{"title":"Contemporary U.S. Policymaking","authors":"D. Baron","doi":"10.1561/100.00019221","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00019221","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51622,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Political Science","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67072433","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Do Newspapers Benefit Incumbents? Evidence from Denmark 1849–1915","authors":"Alexander Fouirnaies","doi":"10.1561/100.00019054","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00019054","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51622,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Political Science","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67072295","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Direct Primary and the Incumbency Advantage in the US House of Representatives","authors":"Michael P. Olson","doi":"10.1561/100.00018168","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00018168","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51622,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Political Science","volume":"15 1","pages":"483-506"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2020-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41386709","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Mechanisms of Direct and Indirect Rule: Colonialism and Economic Development in Africa","authors":"N. Letsa, Martha Wilfahrt","doi":"10.1561/100.00019086","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00019086","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51622,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Political Science","volume":"15 1","pages":"539-577"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2020-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1561/100.00019086","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47448681","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Rulemaking procedures provide interest groups two opportunities to persuade regulators: ex parte meetings and public comments. Regulated entities use both avenues more extensively than other groups, but how much do they gain by doing so? By analyzing changes in the stock price of firms in the hours following rule announcements, I study the effect of lobbying on Dodd–Frank implementation at the Federal Reserve Board. I find that meetings and comments were associated with abnormal returns in the tens of billions, yet meetings were worth more. Returns of firms that met or commented were excessive in comparison to baseline expectations and the performance of all their disengaged competitors. When comparing firms that lobby with their most similar competitors, however, only meetings are associated with excess returns. By comparing comment requests to rule texts, I show that policy concessions were both pervasive and correlate with market outcomes. I connect these findings to contemporary debates about the design of administrative procedures and regulatory inequality.
{"title":"Meetings, Comments, and the Distributive Politics of Rulemaking","authors":"Brian Libgober","doi":"10.1561/100.00018135","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00018135","url":null,"abstract":"Rulemaking procedures provide interest groups two opportunities to persuade regulators: ex parte meetings and public comments. Regulated entities use both avenues more extensively than other groups, but how much do they gain by doing so? By analyzing changes in the stock price of firms in the hours following rule announcements, I study the effect of lobbying on Dodd–Frank implementation at the Federal Reserve Board. I find that meetings and comments were associated with abnormal returns in the tens of billions, yet meetings were worth more. Returns of firms that met or commented were excessive in comparison to baseline expectations and the performance of all their disengaged competitors. When comparing firms that lobby with their most similar competitors, however, only meetings are associated with excess returns. By comparing comment requests to rule texts, I show that policy concessions were both pervasive and correlate with market outcomes. I connect these findings to contemporary debates about the design of administrative procedures and regulatory inequality.","PeriodicalId":51622,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Political Science","volume":"15 1","pages":"449-481"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2020-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1561/100.00018135","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48905690","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Despite what the theory predicts, supply of redistributive policies does not always respond to rising inequality. We argue that redistribution reacts to changes in inequality, as long as the economy is not overshadowed by non-economic issues during the elections. To this end we construct a unique data set — where we estimate the race of candidates competing in all elections for U.S. state legislatures since 1980 — and show that the share of racially differentiated electoral contests has a disentangling effect on the inequality–redistribution link: when there are few (many) racially differentiated electoral contests, redistribution is (not) found to be sensitive to changes in inequality.
{"title":"Class versus Identity: Candidates' Race and the Inequality–Redistribution Nexus","authors":"Konstantinos Matakos, Dimitrios Xefteris","doi":"10.1561/100.00018138","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00018138","url":null,"abstract":"Despite what the theory predicts, supply of redistributive policies does not always respond to rising inequality. We argue that redistribution reacts to changes in inequality, as long as the economy is not overshadowed by non-economic issues during the elections. To this end we construct a unique data set — where we estimate the race of candidates competing in all elections for U.S. state legislatures since 1980 — and show that the share of racially differentiated electoral contests has a disentangling effect on the inequality–redistribution link: when there are few (many) racially differentiated electoral contests, redistribution is (not) found to be sensitive to changes in inequality.","PeriodicalId":51622,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Political Science","volume":"15 1","pages":"401-447"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2020-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1561/100.00018138","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42630248","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Rational Quagmires: Attrition, Learning, and War","authors":"Colin Krainin, Caroline D. Thomas, Thomas Wiseman","doi":"10.1561/100.00018008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00018008","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51622,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Political Science","volume":"15 1","pages":"369-400"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2020-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1561/100.00018008","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44316851","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Local Representation and Voter Mobilization in Closed-list Proportional Representation Systems
封闭式比例代表制下的地方代表制与选民动员
{"title":"Local Representation and Voter Mobilization in Closed-list Proportional Representation Systems","authors":"Jon H. Fiva, A. Halse, Daniel M. Smith","doi":"10.1561/100.00019147","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00019147","url":null,"abstract":"Local Representation and Voter Mobilization in Closed-list Proportional Representation Systems","PeriodicalId":51622,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Political Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2020-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46363409","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The under-representation of women in American politics can likely be explained, at least in part, by women’s comparatively lower levels of political ambition. We analyze a co-ed, religious program for high school students in which participants lobby their Members of Congress and receive political skills training. By leveraging longitudinal survey data about the participants and a difference-in-differences design, we find that the program successfully increased the political ambition of its female participants. To the best of our knowledge, we offer the first quasi-experimental evidence demonstrating a possible means of increasing the political ambition of high school-aged American women. Our results demonstrate that female political ambition can be increased without relying on programs that explicitly focus on gender and ambition.
{"title":"Can the Political Ambition of Young Women Be Increased? Evidence from U.S. High School Students","authors":"Joshua L. Kalla, Ethan Porter","doi":"10.31235/osf.io/7uy8w","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/7uy8w","url":null,"abstract":"The under-representation of women in American politics can likely be explained, at least in part, by women’s comparatively lower levels of political ambition. We analyze a co-ed, religious program for high school students in which participants lobby their Members of Congress and receive political skills training. By leveraging longitudinal survey data about the participants and a difference-in-differences design, we find that the program successfully increased the political ambition of its female participants. To the best of our knowledge, we offer the first quasi-experimental evidence demonstrating a possible means of increasing the political ambition of high school-aged American women. Our results demonstrate that female political ambition can be increased without relying on programs that explicitly focus on gender and ambition.","PeriodicalId":51622,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Political Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2020-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44617140","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
“Partisan Intoxication or Policy Voting?” raises questions central to understanding the extent to which individuals vote their partisanship and brings important attention to the potential observational equivalence between partisan and policy voting. In this response, I affirm some of Fowler’s arguments but also build upon existing studies to highlight that tests of the policy voting hypothesis need to seriously consider both the direct and indirect effects of partisanship to understand the relative role of policy versus partisanship. Such consideration is particularly significant as partisanship’s indirect effects can have troubling implications for democracy. I also reexamine the southern realignment and voters’ responses to hypothetical candidate policy positions, and when accounting for elite decision-making and complex information environments, I find voters respond less to candidate ideology and policy positions than suggested by Fowler’s original analyses. Together, my findings underscore the point that “policy voting and partisan intoxication are neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive explanations” of voter behavior (Fowler 2019, 5). 1 I thank Michael Barber, Andrew Englehardt, Tyler King, Nolan McCarty, Seth McKee, and John Sides for their helpful feedback and assistance for this response. (2) “Partisan Intoxication or Policy Voting?” raises questions central to understanding the extent to which individuals vote their partisanship and casts doubt that “partisanship is a hell of a drug.” I encourage readers to seriously consider Fowler’s challenges and critiques, which shed important light on what we know about partisanship’s and policy’s role in voter decision making. In this response, I affirm some of Fowler’s assertions but also provide nuance to Fowler’s arguments to bring greater attention to an underemphasized point: “policy voting and partisan intoxication are neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive explanations” of voter behavior (Fowler 2019, 5) a point that can be at times lost in this intoxicating debate. I respond to many of Fowler’s points in the order originally made. I first broaden Fowler’s challenge to voter behavior scholars and argue that we not only need to find measures of partisanship independent of policy preferences but also continue to understand partisanship’s indirect effects on voting via policy opinions. Second, I build on Fowler’s study of the southern realignment to show that even though older and younger voters experienced the same realignment, those who came of political age prior to the civil rights movement exhibit more intoxicated voting behavior, which would be puzzling if we were in a purely policy driven world. I further highlight that the southern realignment is a story of both voter and elite electoral behavior, and once we account for elite behavior, voters respond less to candidate ideology than suggested by Fowler’s original analyses. Third, I reexamine the survey experiment considered by Fo
{"title":"Sobering up after \"Partisan Intoxication or Policy Voting?\"","authors":"Steven Rogers","doi":"10.1561/100.00019039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00019039","url":null,"abstract":"“Partisan Intoxication or Policy Voting?” raises questions central to understanding the extent to which individuals vote their partisanship and brings important attention to the potential observational equivalence between partisan and policy voting. In this response, I affirm some of Fowler’s arguments but also build upon existing studies to highlight that tests of the policy voting hypothesis need to seriously consider both the direct and indirect effects of partisanship to understand the relative role of policy versus partisanship. Such consideration is particularly significant as partisanship’s indirect effects can have troubling implications for democracy. I also reexamine the southern realignment and voters’ responses to hypothetical candidate policy positions, and when accounting for elite decision-making and complex information environments, I find voters respond less to candidate ideology and policy positions than suggested by Fowler’s original analyses. Together, my findings underscore the point that “policy voting and partisan intoxication are neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive explanations” of voter behavior (Fowler 2019, 5). 1 I thank Michael Barber, Andrew Englehardt, Tyler King, Nolan McCarty, Seth McKee, and John Sides for their helpful feedback and assistance for this response. (2) “Partisan Intoxication or Policy Voting?” raises questions central to understanding the extent to which individuals vote their partisanship and casts doubt that “partisanship is a hell of a drug.” I encourage readers to seriously consider Fowler’s challenges and critiques, which shed important light on what we know about partisanship’s and policy’s role in voter decision making. In this response, I affirm some of Fowler’s assertions but also provide nuance to Fowler’s arguments to bring greater attention to an underemphasized point: “policy voting and partisan intoxication are neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive explanations” of voter behavior (Fowler 2019, 5) a point that can be at times lost in this intoxicating debate. I respond to many of Fowler’s points in the order originally made. I first broaden Fowler’s challenge to voter behavior scholars and argue that we not only need to find measures of partisanship independent of policy preferences but also continue to understand partisanship’s indirect effects on voting via policy opinions. Second, I build on Fowler’s study of the southern realignment to show that even though older and younger voters experienced the same realignment, those who came of political age prior to the civil rights movement exhibit more intoxicated voting behavior, which would be puzzling if we were in a purely policy driven world. I further highlight that the southern realignment is a story of both voter and elite electoral behavior, and once we account for elite behavior, voters respond less to candidate ideology than suggested by Fowler’s original analyses. Third, I reexamine the survey experiment considered by Fo","PeriodicalId":51622,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Political Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2020-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1561/100.00019039","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45132612","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"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：