Sincere and strategic voters: An Israeli study

The theoretical literature on voting behavior has shown that a rational voter may sometimes decide to vote for a candidate or party that does not constitute his or her first preference. Such voters are traditionally called strategic voters, in contrast to voters who act sincerely, i.e., those who always vote for their first preference regardless of how others are likely to vote. After discussing some of the problems associated with the definition of these two types of voters and suggesting a new operational definition, some attitudes and characteristics of these two types of voters are investigated. It was found that strategic voters constitute a very small percentage of the entire electorate, that their education level is significantly higher than that of sincere voters, that they tend more often to believe that polls influence voters' decisions and hence tend to delay their own final voting decision, that they tend more often than sincere voters to support small parties but do not tend more often than sincere voters to switch the party they decide to support from one election to the next, and that there is no significant difference between them and sincere voters regarding which governing coalition should/will form following an election.     

The interaction problem in policy analysis

A problem little noted in the literature on policy analysis is that analysis can interact with problems to make them different and more difficult to solve than they would be without analysis. Four varieties of interaction can be distinguished. All are rooted in the methods and assumptions of economics, the discipline that now dominates federal analysis, and particularly in its limited capacity to set policy goals. To prevent interaction, analysts would have to be able to set goals with greater independence so that aims were not swayed by the analytic process. They would need either their own theory of ends or closer political guidance.     

Rethinking the partisan effects of higher turnout: So what's the question?

Controversy persists over the link between turnout and the likelihood of success of Democratic candidates (e.g., DeNardo, 1980, 1986; Zimmer, 1985; Tucker and Vedlitz, 1986; Piven and Cloward, 1988; Texeira, 1992; Radcliff, 1994, 1995; Erikson, 1995a, b). We argue that the authors in this debate have largely been talking past one another because of a failure to distinguish three quite different questions. The first question is: “Are low turnout voters more likely to vote Democratic than high turnout voters?” The second question is: “Should we expect that elections in which turnout is higher are ones in which we can expect Democrats to have done better?” The third question is the counterfactual: “If turnout were to have increased in some given election, would Democrats have done better?” We show the logical independence of the first two questions from one another and from the third, and argue that previous researchers have failed to recognize this logical independence – sometimes thinking they were answering question three when in fact they were answering either question one or question two. Reviewing previous research, we find that the answer to the first question once was YES but, for more recent elections at the presidential level, now appears to be NO, while, for congressional and legislative elections, the answer to the second question appears generally to be NO. However, the third question is essentially unanswerable absent an explicit model of why and how turnout can be expected to increase, and/or analyses of individual level panel data. Thus, the cross-sectional and pooled data analyses of previous research are of almost no value in addressing this third question.

     

The politics of regulatory enforcement and compliance: Theorizing and operationalizing political influences

There is broad consensus in the literature on regulatory enforcement and compliance that politics matters. However, there is little scholarly convergence on what politics is or rigorous theorization and empirical testing of how politics matters. Many enforcement and compliance studies omit political variables altogether. Among those that address political influences on regulatory outcomes, politics has been defined in myriad ways and, too often, left undefined. Even when political constructs are explicitly operationalized, the mechanisms by which they influence regulatory outcomes are thinly hypothesized or simply ignored. If politics is truly as important to enforcement and compliance outcomes as everyone in the field seems to agree, regulatory scholarship must make a more sustained and systematic effort to understand their relationship, because overlooking this connection risks missing what is actually driving regulatory outcomes. This article examines how the construct of “politics” has been conceptualized in regulatory theory and analyzes how it has been operationalized in empirical studies of regulatory enforcement and compliance outcomes. It brings together scholarship across disciplines that rarely speak but have much to say to one another on this subject in order to constitute a field around the politics of regulation. The goal is to sharpen theoretical and empirical understandings of when and how regulation works by better accounting for the role politics plays in its enforcement.     

The Big Questions of Public Administration Education

Following Behn's observation that scientists in other fields understand the big questions of their disciplines and focus attention and their discussions on those questions, public administration scholars have attempted to identify the “big questions” in public management and public administration. In this article, I suggest that scholars in public administration should also be attentive to the big questions of public administration education, those timeless and enduring concerns that speak to the basic perspectives that we bring to the educational process. Specifically, I identify four big questions: Do we seek to educate our students with respect to theory or to practice? Do we prepare students for their first jobs or for those to which they might aspire later? What are the appropriate delivery mechanisms for MPA courses and curricula? What personal commitments do we make as public administration educators? I argue that these big questions in public administration education are far more connected than we usually think, and by posing these questions in terms of processes of human development we can at least provide a framework through which we might develop more coherent answers to these big questions, answers that recognize and build on the diversity of our students and our faculty.     

Practice and research in managing human systems—Four problems of relationship

Academic disciplines, it is argued, have structural reasons for remaining separate from each other. Professional schools, on the other hand, having a built-in test of relevance, draw what they need from different disciplines and are better equipped for inter-disciplinary work, even though they have problems in bridging professional boundaries. But the professions which manage human systems (management, government, planning, policy making) have no such support from the social sciences as, for example, medicine and engineering draw from the natural sciences. They have evolved powerful means of modelling complex human systems but they lack any adequate source of the assumptions needed for such models, since these are culture-determined and historically determined variables, far more dependent on specific time and place.The paper raises for discussion questions related to (a) the inter-relation of the social sciences; (b) their relation to the professional fields in which they might be applied; (c) their relation to the management sciences; and (d) the scope for an all-embracing general systems theory.     

ANTHROPOLOGY AND POLICY STUDIES: A NEW DELEGATION ENTERS THE U.N. OF ACADEME

Like all participating academic disciplines, anthropologists entering the policy studies field face a series of “unsolvable” problems that deal with intellectual values about how to ply one's trade. For example, what are one's obligations to agencies, and to the intended clienteles of public policies, especially when the citizens are “havenots” up against well-organized economic interests? Such questions raised by anthropologists in this volume allow one to assess the options available to applied social scientists studying public policy issues. They also lead us to recognize the existing biases of doing policy studies research. While weighing the propriety of doing applied research, anthropologists do possess critical concepts and research methods essential to the policy sciences. With a grounding in process or temporally-based concepts like “culture, context, and symbol,” applied anthropologists will strengthen the study of policy implementation. Further, with qualitative methods gaining a strong foothold in the policy sciences, anthropologists are contributing to the refinement of methods for studying the organizational behavior of actors charged with the implementation of public policy. Moreover, anthropologists in this volume demonstrate their discipline's potential to break new ground in the policy sciences. Specifically, the world view of anthropologists is likely to add a comparative, crosscultural perspective to existing areas of concentration like public health, and to increase the range of issues of interest to the policy sciences. Also, anthropologists are already developing new units of analysis different from the aggregation of individual scores, and adding new social indicators that are group or culturally grounded. In short, the policy sciences will be enhanced by anthropologists as they bring the strengths of their discipline to bear on the field.     

Do Animals Have an Interest in Liberty?

Proponents of justice for animals often argue that non-human animals have an interest in liberty. Furthermore, they usually claim that this animal interest in liberty is intrinsic rather than instrumental; that is to say, liberty is regarded to be good for animals in itself, irrespective of its contribution to the achievement of other goods, such as pleasure. For this reason they argue that legislating to improve welfare standards in zoos, circuses, laboratories and agriculture is inadequate. Instead, they claim that such practices are analogous to human slavery, necessarily harmful and must be abolished. In this article I refute this assertion and claim that for most animals, their interest in liberty can only ever be instrumental. In doing so I outline and reject two different arguments in favour of an intrinsic animal interest in liberty: first, that liberty is an intrinsic interest of animals because they possess preference autonomy; and second, that it is good for animals to be free, where freedom is defined as the ability to exercise one's natural functionings. I conclude that most animals do not possess an intrinsic interest in liberty because they are not autonomous in the relevant sense; that is, they cannot frame, revise and pursue their own conception of the good. If my conclusion is correct, this would have important effects on our obligations to non-human animals. I end the article by introducing some of these possible implications. Specifically, I propose that for most animals, our obligations do not consist of liberating them, and that it might be permissible to use and interfere with animals more often than other proponents of justice for animals have suggested. If this is the case, not all of the ways we keep and use animals need to be abolished. Nevertheless, many need to be reformed to improve welfare standards.     

The expanding galaxy of performing arts: extending theories and questioning practices

This paper introduces the Special Issue on the languages of performing arts and is therefore aimed at designing how the context of the latter can be illuminated by socio-semiotic and multimodal approaches to communication. In this Special Issue, performances and performing arts are described as multimodal semiotic acts that co-deploy a range of semiotic resources to produce and construct meanings across different cultures and ages. Seen as dynamic and interactive processes of meaning-making, their analysis calls for new and multidisciplinary frameworks which are collected in this Special Issue. The introduction gives an overview of these papers and discusses their range of diverse phenomena, both live and recorded, including theatre performances and films, art installations, opera, as well as reading out aloud. By outlining the significance and contribution of different disciplines and fields of studies to the broad area of performance studies, the chapter argues the case for innovative approaches that can extend theories and analyse aesthetic and performative practices in context. With the help of some case studies, it provides guidelines for the reading and interpretation of the several theoretical discussions and practical case studies presented to encourage further multidisciplinary research on these domains.     

Political Brands: Can Parties Be Distinguished by Their Online Brand Personality?

This paper investigates whether five English political parties are differentiating themselves based on the brand personality they are communicating through their websites. The relative brand positions of five English political parties are analyzed using Aaker's brand personality scale. The text from each party website is analyzed using content analysis and a dictionary-based tool. The results are plotted in relation to one another on a correspondence analysis map. We find that the two main dimensions on which parties’ brand personalities differ relate to the trade-offs between communicating competence and communicating sincerity and between communicating sophistication and communicating ruggedness. We find that parties’ brand personalities are distinctive, with the exception of the Green Party, and that the position of one party, the United Kingdom Independence Party, is particularly distinctive. Our research uses Aaker's existing framework for thinking about brand personalities, rather than creating a new framework for politics. By using an existing framework, we are able to use tools developed in other disciplines and show their usefulness for the study of political marketing.     

Ideology,voting, and shirking

Since we first raised the issue in 1979, scholars have addressed two questions regarding ideology and congressional voting. Does ideology have an impact on such voting? Do representatives shirk by voting their own ideology rather than their constituents' interests? For the first question, it appears that there is a consensus that ideology does matter, although we present some confirming evidence for 1980. The second question has been confused; some think that ideology and shirking are identical, although they are logically separate categories. We show that even if ideological shirking exists, it is relatively unimportant. We also show that self interested (non-ideological) shirking exists. We conclude that research efforts to untangle constituents' and representatives' separate ideologies have been misguided and that further efforts to examine the determinants of constituent ideology should be pursued.     

Regulation and governance versus criminology: Disciplinary divides,intersections, and opportunities

This paper seeks to bridge the disciplinary gap between regulation and governance studies, and criminology. Based on a review of theoretical and empirical work on corporate crime, this paper argues that divergent approaches to questions of individual agency, localized variety, and political context, have drawn these two disciplines in different directions. Regulatory governance scholarship has thrived as a discipline, but has also narrowed its focus around these issues. Corporate criminology offers a means of broadening this focus by drawing attention to the normative theorizing behind the regulatory project. At the same time, however, insights drawn from regulatory governance scholarship can prompt corporate criminology to innovate by broadening the scope of its engagement beyond the sphere of traditional criminal justice. The paper argues for the development of a research agenda to sit at their intersection, to engage with the challenges that exist at the interface between criminal and regulatory law.     

The Analysis of the Difference between the Discourse of Male and Female

1The difference of language formsMen and women's language forms are different.There were sev-eral systematic differences between men and women's versions of theindicative and i mperative verbal paradigms.For example,when awomantalked with a man,the woman …     

Think tanks in transitional China

There is a growing interest in China's think tanks within and outside China. But many questions remain to be answered. How have their roles changed over time? Why are some think tanks more active than others in some areas, but less so in others? To answer such questions, the authors classify China's think tanks according to organisational structure, as a key explanatory concept. A longitudinal review shows that since the 1970s the organisational structure of think tanks has evolved gradually from semi‐official to civilian, with the evolving structures playing different roles and complementing one another. Following analysis of four case studies of China's think tanks, two of which are semi‐official and two of which are civilian, the article draws a picture of the complex relationship between organisational structure, strategy and behaviour of China's think tanks. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

On the incentives to establish and play political rent-seeking games

Legislators will enact programs that encourage rent-seeking only if they can thereby increase their chances of winning election, or of receiving contributions themselves. The paper shows rent-seeking to be electorally robust — both voters and contributors will often avoid a candidate who proposes to eliminate rent-seeking. Important exceptions arise, however, if contributions are more likely to help challengers than incumbents, and if legislators prefer that some firm rather than another receive governmental contracts.I thank an anonymous referee, members of the Public Choice Study Group at UC Irvine, and Stergios Skaperdas for their comments.     

Electoral Competitiveness and Issue Voting

This article suggests that voters rely more strongly on “substantial” criteria, such as issues and ideology, when elections are competitive. In such contexts, voters should attach more importance to their own choice and rely less on “heuristics.” Three aspects of election competitiveness are considered: the fragmentation and polarization of the party system and the proportionality of the electoral system. Elections are more competitive when there are many parties in competition, when they differ strongly from one another in ideological terms, and when the threshold of representation is lower. These hypotheses are tested with data from the 2007 Swiss federal elections. The electoral districts differ markedly from one another as far as electoral competitiveness is concerned while being similar in many other respects. The results show that competitiveness strengthens issue voting and reduces the impact of party identification.     

When presidential candidates voice party issues,does Twitter listen?

ABSTRACT

Presidential candidates often speak to their party’s issues because parties are thought to have “greater competence on handling” some issues versus others [Petrocik 1996, “Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (3): 825–850, 825]. The present study considers whether Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump tend to use different vocal inflections when talking about their party’s issues. Using the audio from the three 2016 presidential debates, we not only find Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump seem to be more emotionally invested in their party’s issues, but they use distinct vocal patterns which suggest they “own” some issues more than others. To assess whether viewers responded more positively to these different vocal inflections, we used the valence of 428,185 live-tweets. Ultimately, we found Twitter was net-positive when the candidates raised their vocal pitch while talking about their party’s issues. This suggests nonverbal cues are an important component of issue ownership.     

资本主义代议制民主政治制度的元批判——马克思《路易·波拿巴的雾月十八日》新释

《路易·波拿巴的雾月十八日》是多个学科公认的经典名著。但国内外学者对其的解读却往往囿于各自的学科意识,忽视了其作为一篇时事政治评论的创作初衷。基于政治事件史的视角,以马克思《资本论》中成熟的思想作为分析的出发点,能发现马克思在对阶级斗争和国家原理的分析过程中还揭示出了资本主义代议制民主政治制度的本质性缺陷,即"代表"的分裂问题;制度本身无法避免成为保守势力倒转历史车轮的工具;自由主义与民主主义无休止的斗争。这些缺陷使得资本主义国家在周期性经济危机的影响下一直无法摆脱政治困境的周期性反复。当代随着经济危机的反复爆发与萧条的普遍蔓延,各种"煽动者"又开始普遍在资本主义国家政坛上崭露头角,并导致了一系列"黑天鹅"事件的发生。此时重温《路易·波拿巴的雾月十八日》更应别有一番意趣。     

House money effects on trust and reciprocity

In a typical laboratory “Investment Game” experiment, participants’ endowments are provided by the experimenter; thus, the worst case for the investor is that she loses all of her “found” money. By contrast, in naturally occurring environments, investment decisions can often lead to a loss of one’s own money. This paper investigates whether “trust” found in one-shot anonymous laboratory interaction is robust to “own money” environments. Our results show that, consistent with previous investment game results, most investors send a positive amount, and most trustees return at least the transfer amount, regardless of whether the investors purchase or are gifted their endowment. However, investments are on average lower when participants use their own money, and the fraction of maximum investments (the most “risky” investment decision) is only half as large under “own money” as it is under gifted endowments. Our results explain why one should exercise caution in placing trust in any government’s ability to spend other people’s money prudently.