American Journal of Political Science最新文献

Many care-ethics scholars argue that care and justice should harmonize. While agreeing in general, we argue for a hard limit on justice in some instances. For example, we find evidence to support limiting justice in favor of care in the US military's restricted reporting policy in cases of sexual assault. This policy allows victims to receive medical treatment without initiating a criminal investigation. Moreover, the article finds additional evidence to normatively prioritize care in the policy's attentiveness and responsiveness, two values emphasized by care-ethics scholars. This article gives insight into how care and justice can devolve into an antagonistic relationship, something many care-ethics scholars seek to avoid. Finally, this article suggests how a more harmonious relationship between care and justice might be restored.

We study the effects of terrorism on political trust and national versus ethnic identification. Making use of unexpected attacks by the extremist group Boko Haram in Nigeria, which occurred during the fieldwork of a public opinion survey in 2014, we show that even in a context of weak state institutions and frequent terrorist activities, terror attacks significantly increase political trust. We also find that the attacks significantly reduced the salience of respondents' national identity, instead increasing ethnic identification. These findings run counter to arguments that “rally around the flag” effects following terror attacks result from increased patriotism. The results have important implications for understanding the effects of terrorism in contexts of weak state institutions, frequent political violence, and politically salient ethnic divisions.

Renewed calls for Indigenous sovereignty in North America have led some scholars to search Western philosophy for thinking that affirms these claims. Many suggest that the common law tradition offers resources to do so. In this article, I argue that common law is limited in its capacity to endorse Indigenous political legitimacy. Instead, I suggest that supportive elements in common law are trace remnants of natural law thinking. Further, natural law as a concept resonates with contemporary Indigenous philosophy that maintains that nonhuman nature is suffused with morality and normativity, making the natural law tradition worth considering for defenses of Indigenous sovereignty. I propose beginning with the work of Bartolomé de las Casas. While my aim is not to defend either Lascasian nor Indigenous natural law, I conclude that they should be part of efforts to understand the ongoing conflicts between Indigenous nations and colonial states.

Financial regulation is often adopted in the wake of scandals and crises. Yet political science has little to say about the political effects of corporate scandals. We break that silence, asking whether exposure to news coverage of bank scandals changes the preferences of voters for financial regulation. Drawing from the literatures on media influence and public opinion, we argue that news coverage of bank scandals should increase voters’ appetite for regulation. We test our hypothesis with data from six countries, using original nationally representative panel surveys with embedded experiments (total N = 27,673). Our pooled and country-specific analyses largely support our expectation that exposure to news coverage of scandals increases regulatory preferences. We reproduce this finding in a separate survey wave, using different scandals than in our original analysis. These results contribute to studies on media influence on public opinion, the political significance of scandals, and the political economy of regulation.

The welfare magnet hypothesis holds that immigrants are likely to relocate to regions with generous welfare benefits. Although this assumption has motivated extensive reforms to immigration policy and social programs, the empirical evidence remains contested. In this study, we assess detailed administrative records from Switzerland covering the full population of social assistance recipients between 2005 and 2015. By leveraging local variations in cash transfers and exogenous shocks to benefit levels, we identify how benefits shape intracountry residential decisions. We find limited evidence that immigrants systematically move to localities with higher benefits. The lack of significant welfare migration within a context characterized by high variance in benefits and low barriers to movement suggests that the prevalence of this phenomenon may be overstated. These findings have important implications in the European setting where subnational governments often possess discretion over welfare and parties frequently mobilize voters around the issue of “benefit tourism.”

We propose a model of political competition not over policy programs, but over ideologies: models of the world that organize voters' experiences and guide the inferences they draw from observed outcomes. Policy-motivated political parties develop ideologies, and voters choose the ideology that best explains their observations. Preferences over policies are then induced by the adopted ideology. Parties thus care about winning the ideological battle as it confers an advantage in the electoral arena. We show that in equilibrium political parties always propose different models of the world. This divergence extends to all features of the environment, not just policy dimensions. A lower degree of policy extremism in the past increases the divergence on the policy dimension, thus leading to higher ideological polarization.

Democratic theory tells us that citizens should be engaged, informed, passionate, reasonable, willing to speak up, ready to listen, and militant but also restrained. Yet we are rarely told how they might achieve this. The challenge is particularly relevant for theories that distinguish between the liberal and democratic principles of our regime with their contradictory ideals of citizenship. This article draws on Plato's reflections on drinking wine with friends in the Laws to argue that the political psychology suggested therein fits the complex ideal of citizenship in a liberal democracy. Furthermore, it shows how extrapolitical and even disreputable social practices can not only help prepare citizens for political life but also enable them to deal with the inequalities that inevitably contaminate it. Weaving together law, contestation, reason, and passion, the Platonic account articulates the psychological burdens of citizenship in a liberal democracy and suggests ways to cope with them.

I describe and analyze a model of strategic communication and deliberation in decentralized decision-making settings. I show that, in a cheap-talk environment, inclusion and exclusion of agents can affect the credibility of messaging between agents and, accordingly, the quality of policy decisions and overall social welfare. Somewhat surprisingly, the inclusion of agents can aid information aggregation and social welfare even when the added agents do not themselves communicate truthfully. Analogously, the results suggest an informational, social welfare–based rationale for excluding agents not only from observing policy-relevant deliberation but also from observing the product of the communication precisely because the excluded agents possess decision-making authority.

We analyze the effects of veto institutions in a dynamic model where control of the legislative and executive branches fluctuates between two parties. In our setting, there are universal projects (benefiting both parties) and partisan projects (benefiting one party at the expense of the other). When government is divided, the legislature can leverage the universal project to achieve a lopsided and dynamically inefficient distribution of partisan projects under the absolute veto. While the line-item veto eliminates this type of hostage-taking, it also prevents beneficial logrolls. A novel institution, the alternating line-item veto, can both eliminate hostage-taking and preserve beneficial interparty logrolls. No veto institution prevents dynamically inefficient, lopsided outcomes under unified government; this can only be done through norms, and we show that a no-veto regime, or a regime with a line-item veto, best facilitates such a cooperative norm.

This article contends that sexism plays a fundamental role in the electoral rise of the far right, both as a predisposition and as a changing attitude. Using panel data from Spain, we show that modern sexism is indeed among the most important attitudinal predictors of voting for the far-right party Vox. The results also show that internal individual changes in levels of modern sexism impact far-right voting. Backlash attitudinal change, defined as increases in sexism occurring in a context of feminist momentum, contributed significantly to the recent emergence of the radical right. Our findings indicate that sexism is not a crystalized attitude but rather susceptible to showing short-term changes with important political consequences. This highlights the importance of understudied context-dependent individual dynamics of gender backlash in far-right voting.