移民与民主:汇款如何破坏独裁政权作者:Abel Escribà-Folch, Covadonga Meseguer和Joseph Wright。普林斯顿:普林斯顿大学出版社,2022。299页,售价29.95美元

Q1 Social Sciences Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics Pub Date : 2022-04-26 DOI:10.1017/rep.2022.8
M. Paarlberg
{"title":"移民与民主:汇款如何破坏独裁政权作者:Abel Escribà-Folch, Covadonga Meseguer和Joseph Wright。普林斯顿:普林斯顿大学出版社,2022。299页,售价29.95美元","authors":"M. Paarlberg","doi":"10.1017/rep.2022.8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"institutional structures as well as the strategic choices of policy-makers. The presentation of the comparative case studies is masterful. However, there is one central lacuna. Professor Ellermann acknowledges the absence of a theory of policy-maker preferences; rather she generates the preferences of this central actor inductively. In many ways, this is an understandable choice as she already has a complex matrix of variables that she weaves together. But it does raise the question of where the preferences of the central actor of the model are generated and also points to potential endogeneity issues. Even if we grant that policy-maker preferences can be distinctive from other political actors, there is the possibility that the initial array of political institutions and actors shapes the key decision-maker’s policy proposal. The case studies weave powerful stories of immigration policy-making but also introduce elements that appear central to the argument but are not addressed in the theoretical frame. In particular, the insulation of policy-makers from the public’s restrictive policy preferences is an important element in the theory. Yet even when institutional structures remain constant, role of the public varies in part based on whether public opinion remains latent and unorganized versus when it is activated. Yet nothing in the theory accounts for the conditions under which we should expect public opinion to be activated. The role of the economy also appears important in many instances yet that element is not theorized either. The book is lengthy and dense, so it is difficult to demand more. Yet an important omission is attention to alternate theories. The first chapter introduces and critiques most of the extant theoretical literature, but the case study chapters do not provide the promised attention to alternate theories. Ellermann’s theoretical elements are woven into the case narratives with care, but research design in qualitative methods requires attention to alternative explanations as well. Nonetheless, this book will leave an important mark on immigration policy scholarship both by its ambitious effort to find an encompassing theory of immigration policy and the careful attention to the complexity of immigration policy-making. Perhaps we should disavow Gary Freeman’s call for multiple theories of migration policy-making and build on Professor Ellermann’s elegant work.","PeriodicalId":37190,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics","volume":"1 1","pages":"599 - 601"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Migration and Democracy: How Remittances Undermine Dictatorships By Abel Escribà-Folch, Covadonga Meseguer and Joseph Wright. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2022. 299 pp., $29.95 cloth\",\"authors\":\"M. Paarlberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/rep.2022.8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"institutional structures as well as the strategic choices of policy-makers. The presentation of the comparative case studies is masterful. However, there is one central lacuna. Professor Ellermann acknowledges the absence of a theory of policy-maker preferences; rather she generates the preferences of this central actor inductively. In many ways, this is an understandable choice as she already has a complex matrix of variables that she weaves together. But it does raise the question of where the preferences of the central actor of the model are generated and also points to potential endogeneity issues. Even if we grant that policy-maker preferences can be distinctive from other political actors, there is the possibility that the initial array of political institutions and actors shapes the key decision-maker’s policy proposal. The case studies weave powerful stories of immigration policy-making but also introduce elements that appear central to the argument but are not addressed in the theoretical frame. In particular, the insulation of policy-makers from the public’s restrictive policy preferences is an important element in the theory. Yet even when institutional structures remain constant, role of the public varies in part based on whether public opinion remains latent and unorganized versus when it is activated. Yet nothing in the theory accounts for the conditions under which we should expect public opinion to be activated. The role of the economy also appears important in many instances yet that element is not theorized either. The book is lengthy and dense, so it is difficult to demand more. Yet an important omission is attention to alternate theories. The first chapter introduces and critiques most of the extant theoretical literature, but the case study chapters do not provide the promised attention to alternate theories. Ellermann’s theoretical elements are woven into the case narratives with care, but research design in qualitative methods requires attention to alternative explanations as well. Nonetheless, this book will leave an important mark on immigration policy scholarship both by its ambitious effort to find an encompassing theory of immigration policy and the careful attention to the complexity of immigration policy-making. Perhaps we should disavow Gary Freeman’s call for multiple theories of migration policy-making and build on Professor Ellermann’s elegant work.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37190,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"599 - 601\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2022.8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2022.8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

制度结构以及政策制定者的战略选择。比较案例研究的呈现非常出色。然而,有一个中心缺陷。埃勒曼教授承认,关于政策制定者偏好的理论并不存在;相反,她通过归纳的方式产生了这个中心行动者的偏好。在许多方面,这是一个可以理解的选择,因为她已经有了一个复杂的变量矩阵,她编织在一起。但它确实提出了一个问题,即模型的核心参与者的偏好是在哪里产生的,同时也指出了潜在的内生性问题。即使我们承认政策制定者的偏好可能不同于其他政治行为者,但仍有可能是最初的政治制度和行为者构成了关键决策者的政策建议。这些案例研究编织了移民政策制定的有力故事,但也引入了一些似乎是争论的核心因素,但在理论框架中没有得到解决。特别是,政策制定者与公众限制性政策偏好的隔离是该理论的一个重要因素。然而,即使在制度结构保持不变的情况下,公众的作用也在一定程度上取决于公众舆论是处于潜伏和无组织状态,还是处于活跃状态。然而,这一理论没有解释我们应该期望公众舆论被激活的条件。在许多情况下,经济的作用似乎也很重要,但这一因素也没有理论化。这本书又长又密,所以很难再要求更多了。然而,一个重要的遗漏是对替代理论的关注。第一章介绍和批评了大多数现存的理论文献,但案例研究章节并没有提供对替代理论的承诺关注。埃勒曼的理论元素被小心地编织到案例叙述中,但定性方法的研究设计也需要注意其他解释。尽管如此,这本书将在移民政策学术上留下重要的印记,因为它雄心勃勃地努力寻找一个涵盖移民政策的理论,并对移民政策制定的复杂性进行了仔细的关注。也许我们应该否定加里·弗里曼(Gary Freeman)对移民政策制定的多种理论的呼吁,而以埃勒曼教授的优雅著作为基础。
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
Migration and Democracy: How Remittances Undermine Dictatorships By Abel Escribà-Folch, Covadonga Meseguer and Joseph Wright. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2022. 299 pp., $29.95 cloth
institutional structures as well as the strategic choices of policy-makers. The presentation of the comparative case studies is masterful. However, there is one central lacuna. Professor Ellermann acknowledges the absence of a theory of policy-maker preferences; rather she generates the preferences of this central actor inductively. In many ways, this is an understandable choice as she already has a complex matrix of variables that she weaves together. But it does raise the question of where the preferences of the central actor of the model are generated and also points to potential endogeneity issues. Even if we grant that policy-maker preferences can be distinctive from other political actors, there is the possibility that the initial array of political institutions and actors shapes the key decision-maker’s policy proposal. The case studies weave powerful stories of immigration policy-making but also introduce elements that appear central to the argument but are not addressed in the theoretical frame. In particular, the insulation of policy-makers from the public’s restrictive policy preferences is an important element in the theory. Yet even when institutional structures remain constant, role of the public varies in part based on whether public opinion remains latent and unorganized versus when it is activated. Yet nothing in the theory accounts for the conditions under which we should expect public opinion to be activated. The role of the economy also appears important in many instances yet that element is not theorized either. The book is lengthy and dense, so it is difficult to demand more. Yet an important omission is attention to alternate theories. The first chapter introduces and critiques most of the extant theoretical literature, but the case study chapters do not provide the promised attention to alternate theories. Ellermann’s theoretical elements are woven into the case narratives with care, but research design in qualitative methods requires attention to alternative explanations as well. Nonetheless, this book will leave an important mark on immigration policy scholarship both by its ambitious effort to find an encompassing theory of immigration policy and the careful attention to the complexity of immigration policy-making. Perhaps we should disavow Gary Freeman’s call for multiple theories of migration policy-making and build on Professor Ellermann’s elegant work.
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
Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics
Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics Social Sciences-Anthropology
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
期刊最新文献
Responsiveness to Coethnics and Cominorities: Evidence from an Audit Experiment of State Legislators Introduction to the Final 2023 Issue The Advantage of Disadvantage: Costly Protest and Legislative Responsiveness By LaGina Gause, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2022 Counting the State: State Resistance and Federal Enumeration of Latinos 1930–1970 Anger, Fear, and the Racialization of News Media Coverage of Protest Activity
×
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