现在由谁统治?

IF 0.8 4区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Science Quarterly Pub Date : 2023-11-01 DOI:10.1093/psquar/qqad120
Thomas Ogorzalek
{"title":"现在由谁统治?","authors":"Thomas Ogorzalek","doi":"10.1093/psquar/qqad120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Conventional wisdom holds that local democracy is more responsive because it is closer to the people. Political science research suggests we should not be so optimistic. Scholars have long been studying American local governments, but, for a generation the field was relegated to the sidelines of political science. A new generation of scholars is bringing it back to the center, using an increasingly sophisticated set of research methods. Sarah Anzia has been a leader in this field rebirth, and her new book, Local Interests: Politics, Policy, and Interest Groups in U.S. City Governments, examines how local interests groups engage in local political decision-making, shaping electoral outcomes and policy. Her sharp, highly quantitative analysis identifies what factors make engagement and influence by local interest groups more likely. When read alongside classics in the literature as well as the new generation's emerging work, scholars and engaged practitioners alike can understand why the most optimistic views of local democratic action are unrealistic. Some of the same democratic shortcomings in representation and responsiveness that occur at the national level are also present in local politics. But the renewed interest in local analysis presents opportunities for scholars to learn from other fields and for local actors to build new organizations and institutions to increase the quality of local democracy in the United States. This essay assesses what is gained and lost in the quantitative rebirth of local politics analysis and how the field as a whole can continue to focus on the core issues of democracy, inequality, and public policy that will keep the field fresh and relevant.","PeriodicalId":51491,"journal":{"name":"Political Science Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who Governs Now?\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Ogorzalek\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/psquar/qqad120\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Conventional wisdom holds that local democracy is more responsive because it is closer to the people. Political science research suggests we should not be so optimistic. Scholars have long been studying American local governments, but, for a generation the field was relegated to the sidelines of political science. A new generation of scholars is bringing it back to the center, using an increasingly sophisticated set of research methods. Sarah Anzia has been a leader in this field rebirth, and her new book, Local Interests: Politics, Policy, and Interest Groups in U.S. City Governments, examines how local interests groups engage in local political decision-making, shaping electoral outcomes and policy. Her sharp, highly quantitative analysis identifies what factors make engagement and influence by local interest groups more likely. When read alongside classics in the literature as well as the new generation's emerging work, scholars and engaged practitioners alike can understand why the most optimistic views of local democratic action are unrealistic. Some of the same democratic shortcomings in representation and responsiveness that occur at the national level are also present in local politics. But the renewed interest in local analysis presents opportunities for scholars to learn from other fields and for local actors to build new organizations and institutions to increase the quality of local democracy in the United States. This essay assesses what is gained and lost in the quantitative rebirth of local politics analysis and how the field as a whole can continue to focus on the core issues of democracy, inequality, and public policy that will keep the field fresh and relevant.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51491,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Science Quarterly\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Science Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqad120\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Science Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqad120","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

传统观点认为,地方民主更能响应民意,因为它更贴近人民。政治学研究表明,我们不应如此乐观。长期以来,学者们一直在研究美国的地方政府,但在一代人的时间里,这一领域被降级为政治学的边缘领域。新一代学者使用一套越来越复杂的研究方法,将它带回了中心。Sarah Anzia一直是这一领域重生的领导者,她的新书《地方利益:美国市政府的政治、政策和利益集团》研究了地方利益集团如何参与地方政治决策,塑造选举结果和政策。她敏锐的、高度量化的分析确定了哪些因素更有可能使当地利益集团参与和影响。当与经典文学作品以及新一代的新兴作品一起阅读时,学者和从事实践的人都能理解为什么对地方民主行动最乐观的看法是不现实的。在国家一级出现的代表性和反应能力方面的一些同样的民主缺陷也出现在地方政治中。但是,对地方分析的重新关注为学者们提供了从其他领域学习的机会,也为地方行动者建立新的组织和机构以提高美国地方民主的质量提供了机会。本文评估了在地方政治分析的定量重生中得到和失去的东西,以及该领域作为一个整体如何继续关注民主、不平等和公共政策等核心问题,从而保持该领域的新鲜感和相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Who Governs Now?
Abstract Conventional wisdom holds that local democracy is more responsive because it is closer to the people. Political science research suggests we should not be so optimistic. Scholars have long been studying American local governments, but, for a generation the field was relegated to the sidelines of political science. A new generation of scholars is bringing it back to the center, using an increasingly sophisticated set of research methods. Sarah Anzia has been a leader in this field rebirth, and her new book, Local Interests: Politics, Policy, and Interest Groups in U.S. City Governments, examines how local interests groups engage in local political decision-making, shaping electoral outcomes and policy. Her sharp, highly quantitative analysis identifies what factors make engagement and influence by local interest groups more likely. When read alongside classics in the literature as well as the new generation's emerging work, scholars and engaged practitioners alike can understand why the most optimistic views of local democratic action are unrealistic. Some of the same democratic shortcomings in representation and responsiveness that occur at the national level are also present in local politics. But the renewed interest in local analysis presents opportunities for scholars to learn from other fields and for local actors to build new organizations and institutions to increase the quality of local democracy in the United States. This essay assesses what is gained and lost in the quantitative rebirth of local politics analysis and how the field as a whole can continue to focus on the core issues of democracy, inequality, and public policy that will keep the field fresh and relevant.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Political Science Quarterly
Political Science Quarterly POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
111
期刊介绍: Published continuously since 1886, Political Science Quarterly or PSQ is the most widely read and accessible scholarly journal covering government, politics and policy. A nonpartisan journal, PSQ is edited for both political scientists and general readers with a keen interest in public and foreign affairs. Each article is based on objective evidence and is fully refereed.
期刊最新文献
Toward a Free Economy: Swatantra and Opposition Politics in Democratic India by Aditya Balasubramanian Post-Truth American Politics: False Stories and Current Crises by David Ricci Nationalized Politics: Evaluating Electoral Politics Across Time by Jamie L Carson, Joel Sievert and Ryan D Williamson The Education Myth—How Human Capital Trumped Social Democracy by Jon Shelton Evangelicals and Electoral Politics in Latin America: A Kingdom of This World by Taylor C Boas
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
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
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
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
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