Gael government in 2020, registering an incumbent administration's sixth-worst performance since 1932, raising questions about the applicability of the economic vote. Using the 2020 Irish National Election Study, our contribution unpacks this apparent puzzle. We uncover that macroeconomic conditions were less rosy than at first sight, a pattern recognised by voters. We find the economic vote was alive and well, with voter economic perceptions, and their views on income redistribution (and taxes/spending) having a potent effect on the vote. Brexit, as an economic issue, however, was not influential in shaping the vote. The Fine Gael challenge, and the answer to the conundrum, was most voters perceived the economy was lackluster and the government was on the wrong side of economic policy preferences of most voters.
从表面上看,自全球金融危机的破坏性影响以来,爱尔兰经济在2020年实现了显著复苏。爱尔兰是欧洲经济增长最快的国家,失业率创下历史新低,债务也回到了2009年以来的最低水平。传统的经济投票模式假设,选民通过投票反对即将卸任的政府来惩罚经济表现不佳的政府,而通过投票支持经济状况良好的现任政府来奖励现任政府。尽管如此,爱尔兰选民在2020年对统一党(Fine Gael)政府进行了令人震惊的抨击,记录了现任政府自1932年以来的第六差表现,引发了对经济投票适用性的质疑。利用2020年爱尔兰全国选举研究,我们的贡献解开了这个明显的谜题。我们发现宏观经济状况并没有乍一看那么乐观,选民们也认识到了这一模式。我们发现经济投票很活跃,选民的经济观念,以及他们对收入再分配(和税收/支出)的看法对投票产生了强有力的影响。然而,作为一个经济问题,英国脱欧对投票结果的影响并不大。统一党提出的挑战,以及这个难题的答案是,大多数选民认为经济低迷,政府站在大多数选民经济政策偏好的错误一边。
{"title":"Brexit and prosperity but defeat: the economic vote conundrum in the 2020 Irish election","authors":"M. Lewis-Beck, S. Quinlan","doi":"10.1080/07907184.2021.1975433","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07907184.2021.1975433","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT At face, Ireland's economy had staged a remarkable recovery by 2020 since the devastating impact of the Global Financial Crisis. The economy was the fastest growing in Europe, unemployment had reached record lows, and Ireland's debt was back to its lowest level since 2009. The traditional economic voting model assumes voters punish outgoing governments for poor economic performance by voting against them but rewards incumbents for a sound economy by voting for them. Nevertheless, Irish voters delivered a stunning rebuke to the Fine Gael government in 2020, registering an incumbent administration's sixth-worst performance since 1932, raising questions about the applicability of the economic vote. Using the 2020 Irish National Election Study, our contribution unpacks this apparent puzzle. We uncover that macroeconomic conditions were less rosy than at first sight, a pattern recognised by voters. We find the economic vote was alive and well, with voter economic perceptions, and their views on income redistribution (and taxes/spending) having a potent effect on the vote. Brexit, as an economic issue, however, was not influential in shaping the vote. The Fine Gael challenge, and the answer to the conundrum, was most voters perceived the economy was lackluster and the government was on the wrong side of economic policy preferences of most voters.","PeriodicalId":45746,"journal":{"name":"Irish Political Studies","volume":"36 1","pages":"556 - 580"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45574100","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}
引用次数: 1
Are Irish voters biased against female candidates? Evidence from the 2020 general election 爱尔兰选民对女性候选人有偏见吗?来自2020年大选的证据
IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE Pub Date : 2021-10-02 DOI: 10.1080/07907184.2021.1980651
L. Keenan, Mary C. Brennan
ABSTRACT Ireland is the first country in the world to apply a legislative gender quota under an STV electoral system. Since 2016, the quota has required parties to ensure that at least thirty percent of their candidates running in the general election are women. Due to the nature of the electoral system, namely that it is candidate-centred, the impact of the quota has the potential to be limited if voter bias is present among the electorate. While the initial gains from the quota’s first election in 2016 were maintained at the 2020 general election, with one more woman elected to Dáil Éireann, the headline figures may be misleading. In this earthquake election, a significant number of high-profile women from across the political spectrum lost their seats, while male colleagues retained theirs, suggesting that female candidates may have been evaluated differently from their male counterparts. Using self-reported voter attitudes from the 2020 Irish National Election Study, we investigate whether there is an underlying bias against women amongst voters. We test whether such a bias has an impact on the share of women running and the share of women winning, as well as individual women’s level of electoral success. Overall, we find no evidence that voter bias affected outcomes for women at the 2020 Irish general election.
摘要爱尔兰是世界上第一个在STV选举制度下实行立法性别配额的国家。自2016年以来,该配额要求各政党确保参加大选的候选人中至少有30%是女性。由于选举制度的性质,即以候选人为中心,如果选民中存在选民偏见,配额的影响可能会受到限制。虽然2016年第一次选举的配额最初的收益在2020年大选中得以保持,又有一名女性当选为DáilÉireann,但头条数字可能具有误导性。在这次地震选举中,来自各个政治派别的大量知名女性失去了席位,而男性同事保留了席位,这表明女性候选人的评价可能与男性候选人不同。利用2020年爱尔兰全国选举研究中自我报告的选民态度,我们调查了选民中是否存在对女性的潜在偏见。我们测试了这种偏见是否会影响女性参选的比例和女性获胜的比例,以及女性个人的选举成功率。总的来说,我们没有发现任何证据表明选民偏见影响了2020年爱尔兰大选中女性的结果。
{"title":"Are Irish voters biased against female candidates? Evidence from the 2020 general election","authors":"L. Keenan, Mary C. Brennan","doi":"10.1080/07907184.2021.1980651","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07907184.2021.1980651","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Ireland is the first country in the world to apply a legislative gender quota under an STV electoral system. Since 2016, the quota has required parties to ensure that at least thirty percent of their candidates running in the general election are women. Due to the nature of the electoral system, namely that it is candidate-centred, the impact of the quota has the potential to be limited if voter bias is present among the electorate. While the initial gains from the quota’s first election in 2016 were maintained at the 2020 general election, with one more woman elected to Dáil Éireann, the headline figures may be misleading. In this earthquake election, a significant number of high-profile women from across the political spectrum lost their seats, while male colleagues retained theirs, suggesting that female candidates may have been evaluated differently from their male counterparts. Using self-reported voter attitudes from the 2020 Irish National Election Study, we investigate whether there is an underlying bias against women amongst voters. We test whether such a bias has an impact on the share of women running and the share of women winning, as well as individual women’s level of electoral success. Overall, we find no evidence that voter bias affected outcomes for women at the 2020 Irish general election.","PeriodicalId":45746,"journal":{"name":"Irish Political Studies","volume":"36 1","pages":"606 - 627"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48741114","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}
引用次数: 1
Hybrid media consumption and production in #ge2020: the battle to own ‘change’ #ge2020的混合媒体消费和生产:拥有“改变”的战斗
IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE Pub Date : 2021-10-02 DOI: 10.1080/07907184.2021.1976975
Kirsty Park, Jane Suiter
ABSTRACT Traditionally, political parties engage with journalists to promote their agendas and claim issue ownership through publishing manifestos, holding public events and issuing statements, but the coverage that this interaction produces is determined by the editorial focus and decision making of each outlet. In a hybrid media age, political parties can engage in disintermediation by directly shaping their own agenda and communicating with the public using social media, which also facilitate populist messaging. In this article, we use a combination of traditional media and social media data to explore how key issues and parties were mediated during the battle to own ‘change’ and claim issue ownership in the 2020 election campaign in Ireland. The analysis draws upon coded articles from three mainstream outlets and Facebook posts from the three main parties, along with user engagement data from those Facebook posts. We find that newspaper coverage reflected the framing of a change election. While Fine Gael received the most coverage, both Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin show clear attempts to own change through social media, with Sinn Féin in particular ‘owning’ the most salient election issue of housing while also deploying substantial populist messaging which resulted in the most engagement.
摘要传统上,政党通过发表宣言、举办公共活动和发表声明来与记者接触,以推动他们的议程,并声称问题所有权,但这种互动产生的报道取决于每个媒体的编辑重点和决策。在混合媒体时代,政党可以通过直接制定自己的议程和使用社交媒体与公众沟通来参与去中介化,这也促进了民粹主义信息的传递。在这篇文章中,我们结合传统媒体和社交媒体数据,探讨在2020年爱尔兰大选中,在争取“变革”和主张问题所有权的斗争中,关键问题和政党是如何被调解的。该分析借鉴了三家主流媒体的编码文章、三个主要政党的脸书帖子,以及这些脸书帖子的用户参与度数据。我们发现,报纸的报道反映了一场变革选举的框架。虽然Fine Gael获得了最多的报道,但Fianna Fáil和Sinn Féin都表现出了通过社交媒体实现变革的明确尝试,尤其是Sinn Fèin“拥有”了最突出的住房选举问题,同时也部署了大量民粹主义信息,这导致了最多的参与。
{"title":"Hybrid media consumption and production in #ge2020: the battle to own ‘change’","authors":"Kirsty Park, Jane Suiter","doi":"10.1080/07907184.2021.1976975","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07907184.2021.1976975","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Traditionally, political parties engage with journalists to promote their agendas and claim issue ownership through publishing manifestos, holding public events and issuing statements, but the coverage that this interaction produces is determined by the editorial focus and decision making of each outlet. In a hybrid media age, political parties can engage in disintermediation by directly shaping their own agenda and communicating with the public using social media, which also facilitate populist messaging. In this article, we use a combination of traditional media and social media data to explore how key issues and parties were mediated during the battle to own ‘change’ and claim issue ownership in the 2020 election campaign in Ireland. The analysis draws upon coded articles from three mainstream outlets and Facebook posts from the three main parties, along with user engagement data from those Facebook posts. We find that newspaper coverage reflected the framing of a change election. While Fine Gael received the most coverage, both Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin show clear attempts to own change through social media, with Sinn Féin in particular ‘owning’ the most salient election issue of housing while also deploying substantial populist messaging which resulted in the most engagement.","PeriodicalId":45746,"journal":{"name":"Irish Political Studies","volume":"36 1","pages":"628 - 646"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42484831","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}
引用次数: 2
Predicting vote choice in the 2020 Irish general election 预测2020年爱尔兰大选的投票选择
IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE Pub Date : 2021-09-17 DOI: 10.1080/07907184.2021.1978219
Johan A. Elkink, D. Farrell
ABSTRACT This research note has two functions. It first sets the scene for this special issue using the 2020 Irish National Election Study (INES), which comprises several discrete data sets. The note also reports on findings from one part of the INES – an online poll of voters of polling day, which included a battery of questions related to attitudes and behaviours relevant to national politics. The note provides an empirical analysis of the vote choice in this election. Rather than taking a theory-testing approach, we use a more data-driven strategy and identify the key variables in the data set that are of relevance to an understanding of vote choice. Our findings support the views of other recent commentaries of Irish elections that Irish electoral politics is undergoing major transformation. The new electoral politics that is emerging is personified by a clear left vs. right divide in which strongly held ideological positions separate the voters of the main parties.
本研究笔记有两个功能。它首先使用2020年爱尔兰全国选举研究(INES)为本期特刊设定了场景,该研究由几个离散的数据集组成。该说明还报告了INES的一个部分的调查结果,INES是对投票日选民进行的在线民意调查,其中包括一系列与国家政治有关的态度和行为有关的问题。本文对本次选举中的投票选择进行了实证分析。我们没有采用理论测试的方法,而是使用了更多的数据驱动策略,并确定了数据集中与理解投票选择相关的关键变量。我们的研究结果支持了爱尔兰选举的其他近期评论的观点,即爱尔兰选举政治正在经历重大变革。正在出现的新选举政治以明显的左右分歧为代表,强烈的意识形态立场将主要政党的选民分开。
{"title":"Predicting vote choice in the 2020 Irish general election","authors":"Johan A. Elkink, D. Farrell","doi":"10.1080/07907184.2021.1978219","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07907184.2021.1978219","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This research note has two functions. It first sets the scene for this special issue using the 2020 Irish National Election Study (INES), which comprises several discrete data sets. The note also reports on findings from one part of the INES – an online poll of voters of polling day, which included a battery of questions related to attitudes and behaviours relevant to national politics. The note provides an empirical analysis of the vote choice in this election. Rather than taking a theory-testing approach, we use a more data-driven strategy and identify the key variables in the data set that are of relevance to an understanding of vote choice. Our findings support the views of other recent commentaries of Irish elections that Irish electoral politics is undergoing major transformation. The new electoral politics that is emerging is personified by a clear left vs. right divide in which strongly held ideological positions separate the voters of the main parties.","PeriodicalId":45746,"journal":{"name":"Irish Political Studies","volume":"36 1","pages":"521 - 534"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41370149","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}
引用次数: 8
Are Irish voters moving to the left? 爱尔兰选民正在向左翼靠拢吗?
IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE Pub Date : 2021-09-08 DOI: 10.1080/07907184.2021.1973737
Stefan Müller, Aidan Regan
ABSTRACT The Irish party system has been an outlier in comparative politics. Ireland never had a left-right divide in parliament, and for decades, the dominant centrist political parties competed around a centre-right policy agenda. The absence of an explicit left-right divide in party competition suggested that Irish voters, on average, occupy centre-right policy preferences. Combining survey data since 1973 and all Irish election studies between 2002 and 2020, we show that the average Irish voter now leans to the centre-left. We also show that income has recently emerged as a predictor of left-right self-placement, and that left-right positions increasingly structure vote choice. These patterns hold when using policy preferences on taxes, spending, and government interventions to reduce inequality as alternative indicators. We outline potential explanations for this leftward shift, and conclude that these developments might be anchored in economic inequalities and the left populist strategies of Sinn Féin.
摘要爱尔兰政党制度一直是比较政治中的异类。爱尔兰议会中从未出现过左右分歧,几十年来,占主导地位的中间派政党围绕着中右翼政策议程展开竞争。政党竞争中没有明显的左右分歧,这表明爱尔兰选民平均占据了中右翼的政策偏好。结合1973年以来的调查数据和2002年至2020年期间的所有爱尔兰选举研究,我们发现爱尔兰选民的平均水平现在倾向于中左翼。我们还表明,收入最近已经成为左右自我安置的预测因素,左右立场越来越构成投票选择的结构。当使用税收、支出和政府干预的政策偏好来减少不平等作为替代指标时,这些模式就成立了。我们概述了这种左倾转变的潜在解释,并得出结论,这些发展可能植根于经济不平等和新芬党的左翼民粹主义战略。
{"title":"Are Irish voters moving to the left?","authors":"Stefan Müller, Aidan Regan","doi":"10.1080/07907184.2021.1973737","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07907184.2021.1973737","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Irish party system has been an outlier in comparative politics. Ireland never had a left-right divide in parliament, and for decades, the dominant centrist political parties competed around a centre-right policy agenda. The absence of an explicit left-right divide in party competition suggested that Irish voters, on average, occupy centre-right policy preferences. Combining survey data since 1973 and all Irish election studies between 2002 and 2020, we show that the average Irish voter now leans to the centre-left. We also show that income has recently emerged as a predictor of left-right self-placement, and that left-right positions increasingly structure vote choice. These patterns hold when using policy preferences on taxes, spending, and government interventions to reduce inequality as alternative indicators. We outline potential explanations for this leftward shift, and conclude that these developments might be anchored in economic inequalities and the left populist strategies of Sinn Féin.","PeriodicalId":45746,"journal":{"name":"Irish Political Studies","volume":"36 1","pages":"535 - 555"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42739312","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}
引用次数: 5
Issue congruence between voters and parties: examining the democratic party mandate in Ireland 选民和政党之间的一致性问题:审视爱尔兰的民主党授权
IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE Pub Date : 2021-09-06 DOI: 10.1080/07907184.2021.1973318
R. Costello
ABSTRACT Political parties often employ the rhetoric of electoral mandates, claiming that the people who voted for them endorsed their policies. However, the level of voter-party issue congruence may vary across parties, issues, and elections; and the views of certain types of voters may be better represented by their party than others. This paper puts forward a series of hypotheses to explain variation in issue congruence, relating to how well-informed voters are about party policy, the role of non-policy determinants of vote choice, and the nature of policy competition between parties. The hypotheses are tested using data from surveys of voters and parties conducted during the 2020 general election and the 2019 European Parliament election in Ireland. Congruence is found to be higher when a party is particularly associated with an issue. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, for whom non-policy attributes play a significant part in voters’ assessments, are found to have lower policy congruence with their voters overall than other parties. While there is no evidence that certain socio-demographic groups are systematically more or less well represented by their parties across all policy areas, some gaps in representation are identified, particularly in relation to so-called ‘cultural’ issues.
摘要政党经常使用选举授权的说辞,声称投票给他们的人支持他们的政策。然而,选民-政党问题一致性的程度可能因政党、问题和选举而异;某些类型选民的观点可能比其他人更能被他们的政党代表。本文提出了一系列假设来解释问题一致性的变化,涉及选民对政党政策的了解程度、非政策决定因素在选票选择中的作用以及政党之间政策竞争的性质。这些假设是使用2020年大选和2019年爱尔兰欧洲议会选举期间对选民和政党进行的调查数据进行检验的。当一方与某个问题特别相关时,一致性会更高。Fianna Fáil和Fine Gael的非政策属性在选民的评估中起着重要作用,他们被发现与其他政党相比,与选民的总体政策一致性较低。虽然没有证据表明某些社会人口群体在所有政策领域都或多或少地得到了其政党的系统性代表,但在代表性方面存在一些差距,特别是在所谓的“文化”问题方面。
{"title":"Issue congruence between voters and parties: examining the democratic party mandate in Ireland","authors":"R. Costello","doi":"10.1080/07907184.2021.1973318","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07907184.2021.1973318","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Political parties often employ the rhetoric of electoral mandates, claiming that the people who voted for them endorsed their policies. However, the level of voter-party issue congruence may vary across parties, issues, and elections; and the views of certain types of voters may be better represented by their party than others. This paper puts forward a series of hypotheses to explain variation in issue congruence, relating to how well-informed voters are about party policy, the role of non-policy determinants of vote choice, and the nature of policy competition between parties. The hypotheses are tested using data from surveys of voters and parties conducted during the 2020 general election and the 2019 European Parliament election in Ireland. Congruence is found to be higher when a party is particularly associated with an issue. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, for whom non-policy attributes play a significant part in voters’ assessments, are found to have lower policy congruence with their voters overall than other parties. While there is no evidence that certain socio-demographic groups are systematically more or less well represented by their parties across all policy areas, some gaps in representation are identified, particularly in relation to so-called ‘cultural’ issues.","PeriodicalId":45746,"journal":{"name":"Irish Political Studies","volume":"36 1","pages":"581 - 605"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49058854","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}
引用次数: 1
Determinants of support for directly-elected mayors in Ireland 支持爱尔兰直选市长的决定因素
IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE Pub Date : 2021-09-06 DOI: 10.1080/07907184.2021.1975966
Luke Field
ABSTRACT In May 2019, three Irish local authorities ran plebiscites alongside their local elections: Cork City Council, Limerick City and County Council, and Waterford City and County Council. The plebiscites were run to judge support for Government proposals to introduce a reformed, directly-elected mayoral office. The results were, in some ways, the worst possible from a Government perspective: a mix. While voters in Limerick backed the plan by a slight majority, it was marginally rejected in both Cork and Waterford. Faced with disappointing a large group of voters no matter the course of action taken, the Government shelved the plans for Cork and Waterford indefinitely, though the plan for Limerick may proceed. Despite the 2019 rejections, the 2020 UCD Online Election Poll (INES 1) found indications of high levels of support for these reforms: four-in-five respondents agreed that mayors should be directly elected, which is a significantly higher proportion than the Yes vote in any of the three plebiscite areas. This research uses further data from the online poll to establish correlates of support for these reforms, and tentatively suggests that partisan dynamics in turnout are why this support wasn’t reflected in the plebiscite results.
摘要2019年5月,爱尔兰三个地方政府在举行地方选举的同时举行了公民投票:科克市议会、利默里克市和县议会以及沃特福德市和县议员。公民投票是为了判断政府提议设立改革后的直选市长办公室的支持程度。在某些方面,从政府的角度来看,结果可能是最糟糕的:一种混合。虽然利默里克的选民以微弱多数支持该计划,但科克和沃特福德的选民都略微拒绝了该计划。无论采取何种行动,面对大批选民的失望,政府无限期搁置了科克和沃特福德的计划,尽管利默里克的计划可能会继续进行。尽管2019年遭到拒绝,但2020年UCD在线选举民意调查(INES 1)发现,有迹象表明,人们对这些改革的支持率很高:五分之四的受访者同意市长应该直接选举,这一比例明显高于三个公民投票区中任何一个地区的赞成票。这项研究使用了来自在线民意调查的进一步数据来确定支持这些改革的相关性,并初步表明,投票率的党派动态是这种支持没有反映在公民投票结果中的原因。
{"title":"Determinants of support for directly-elected mayors in Ireland","authors":"Luke Field","doi":"10.1080/07907184.2021.1975966","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07907184.2021.1975966","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In May 2019, three Irish local authorities ran plebiscites alongside their local elections: Cork City Council, Limerick City and County Council, and Waterford City and County Council. The plebiscites were run to judge support for Government proposals to introduce a reformed, directly-elected mayoral office. The results were, in some ways, the worst possible from a Government perspective: a mix. While voters in Limerick backed the plan by a slight majority, it was marginally rejected in both Cork and Waterford. Faced with disappointing a large group of voters no matter the course of action taken, the Government shelved the plans for Cork and Waterford indefinitely, though the plan for Limerick may proceed. Despite the 2019 rejections, the 2020 UCD Online Election Poll (INES 1) found indications of high levels of support for these reforms: four-in-five respondents agreed that mayors should be directly elected, which is a significantly higher proportion than the Yes vote in any of the three plebiscite areas. This research uses further data from the online poll to establish correlates of support for these reforms, and tentatively suggests that partisan dynamics in turnout are why this support wasn’t reflected in the plebiscite results.","PeriodicalId":45746,"journal":{"name":"Irish Political Studies","volume":"36 1","pages":"667 - 684"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45381730","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}
引用次数: 0
Recognition politics in Northern Ireland: from cultural recognition to recognition struggle 北爱尔兰的认同政治:从文化认同到认同斗争
IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE Pub Date : 2021-08-09 DOI: 10.1080/07907184.2021.1969549
Cillian Mcbride
ABSTRACT The idea of recognition is often taken to support the notion of ‘pluralist accommodation’ between nationalists and unionists. This relies on a distinctive ‘cultural’ model of recognition as requiring identity affirmation as essential to conflict resolution. It is argued that the cultural model relies on a weak analysis of social recognition and is, consequently, a poor guide to understanding the politics of recognition in Northern Ireland. Firstly, it does not give sufficient weight to struggles for equal recognition. Secondly, the vague notion of ‘affirming’ identities does not capture the way recognition struggles arise over social positioning in wider status hierarchies. An alternative, ‘recognition struggle’ account is developed which focuses on conflicts over authority and which explains why recognition politics in Northern Ireland often centers on defying the other. Finally, the cultural model fails to see that cultural groups are themselves the product of internal struggles for recognition and wrongly assumes the politics of recognition must resist attempts to transform group identities. Taking recognition seriously requires us to move beyond ‘cultural recognition’ and ‘pluralist accommodation’ in Northern Ireland.
摘要承认的概念通常被用来支持民族主义者和统一主义者之间的“多元包容”概念。这依赖于一种独特的“文化”承认模式,即需要确认身份,这对解决冲突至关重要。有人认为,文化模式依赖于对社会认可的薄弱分析,因此,对理解北爱尔兰的认可政治指导不力。首先,它没有充分重视争取平等承认的斗争。其次,“肯定”身份的模糊概念并没有捕捉到在更广泛的地位等级制度中因社会定位而产生的认可斗争的方式。另一种说法是“承认斗争”,它关注的是权力冲突,并解释了为什么北爱尔兰的承认政治往往以藐视他人为中心。最后,文化模式没有看到文化群体本身就是争取承认的内部斗争的产物,并错误地认为承认政治必须抵制改变群体身份的企图。认真对待认可要求我们超越北爱尔兰的“文化认可”和“多元包容”。
{"title":"Recognition politics in Northern Ireland: from cultural recognition to recognition struggle","authors":"Cillian Mcbride","doi":"10.1080/07907184.2021.1969549","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07907184.2021.1969549","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The idea of recognition is often taken to support the notion of ‘pluralist accommodation’ between nationalists and unionists. This relies on a distinctive ‘cultural’ model of recognition as requiring identity affirmation as essential to conflict resolution. It is argued that the cultural model relies on a weak analysis of social recognition and is, consequently, a poor guide to understanding the politics of recognition in Northern Ireland. Firstly, it does not give sufficient weight to struggles for equal recognition. Secondly, the vague notion of ‘affirming’ identities does not capture the way recognition struggles arise over social positioning in wider status hierarchies. An alternative, ‘recognition struggle’ account is developed which focuses on conflicts over authority and which explains why recognition politics in Northern Ireland often centers on defying the other. Finally, the cultural model fails to see that cultural groups are themselves the product of internal struggles for recognition and wrongly assumes the politics of recognition must resist attempts to transform group identities. Taking recognition seriously requires us to move beyond ‘cultural recognition’ and ‘pluralist accommodation’ in Northern Ireland.","PeriodicalId":45746,"journal":{"name":"Irish Political Studies","volume":"37 1","pages":"64 - 84"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44884092","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}
引用次数: 1
Failed Führers: a history of Britain’s extreme right 失败的元首:英国极右历史
IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE Pub Date : 2021-08-05 DOI: 10.1080/07907184.2021.1962162
T. Wilson
{"title":"Failed Führers: a history of Britain’s extreme right","authors":"T. Wilson","doi":"10.1080/07907184.2021.1962162","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07907184.2021.1962162","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45746,"journal":{"name":"Irish Political Studies","volume":"38 1","pages":"149 - 150"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/07907184.2021.1962162","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45845392","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}
引用次数: 0
Partition: how and why Ireland was divided 分治:爱尔兰是如何以及为什么分裂的
IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE Pub Date : 2021-08-03 DOI: 10.1080/07907184.2021.1962163
Hugh Hanley
bler, the double-crosser, the non co-operator’. By the end of this hefty but deft survey, it becomes apparent that there was precious little elbow-room for anyone else at the very apex of British fascism. Liberal democracy in the United Kingdom has thus been repeatedly lucky in its opponents on this flank. Yet Macklin never makes the mistake of under-estimating this grisly cadre: and always pays due tribute to their (often considerable) talents for eye-catching invective and propaganda. Above all, he never loses sight of the big picture. He is always careful to recognise the core achievements of the British fascist tradition: its sheer resilience, its capacity for intellectual regeneration, its cultural authenticity. Unlike its subjects, Failed Führers succeeds triumphantly.
bler,双重交叉者,非合作者。在这项庞大但巧妙的调查结束时,很明显,在英国法西斯主义的顶峰,其他人几乎没有什么回旋余地。因此,英国的自由民主在这一边的对手身上一再幸运。然而,麦克林从未犯过低估这名可怕干部的错误:他总是对他们(通常相当可观)的才华表示应有的赞扬,因为他们进行了引人注目的谩骂和宣传。最重要的是,他从不忽视大局。他总是小心翼翼地承认英国法西斯传统的核心成就:其纯粹的韧性、知识再生能力和文化真实性。与它的臣民不同,失败的元首取得了胜利。
{"title":"Partition: how and why Ireland was divided","authors":"Hugh Hanley","doi":"10.1080/07907184.2021.1962163","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07907184.2021.1962163","url":null,"abstract":"bler, the double-crosser, the non co-operator’. By the end of this hefty but deft survey, it becomes apparent that there was precious little elbow-room for anyone else at the very apex of British fascism. Liberal democracy in the United Kingdom has thus been repeatedly lucky in its opponents on this flank. Yet Macklin never makes the mistake of under-estimating this grisly cadre: and always pays due tribute to their (often considerable) talents for eye-catching invective and propaganda. Above all, he never loses sight of the big picture. He is always careful to recognise the core achievements of the British fascist tradition: its sheer resilience, its capacity for intellectual regeneration, its cultural authenticity. Unlike its subjects, Failed Führers succeeds triumphantly.","PeriodicalId":45746,"journal":{"name":"Irish Political Studies","volume":"38 1","pages":"150 - 151"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49477511","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}
引用次数: 1
期刊
Irish Political Studies
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1