Values,Acts, and Actors Distinguishing Generic and Discriminatory Intolerance

Where tolerance is defined as a person's willingness to put up with political expression that the person finds objectionable, we see three prerequisites for tolerance. The person must support the general right of political expression, the general right of people to engage in the particular acts under consideration, and finally the right of members of even objectionable groups to engage in those specific acts. Many past studies of tolerance proceed directly from the first of these prerequisites to the third, and, in doing so, fail to distinguish between general attitudes regarding particular acts of expression (i.e., does the survey respondent support the right of people in general to hold public rallies) and attitudes regarding particular groups engaged in those same acts (i.e., does the respondent support the right of Communists or militia groups to hold public rallies). The consequence is ambiguity in interpretation of the meaning and etiology of tolerance, and in cross-national comparison. We demonstrate our concerns using data from a split-ballot survey conducted in Romania. Results reveal that accurate interpretation of Romanians' tolerance of the right of ethnic Hungarians to engage in various acts of political expression requires attention to respondents' general attitudes regarding those same acts.     

Learning from each other: causal inference and American political development

Public Choice - Within political science, a movement focused on increasing the credibility of causal inferences (CIs) has gained considerable traction in recent years. While CI has been...     

Parent child coalitions: Innovative public‐sector management and early childhood development in Manitoba

Abstract: This article considers a coalition model of governance as an innovative approach to public management. In general, the coalition governance model adopts key principles of new public management and inherits criticisms similar to those levelled against the new managerialism. Looking at a case study of parent child coalitions in Manitoba, this article explores some benefits and consequences of implementing and utilizing coalition governance as a model for social policy. It finds that the attempt to increase child‐centred programming across the province required innovative adjustments to the management of this social policy issue, as well as a restructuring of the overarching policy structure. Innovative public management and the implementation of a coalition governance approach helped transform early childhood development in Manitoba from a private and personal family concern to a public policy issue. It has increased citizen engagement and has also increased government access to a previously inaccessible segment of society. Although these innovations resolved some key concerns, additional criticisms remain as yet unaddressed.     

Does Familiarity Breed Contempt? The Impact of Information on Mass Attitudes toward Congress

Two features of citizen response to Congress can be taken as grounds for concern. First, Americans know relatively little about Congress, and especially about congressional procedures and policy output. Second, Congress typically emerges as the least respected political institution. Although these matters are troubling when viewed individually, more disturbing is the dilemma posed when knowledge and attitudes toward Congress are viewed in tandem. It appears that citizens who know Congress the best like Congress the least. Consequently, a sophisticated polity and a well-respected legislature seem fundamentally incompatible. This article seeks to resolve this dilemma, contending that there is nothing about knowledge per se that leads citizens to view Congress unfavorably. Rather, differences in knowledge levels alter the considerations citizens bring to bear when evaluating Congress, with the best-informed individuals constructing judgments on the basis of the most relevant Congress-specific criteria while less knowledgeable citizens employ readily available but more peripheral criteria.     

Behavioural Decision Theory and the Gains Debate in International Politics

The temptation to free ride and the fear of exploitation are traditionally offered as factors explaining individuals' choices under conditions of social dilemma. In two experimental studies of prisoner's dilemma behaviour we demonstrate that the ratio-differences of payoffs are as important as the absolute differences in affecting the likelihood of cooperation. The implications of this additional structural determinant of dilemma choice are developed and applied to the stalled gains debate in international relations theory. By incorporating ratio-differences into the analysis 'realist' and 'liberal' theories of state behaviour may be reconciled.