Left–right political scales

Nomination: 'Some expert judgments ' live on by Mogens N. Pedersen, p.147
Reflections: Revisiting expert judgements by Peter Mair & Francis G. Castles, p.150     

Left-right political scales

Abstract Although left-right scales are an inherent feature of much cross-national research, they have necessarily been created on a somewhat ad hoc basis, since the empirical foundation for valid cross-national scales rarely exists. This paper seeks to provide such a foundation by using judgements of party ideological position which are both explicit and non-idiosyncratic across a wide range of countries. These judgements derive from a so-called 'expert' survey of leading political scientists in Western Europe, the USA, and elsewhere. It is our hope that the scales which we derive in this way may prove useful in a wide variety of contexts of comparative research.     

School-related victimizations among adolescents: An analysis of National Crime Survey (NCS) narratives

This paper uses a heretofore untapped source of information in the National Crime Survey (NCS) victimization data—the interviewer narratives—to explore school-related victimizations among adolescents. These narrative reports provide important information bearing on lifestyle and routine activity theories of victimization that is simply not available from the more familiar, highly structured portions of the NCS questionnaire. The NCS narratives suggest that a large proportion of school-related victimizations stems from peer interactions that occur in the course of routine daily activities and escalate into victimizations. Students represent pools of both potential offenders and potential victims who come in frequent contact with each other, often in the absence of capable guardians. However, rather than predatory, calculated attempts to harm, school-related victimizations among adolescents appear to consist primarily of bullying, injured pride, and misguided mischief. The theoretical and methodological implications of this study are highlighted.     

Is child saving dead? Attitudes toward juvenile rehabilitation in Illinois

In recent times, juvenile rehabilitation has been attacked both by liberals seeking to insert greater due process rights and protections into the juvenile justice system and by conservatives calling for more stringent handling of serious youthful offenders. The apparent pervasiveness of this attack raises the question, Is the philosophy of child saving dead? Data drawn from a survey conducted in Illinois suggest, however, that juvenile rehabilitation continues to receive support both from the public and from various groups associated with criminal justice practice and policy making. At the same time, there is also support for the notion that young criminals are responsible for their actions and are currently being treated too leniently by our courts. Finally, child saving is embraced most firmly by judges, lawyers, correctional administrators, and prison inmates and least strongly by legislators, prison guards, and the general public.     

Decentralization and the post-war political economy

Abstract This paper uses cross–national data for 21 OECD nations to examine whether there is evidence of a connection between measures of political and fiscal decentralization and the major, long–term, performance parameters of the post–war political economy. Findings of what is necessarily an exploratory analysis of a wide range of policy outcomes suggest that federalism and the proliferation of constitutional veto–points have inhibited the expansion of the socially protective state and that a low level of fiscal centralization appears to have restrained post–war inflationary pressures and gone along with higher rates of post–war economic growth. No evidence is found to connect either political or fiscal measures with postwar labour market performance.     

Reconciling cultural diversity with a democratic community: Mestizaje as opposed to the usual suspects

A fascinating development within the liberal‐communitarian debate is how to deal with cultural diversity in increasingly heterogeneous democracies. Particularly noteworthy are Will Kymlicka's recasting of liberalism to deal with cultural minorities, especially the indigenous peoples of Canada and Charles Taylor's and Michael Walzer's articulation of a ‘deep diversity’ with regard to the federal relationship of Quebec to Canada as a whole. Both approaches, though, insufficiently address how combinations of cultures have been underway in the Americas for the past 500 years. Instead, I contend that mestizaje, the combination of cultures which has ensued in Mexico and the United States Southwest, articulates a ‘unity in diversity’ in which cultures transform each other without culminating in assimilation. To bolster my exegesis of mestizaje from the works of the Virgil Elizondo and Gloria Anzaldua, I accent how Jeremy Waldron's cosmopolitanism, Iris Marion Young's relational group theory, and Homi Bhabha's hybridity similarly illustrate how proposals such as Kymlicka's or Taylor/Walzer's insufficiently incorporate how integral heterogeneity is to cultural identity. In view of how ‘the border’ between the United States and Mexico exemplifies the growing intersection of diverse cultures from the developed and developing world, mestizaje offers that the intersection of multiple cultures in collaborative—not hegemonic—relations is intrinsic to realizing democratic citizenship.