American Journal of Political Science最新文献

How do parties in multiethnic societies shape voter attitudes toward female candidates? We address this question, focusing on parties with ideologies that contain ethnonationalist gender norms—patriarchal norms applied to women from an ethnonationalist party's core ethnic constituency. We argue that, while these norms appeal to an ethnonationalist party's base, they also provide informational cues to the party's “non-core” voters that undermine their support for the party's “core” female candidates. Evidence from an original conjoint survey experiment in the Indian state of Bihar supports our argument; upper-caste female candidates suffer a support penalty when they are affiliated with the national ruling party, whose ideology prescribes ethnonationalist gender norms targeting its core Hindu upper-caste constituency. This penalty, we show, is driven by the party's non-core voters. Our results, which we further bolster using real-world electoral data, illuminate when and how ethnonationalist gender norms disadvantage elite female candidates.

This article introduces a framework for evaluating methods of combatting information search in online surveys. Three empirical studies based on the framework suggest that search is a serious but manageable problem. Search frequency varies substantially according to question content, ranging from 2% to 30% in batteries of general political knowledge questions. Deterrence works: a pledge not to cheat reduces search by half. Detection also works: web browser paradata identify 70% to 85% of search, while 60% to 85% of search on knowledge questions is undertaken by respondents who correctly answer “catch” questions about obscure Supreme Court cases. Detection and deterrence are complementary: deterrence reduces search ex ante, while detection quantifies success and provides ex post options for dealing with undeterred search. In combination, the three methods tested (pledge, paradata, and catch) deter or detect more than 90% of search, leaving search to affect about 0.5% of the remaining observations.

Prevalent counterinsurgency theories posit that small development aid projects can help stabilize regions in conflict. A widely assumed mechanism runs through citizen attitudes, often called “winning hearts and minds,” where aid brings economic benefits and sways public perceptions, leading to more cooperation and, eventually, less violence. Following a preregistered research design, we test this claim using difference-in-differences, leveraging original survey data, and new geocoded information about infrastructure projects in northern Afghanistan. We find that aid improves perceived economic conditions but erodes attitudes toward government and improves perceptions of insurgents. These attitudinal effects do not translate into changes in violence or territorial control. Testing mechanisms, we find projects with robust local consultation have fewer negative attitudinal effects, as do health and education projects. These findings challenge the “hearts and minds” theory but complement the wider literature on legitimacy, suggesting that foreign aid can improve human development but rarely meaningfully brings political stabilization.

Effective response to and rapid and reliable detection of infectious disease outbreaks require successful coordination of countries’ border policies early on. As threats from diseases are highly salient to the public, researchers agree that a better understanding of domestic politics is crucial. This article investigates a key piece of this question: public demands for border closures. Our experiments in the United Kingdom and the United States show that a greater pandemic threat mildly increases support for border closures, but the World Health Organization's (WHO) guidance against border closures and reminders about international legal obligations to follow the guidance substantially weaken support for border closures. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries flouted WHO's recommendations and restricted their borders. Examining media attention suggests people's lack of knowledge of the WHO guidance as a crucial reason for those border closures. Our study produces insights into the design of effective global health governance.

International borders have become a growing security concern in many parts of the world. Porous borders have raised concerns about a host of external threats—real and imagined—that in turn potentially inform policy decisions about border security. We examine global official discourse and show that border discourse has become more frequent, localized, non-state-centric, and negative over time. However, negative rhetoric is not convincingly linked with objective measures of globalization is only partially explained by political violence between and within states, and influences border-hardening policies. This raises the possibility that the border fortification trend noted in the international relations literature has not only a material basis but is also fueled by negative emotive rhetoric that may be deployed strategically for domestic purposes. We call for a research agenda that incorporates border discourse more centrally into international and comparative politics.

We study the consequences of populism for economic performance and the quality of bureaucracy. When voters lose trust in representative democracy, populists strategically supply unconditional policy commitments that are easier to monitor for voters. When in power, populists try to implement their policy commitments regardless of financial constraints and expert assessment of the feasibility of their policies, worsening government economic performance and dismantling resistance from expert bureaucrats. With novel data on more than 8,000 Italian municipalities covering more than 20 years, we estimate the effect of electing a populist mayor with a close-election regression discontinuity design. We find that the election of a populist mayor leads to smaller repayments of debts, a larger share of procurement contracts with cost overruns, higher turnover among top bureaucrats—driven by forced rather than voluntary departures—and a sharp decrease in the percentage of postgraduate bureaucrats.

In recent years, fully automated content analysis based on probabilistic topic models has become popular among social scientists because of their scalability. However, researchers find that these models often fail to measure specific concepts of substantive interest by inadvertently creating multiple topics with similar content and combining distinct themes into a single topic. In this article, we empirically demonstrate that providing a small number of keywords can substantially enhance the measurement performance of topic models. An important advantage of the proposed keyword-assisted topic model (keyATM) is that the specification of keywords requires researchers to label topics prior to fitting a model to the data. This contrasts with a widespread practice of post hoc topic interpretation and adjustments that compromises the objectivity of empirical findings. In our application, we find that keyATM provides more interpretable results, has better document classification performance, and is less sensitive to the number of topics.

Despite the centrality of promise keeping to representation, we know little about how it is affected by economic globalization, which is one of the modern world's defining characteristics. We argue that globalization reduces governing parties' ability to keep their campaign promises. We test the empirical implications of our theory with a mixed-methods approach that combines a large-n quantitative comparative analysis of pledge fulfillment with a typical case study to trace the underlying causal mechanisms of the theory. The findings indicate that international economic integration exerts a large negative effect on the likelihood of pledge fulfillment in a broad range of contexts and that the hypothesized mechanisms are clearly observable in the detailed case study. These findings have important implications for democratic representation in a globalized world.

Research on women candidates in American elections uncovers four key facts: Women (i) are underrepresented among candidates, (ii) are underrepresented among office holders, (iii) perform better in office, and (iv) win open seats at equal rates to men. Scholars offer two types of explanations: Women are less willing to run than men, due to differential costs or a gap in self-perceived qualification, or voters discriminate at the ballot box. We formally model these mechanisms. Lower willingness to run predicts the first three facts but not the fourth. Voter discrimination at the ballot box predicts the first three facts and creates competing effects with respect to the fourth. Thus, the major stylized facts cannot be explained without voter discrimination, whether overt or more subtle. We explore whether a close-election regression discontinuity distinguishes the mechanisms; surprisingly, it does not.

Why and how parties continue contesting elections (“repeated entry”) is an underresearched question despite its essence for party survival and party-system stability. We study repeated entry in three decades of elections in 10 Central and Eastern European countries using a new dataset that records almost 1,000 entry decisions. Our findings underline the importance of separating between first- and second-league parties based on whether in the previous election a party could obtain representation alone. First-league parties (those that could gain representation alone) almost always contest the next election. Second-league parties (those that could not win representation alone) exit electoral competition quite frequently and adopt more diverse repeated-entry strategies. We find that second-league parties’ repeated entry depends on their closeness to the representation threshold, access to resources, and the number of competitors in their niche, but not on institutional constraints or voter dissatisfaction.