Basic problems in the theory of uneven and combined development. Part II: unevenness and political multiplicity

Where does ‘the international’ come from? What accounts for its existence as a dimension of the human world? This article attempts an answer, in three steps, using the idea of ‘uneven and combined development’ (U&CD). First, a depth model is constructed, comparing different ways of linking uneven development with international relations. Thus far, it turns out, these ways have all presupposed the fact of political multiplicity, rather than explaining it. In search of explanation, the article turns, secondly, to the compelling historical sociological argument of Barry Buzan and Richard Little. This locates the origins of geopolitics in the late prehistoric shift from hunter-gatherer to settled agricultural existence, together with associated processes of social differentiation and proto-state formation. Buzan and Little's explanation appears at first to pre-empt the need for the concept of U&CD. Yet closer inspection reveals that unevenness and combination play a key role in their empirical account without, however, being theorized. The third step of the argument therefore seeks to show how these are necessary parts of the process of social change which Buzan and Little describe. And in this way it emerges that the origins of ‘the international’ do indeed lie in the uneven and combined character of historical development.     

Testing for Interaction in Binary Logit and Probit Models: Is a Product Term Essential?

Political scientists presenting binary dependent variable (BDV) models often hypothesize that variables interact to influence the probability of an event, Pr( Y ). The current typical approach to testing such hypotheses is (1) estimate a logit or probit model with a product term, (2) test the hypothesis by determining whether the coefficient for this term is statistically significant, and (3) characterize the nature of any interaction detected by describing how the estimated effect of one variable on Pr( Y ) varies with the value of another. This approach makes a statistically significant product term necessary to support the interaction hypothesis. We show that a statistically significant product term is neither necessary nor sufficient for variables to interact meaningfully in influencing Pr( Y ). Indeed, even when a logit or probit model contains no product term, the effect of one variable on Pr( Y ) may be strongly related to the value of another. We present a strategy for testing for interaction in a BDV model, including guidance on when to include a product term.     

Practical guidelines on incorporating “partnering” within IT agreements for public sector bodies

“Partnership” and “partnering” are two of the most frequently used terms in public sector procurement. They may be used by both customers and suppliers to justify their respective negotiating positions. A supplier may argue that, since the agreement is a “partnership agreement”, there should be no service credits or liquidated damages payable. The customer on the other hand, may argue, on similar grounds, that it wants to benchmark the supplier and have a broad right to audit every aspect of the supplier’s business.But despite being well used phrases, most guidance relating to these concepts does not define how “partnerships” or “partnering” is to work in practice. While most talk of the supplier and the customer working together “in partnership” with common aims, there is little information available as to how this will be incorporated into agreements, particularly in the context of large scale IT procurements.¹ The purpose of this article is to review the available guidance and detail some of the ways in which this guidance can be incorporated into legal agreements.     

An Analysis of the Effects of Subjective and Objective Instruction Forms on Mock-Juries' Murder/Manslaughter Distinctions

Defendants' emotions at the time of their crimes may potentially serve as mitigating circumstances in murder/manslaughter cases. The present study examined whether differences between two forms of instructions given juries in such cases affected mock-juries' murder/manslaughter distinctions. Jurors' reasons for their verdicts and definitions of murder and manslaughter were also compared. In addition, three factors found to be predictive of murder/manslaughter distinctions in previous research were evaluated. It was found that, though instruction forms affected jurors' stated reasons for their verdicts and their definitions of murder and manslaughter, they did not significantly affect murder/manslaughter distinctions. Defendants were most likely to be convicted of murder if they had a history of violence with the victim and dwelt upon their emotions. We suggest jurors likely construe instructions given them to fit their a priori understandings of murder, manslaughter, and the potentially mitigating role of defendants' emotions.     

Analysis of the First- and Second-Generation Raving Dragon Novelty Bath Salts Containing Methylone and Pentedrone

In recent years, a large number of designer drugs sold as “Bath Salts” have appeared on the market. In July of 2011, Raving Dragon Novelty Bath Salts was obtained over the Internet. This product became unavailable in October of that year coinciding with the DEA issuing a temporarily schedule of mephedrone, methylone, and MDPV. Four months later in February of 2012, a new product was released from the same company under the new name Raving Dragon Voodoo Dust. The contents of both products were identified using spectroscopy methods: nuclear magnetic resonance, infrared, UV–visible, tandem mass spectrometry, and high-resolution time-of-flight mass spectrometry. It was determined that Raving Dragon Novelty Bath Salts contained methylone. The replacement product Raving Dragon Voodoo Dust contained the unscheduled drug pentedrone. The Raving Dragon brand of products illustrates the rapid change of ingredients in these products to circumvent laws restricting availability, distribution, and use.     

Do Campaign Donors Influence Polarization? Evidence from Public Financing in the American States

Does the source of campaign funds influence legislative polarization? We develop competing theoretical expectations regarding the effects of publicly financed elections on legislative voting behavior. To test these expectations, we leverage a natural experiment in the New Jersey Assembly in which public financing was made available to a subset of members. We find that public financing exerts substantively negligible effects on roll‐call voting. We then find a similar result in an examination of state legislatures. We conclude that, counter to the logic of the US Supreme Court, pundits, and reformers, the source of campaign funds exerts minimal influence on polarization.     

Representation,Competing Principals,and Waffling on Bills in US Legislatures

Legislators are often placed in the position of representing the interests of their constituents against the preferences of their own party leaders. We develop a theoretical framework indicating that these cross‐pressured legislators are more likely to initially support legislation and subsequently change their minds than are legislators whose constituents and leaders share similar preferences. Moreover, we expect this pattern to be most pronounced among members of majority parties than minority‐party members. We test our expectations using data on bill cosponsorship and final passage votes from 46 lower state legislative chambers and the US House, finding considerable support for our theory.