Pub Date : 2022-12-01DOI: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-051921-102729
S. Goodman
This article reviews the field of citizenship studies, with attention to the causes and consequences of policy. It summarizes key findings and points of consensus across three research domains: the determinants of citizenship policy, the consequences of citizenship policy, and the consequences of citizenship, i.e., the utility of obtaining citizenship for immigrant integration. After identifying strengths and weaknesses of each, I propose new directions in research that widen the field in terms of cases and generalizable theory while also deepening the field through serious attention to approaches that center the immigrant experience. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Political Science, Volume 26 is June 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"Citizenship Studies: Policy Causes and Consequences","authors":"S. Goodman","doi":"10.1146/annurev-polisci-051921-102729","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051921-102729","url":null,"abstract":"This article reviews the field of citizenship studies, with attention to the causes and consequences of policy. It summarizes key findings and points of consensus across three research domains: the determinants of citizenship policy, the consequences of citizenship policy, and the consequences of citizenship, i.e., the utility of obtaining citizenship for immigrant integration. After identifying strengths and weaknesses of each, I propose new directions in research that widen the field in terms of cases and generalizable theory while also deepening the field through serious attention to approaches that center the immigrant experience. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Political Science, Volume 26 is June 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":48264,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76355948","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-01DOI: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-051921-102440
Volha Charnysh, Eugene Finkel, Scott Gehlbach
A recent wave of research in political science examines the past using statistical methods for causal inference and formal theory—a field widely known as historical political economy (HPE). We examine the development of this field. Our survey reveals three common uses of history in HPE: understanding the past for its own sake, using history as a way to understand the present, and using history as a setting to explore theoretical conjectures. We present important work in each area and discuss trade-offs of each approach. We further identify key practical and analytical challenges for scholars of HPE, including the accessibility of data that do exist and obstacles to inference when they do not. Looking to the future, we see improved training for scholars entering the field, a heightened focus on the accumulation of knowledge, and greater attention to underexplored topics such as race, gender, ethnicity, and climate change. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Political Science, Volume 26 is June 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"Historical Political Economy: Past, Present, and Future","authors":"Volha Charnysh, Eugene Finkel, Scott Gehlbach","doi":"10.1146/annurev-polisci-051921-102440","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051921-102440","url":null,"abstract":"A recent wave of research in political science examines the past using statistical methods for causal inference and formal theory—a field widely known as historical political economy (HPE). We examine the development of this field. Our survey reveals three common uses of history in HPE: understanding the past for its own sake, using history as a way to understand the present, and using history as a setting to explore theoretical conjectures. We present important work in each area and discuss trade-offs of each approach. We further identify key practical and analytical challenges for scholars of HPE, including the accessibility of data that do exist and obstacles to inference when they do not. Looking to the future, we see improved training for scholars entering the field, a heightened focus on the accumulation of knowledge, and greater attention to underexplored topics such as race, gender, ethnicity, and climate change. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Political Science, Volume 26 is June 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":48264,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83574549","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-29DOI: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-051921-102842
Francisco Herreros
This article explores the effects of the state on the creation of social trust. It identifies four theories connecting these two variables. The first and probably most important one stresses the role of the state as a third-party punisher of free-riders, especially in large societies where people have continuous interactions with strangers. The second claims that citizens extrapolate state officers’ corruption levels to ordinary citizens’ trustworthiness. The third claims that the state promotes trust by increasing income equality, and the final one claims that the state fosters trust by providing information about types of people. Finally, the article discusses how the empirical models relating to the state and trust deal with endogeneity problems, how outcomes from experimental analyses question the results obtained from observational data, and how this work affects our ideas about what trust ultimately refers to. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Political Science, Volume 26 is June 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"The State and Trust","authors":"Francisco Herreros","doi":"10.1146/annurev-polisci-051921-102842","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051921-102842","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the effects of the state on the creation of social trust. It identifies four theories connecting these two variables. The first and probably most important one stresses the role of the state as a third-party punisher of free-riders, especially in large societies where people have continuous interactions with strangers. The second claims that citizens extrapolate state officers’ corruption levels to ordinary citizens’ trustworthiness. The third claims that the state promotes trust by increasing income equality, and the final one claims that the state fosters trust by providing information about types of people. Finally, the article discusses how the empirical models relating to the state and trust deal with endogeneity problems, how outcomes from experimental analyses question the results obtained from observational data, and how this work affects our ideas about what trust ultimately refers to. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Political Science, Volume 26 is June 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":48264,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2022-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81428104","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-14DOI: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-051421-124241
J. Colgan, Miriam Hinthorn
Global climate change is opening up new questions and reinvigorating old lines of inquiry in the study of international energy politics. Many policymakers and stakeholders are pushing for a clean energy transition away from the fossil fuels that have long dominated the world's energy supply. On some issues, there is considerable consensus between political scientists and other analysts, such as the basic categories of the “winners” and “losers” from the clean energy transition. On other issues, however, political science tends to depart significantly from other disciplines. The politics of the desired clean energy transition are highly complicated and filled with obstacles beyond those typically highlighted by either economics or physical sciences. For these reasons, energy politics associated with oil and other fossil fuels are far from over and continue to develop, even as new political dynamics associated with the clean energy transition emerge. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Political Science, Volume 26 is June 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"International Energy Politics in an Age of Climate Change","authors":"J. Colgan, Miriam Hinthorn","doi":"10.1146/annurev-polisci-051421-124241","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051421-124241","url":null,"abstract":"Global climate change is opening up new questions and reinvigorating old lines of inquiry in the study of international energy politics. Many policymakers and stakeholders are pushing for a clean energy transition away from the fossil fuels that have long dominated the world's energy supply. On some issues, there is considerable consensus between political scientists and other analysts, such as the basic categories of the “winners” and “losers” from the clean energy transition. On other issues, however, political science tends to depart significantly from other disciplines. The politics of the desired clean energy transition are highly complicated and filled with obstacles beyond those typically highlighted by either economics or physical sciences. For these reasons, energy politics associated with oil and other fossil fuels are far from over and continue to develop, even as new political dynamics associated with the clean energy transition emerge. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Political Science, Volume 26 is June 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":48264,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2022-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82513481","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-28DOI: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-060722-103142
Hakeem Jefferson, José Luis Gandara, Cathy Cohen, Y. González, Rebecca U. Thorpe, Vesla M. Weaver
Political scientist Hakeem Jefferson (Stanford University) facilitated a discussion about race, policing, and the state of American democracy with fellow political scientists Cathy J. Cohen (University of Chicago), Yanilda M. González (Harvard Kennedy School), Rebecca U. Thorpe (University of Washington), and Vesla M. Weaver (Johns Hopkins University) on May 26, 2021. The conversation occurred a year after George Perry Floyd Jr., a 46-year-old Black man, was murdered by a White police officer in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Moving beyond common notions of democracy that focus primarily on voting and electoral participation, the panelists discussed how American policing and the criminal justice system, more broadly, redefine citizenship, redistribute power, and shape marginalized people's understanding of their place in society. Closing remarks addressed the potential for change in how criminal justice institutions treat marginalized people and how political scientists can more usefully contribute to efforts that strengthen democracy for all. This is an edited transcript of the conversation and includes a bibliography of the sources mentioned. Watch a video of this conversation online. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Political Science, Volume 26 is June 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
2021年5月26日，政治学家哈基姆·杰斐逊(斯坦福大学)与其他政治学家凯茜·j·科恩(芝加哥大学)、雅尼尔达·m·González(哈佛大学肯尼迪学院)、丽贝卡·u·索普(华盛顿大学)和韦斯拉·m·韦弗(约翰霍普金斯大学)共同推动了一场关于种族、警务和美国民主状况的讨论。一年前，46岁的黑人小乔治·佩里·弗洛伊德(George Perry Floyd Jr.)在明尼苏达州明尼阿波利斯市被一名白人警察谋杀。讨论小组成员超越了主要关注投票和选举参与的常见民主概念，讨论了美国的警务和刑事司法系统如何在更广泛的范围内重新定义公民身份，重新分配权力，并塑造边缘化人群对其社会地位的理解。结束语讨论了刑事司法机构如何对待边缘化人群方面可能发生的变化，以及政治学家如何能够更有效地为加强全民民主的努力作出贡献。这是一份经过编辑的谈话记录，包括所提到的来源的参考书目。请在线观看下面的对话视频。预计《政治学年度评论》第26卷的最终在线出版日期为2023年6月。修订后的估计数请参阅http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates。
{"title":"Beyond the Ballot Box: A Conversation About Democracy and Policing in the United States","authors":"Hakeem Jefferson, José Luis Gandara, Cathy Cohen, Y. González, Rebecca U. Thorpe, Vesla M. Weaver","doi":"10.1146/annurev-polisci-060722-103142","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-060722-103142","url":null,"abstract":"Political scientist Hakeem Jefferson (Stanford University) facilitated a discussion about race, policing, and the state of American democracy with fellow political scientists Cathy J. Cohen (University of Chicago), Yanilda M. González (Harvard Kennedy School), Rebecca U. Thorpe (University of Washington), and Vesla M. Weaver (Johns Hopkins University) on May 26, 2021. The conversation occurred a year after George Perry Floyd Jr., a 46-year-old Black man, was murdered by a White police officer in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Moving beyond common notions of democracy that focus primarily on voting and electoral participation, the panelists discussed how American policing and the criminal justice system, more broadly, redefine citizenship, redistribute power, and shape marginalized people's understanding of their place in society. Closing remarks addressed the potential for change in how criminal justice institutions treat marginalized people and how political scientists can more usefully contribute to efforts that strengthen democracy for all. This is an edited transcript of the conversation and includes a bibliography of the sources mentioned. Watch a video of this conversation online. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Political Science, Volume 26 is June 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":48264,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2022-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82231028","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-12DOI: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-060820-060910
J. Gerring, C. Knutsen, Jonas Berge
Does democracy matter for normatively desirable outcomes? We survey results from 1,100 cross-country analyses drawn from 600 journal articles published after the year 2000. These analyses are conducted on 30 distinct outcomes pertaining to social policy, economic policy, citizenship and human rights, military and criminal justice, and overall governance. Across these diverse outcomes, most studies report either a positive or null relationship with democracy. However, there is evidence of threshold bias, suggesting that reported findings may reflect a somewhat exaggerated image of democracy's effects. Additionally, democratic effects are more likely to be found for outcomes that are easily attained than for those that lie beyond the reach of government but are often of great normative importance. We also find that outcomes measured by subjective indicators show a stronger positive relationship with democracy than outcomes that are measured or proxied by more objective indicators.
{"title":"Does Democracy Matter?","authors":"J. Gerring, C. Knutsen, Jonas Berge","doi":"10.1146/annurev-polisci-060820-060910","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-060820-060910","url":null,"abstract":"Does democracy matter for normatively desirable outcomes? We survey results from 1,100 cross-country analyses drawn from 600 journal articles published after the year 2000. These analyses are conducted on 30 distinct outcomes pertaining to social policy, economic policy, citizenship and human rights, military and criminal justice, and overall governance. Across these diverse outcomes, most studies report either a positive or null relationship with democracy. However, there is evidence of threshold bias, suggesting that reported findings may reflect a somewhat exaggerated image of democracy's effects. Additionally, democratic effects are more likely to be found for outcomes that are easily attained than for those that lie beyond the reach of government but are often of great normative importance. We also find that outcomes measured by subjective indicators show a stronger positive relationship with democracy than outcomes that are measured or proxied by more objective indicators.","PeriodicalId":48264,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2022-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80763501","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-25DOI: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-014429
Carolina Moehlecke, R. Wellhausen
International investment law provides a means for states to mitigate political risks that foreign investors face inside their borders. Its status quo includes thousands of international investment agreements (IIAs) and Investor–State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), a dispute resolution mechanism in which foreign, private investors sue host states in ad hoc international tribunals in pursuit of monetary compensation for property rights violations. In this review, we survey the vast contemporary literature on this regime to evidence the ways in which scholars have challenged the purported original goals of international investment law and its distributional consequences. In light of this literature's accomplishments, we highlight opportunities for a refocusing of international relations scholars’ research agenda on dynamics of continuity and change in the regime. The status quo in international investment law is fragile, and, in our view, the regime is on the brink of a major shift toward prioritizing state sovereignty well above political risk mitigation. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Political Science, Volume 25 is May 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"Political Risk and International Investment Law","authors":"Carolina Moehlecke, R. Wellhausen","doi":"10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-014429","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-014429","url":null,"abstract":"International investment law provides a means for states to mitigate political risks that foreign investors face inside their borders. Its status quo includes thousands of international investment agreements (IIAs) and Investor–State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), a dispute resolution mechanism in which foreign, private investors sue host states in ad hoc international tribunals in pursuit of monetary compensation for property rights violations. In this review, we survey the vast contemporary literature on this regime to evidence the ways in which scholars have challenged the purported original goals of international investment law and its distributional consequences. In light of this literature's accomplishments, we highlight opportunities for a refocusing of international relations scholars’ research agenda on dynamics of continuity and change in the regime. The status quo in international investment law is fragile, and, in our view, the regime is on the brink of a major shift toward prioritizing state sovereignty well above political risk mitigation. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Political Science, Volume 25 is May 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":48264,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2022-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88761224","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-25DOI: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-125131
Bernardo Zacka
Political theory is rediscovering the colossus of public administration—the vast public service and regulatory bureaucracies and their countless employees and extensions that conduct the daily business of government. This review explains how something so visible could ever have fallen from view, and surveys four burgeoning areas of research. These pertain to the legitimacy of public administration, to the articulation of standards of good government distinct from good public policy, to the analysis of how the moral agency of bureaucrats is implicated and undermined by the everyday operation of bureaucratic agencies, and to how we should conceptualize the state when we apprehend it through the seemingly banal routines of administration. What emerges from this body of work is a picture of the executive bureaucracy as an object of normative, critical, and conceptual inquiry on a par with the other two branches of government, the legislature and the judiciary. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Political Science, Volume 25 is May 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"Political Theory Rediscovers Public Administration","authors":"Bernardo Zacka","doi":"10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-125131","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-125131","url":null,"abstract":"Political theory is rediscovering the colossus of public administration—the vast public service and regulatory bureaucracies and their countless employees and extensions that conduct the daily business of government. This review explains how something so visible could ever have fallen from view, and surveys four burgeoning areas of research. These pertain to the legitimacy of public administration, to the articulation of standards of good government distinct from good public policy, to the analysis of how the moral agency of bureaucrats is implicated and undermined by the everyday operation of bureaucratic agencies, and to how we should conceptualize the state when we apprehend it through the seemingly banal routines of administration. What emerges from this body of work is a picture of the executive bureaucracy as an object of normative, critical, and conceptual inquiry on a par with the other two branches of government, the legislature and the judiciary. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Political Science, Volume 25 is May 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":48264,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2022-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85635583","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-04DOI: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-102543
Carl Dahlström, V. Lapuente
This article discusses one of the most important institutions in the modern world, namely public bureaucracies, from a comparative perspective. Bureaucratic organizations can be seen as a result of handling dilemmas along two critical dimensions. The first dimension concerns whether bureaucrats should be autonomous or, on the contrary, directly accountable to their political masters. The second dimension is about whether bureaucrats should always be guided by the letter of the law, strictly following established rules, or, on the contrary, guided by the principle of management, searching for the most efficient solution. We review the extensive recent research on the effects of different ways of organizing public bureaucracies along these two dimensions. Specifically, we look at three fundamental outcomes: economic development, corruption, and the quality of public services. We conclude by discussing the pros and cons of the four types of bureaucracies—legalistic (accountability and law), populistic (accountability and management), Weberian (autonomy and law), and liberal (autonomy and management)—and how they relate to, but do not overlap with, the concept of administrative traditions. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Political Science, Volume 25 is May 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"Comparative Bureaucratic Politics","authors":"Carl Dahlström, V. Lapuente","doi":"10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-102543","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-102543","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses one of the most important institutions in the modern world, namely public bureaucracies, from a comparative perspective. Bureaucratic organizations can be seen as a result of handling dilemmas along two critical dimensions. The first dimension concerns whether bureaucrats should be autonomous or, on the contrary, directly accountable to their political masters. The second dimension is about whether bureaucrats should always be guided by the letter of the law, strictly following established rules, or, on the contrary, guided by the principle of management, searching for the most efficient solution. We review the extensive recent research on the effects of different ways of organizing public bureaucracies along these two dimensions. Specifically, we look at three fundamental outcomes: economic development, corruption, and the quality of public services. We conclude by discussing the pros and cons of the four types of bureaucracies—legalistic (accountability and law), populistic (accountability and management), Weberian (autonomy and law), and liberal (autonomy and management)—and how they relate to, but do not overlap with, the concept of administrative traditions. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Political Science, Volume 25 is May 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":48264,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2022-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87527494","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-04DOI: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-041719-102107
David T. Canon
This review examines the role of race in the decennial process of redistricting. I review the scholarly literature on three related questions: What role should racial redistricting play in the representation of racial interests, how may racial redistricting be used, and what is the connection between racial redistricting and the substantive representation of racial minorities? The review briefly examines the normative question of racial representation and then focuses on the last two topics: empirical research on how racial interests are represented in legislatures and legal questions concerning the use of redistricting to produce descriptive representation. Racial redistricting enhances the representation of racial interests in legislatures, and the legal status of the districts is complex; therefore, litigation will proceed on a heavily fact-based, case-by-case basis in which political scientists will continue to play a vital role with their research on racially polarized voting and representation. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Political Science, Volume 25 is May 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"Race and Redistricting","authors":"David T. Canon","doi":"10.1146/annurev-polisci-041719-102107","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-041719-102107","url":null,"abstract":"This review examines the role of race in the decennial process of redistricting. I review the scholarly literature on three related questions: What role should racial redistricting play in the representation of racial interests, how may racial redistricting be used, and what is the connection between racial redistricting and the substantive representation of racial minorities? The review briefly examines the normative question of racial representation and then focuses on the last two topics: empirical research on how racial interests are represented in legislatures and legal questions concerning the use of redistricting to produce descriptive representation. Racial redistricting enhances the representation of racial interests in legislatures, and the legal status of the districts is complex; therefore, litigation will proceed on a heavily fact-based, case-by-case basis in which political scientists will continue to play a vital role with their research on racially polarized voting and representation. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Political Science, Volume 25 is May 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":48264,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2022-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87222360","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"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：