Party Size and Portfolio Payoffs: The Proportional Allocation of Ministerial Posts in Coalition Governments

Over 30 years ago, Eric Browne and Mark Franklin demonstrated that parties in a coalition tend to receive portfolio payoffs in almost perfect proportionality to their seat share. Even though this result has been confirmed in several studies, few researchers have asked what the underlying mechanism is that explains why parties receive a proportional payoff. The aim of this paper is to investigate the causal mechanism linking party size and portfolio payoffs. To fulfil this aim, a small-n analysis is performed. By analysing the predictions from a statistical analysis of all post-war coalition governments in 14 Western European countries, two predicted cases are selected, the coalitions that formed after the 1976 Swedish election and the 1994 German election. In these case studies two hypotheses are evaluated: that the proportional distribution of ministerial posts is the result of a social norm, and that parties obtain payoffs according to their bargaining strength. The results give no support to the social norm hypothesis. Instead, it is suggested that proportionality serves as a bargaining convention for the actors involved, thus rendering proportional payoffs more likely.     

Peter Pan Goes to College

Today’s college students are a lot like Peter Pan—they are in no hurry to grow up. Young people are staying in school longer, and taking longer to become economically self-sufficient. They are also waiting longer to marry and start families. The college “hook-up culture” has emerged as a way for students to remain sexually active while avoiding long-term commitment and emotional entanglement. High-achieving young women, in particular, face social pressure to prioritize career development over relationships. Modern feminism has encouraged a singular focus on professional advancement. In terms of relational pursuits, young people are taking longer and longer to “grow up.”     

‘He's snooty ‘im’: exploring ‘white working class’ political disengagement

Using a small pilot qualitative study conducted in the North of England prior to the 2010 general election, we seek to understand why our respondents might feel actively disengaged from mainstream politics. It is argued that one major reason is because politicians are seen as lacking understanding of the local contexts in which these low-wage workers live. The gulf between represented and representative is widened if politicians fail to communicate in a ‘down to earth’ way. This indicates that social inequality between represented and representative is a factor in disengagement, but that such disengagement is not the result of apathy on the part of citizens. Further research is required, but our study suggests that if politicians fail to recognise their privilege and politics fails to address economic disadvantage across ethnic groups then disengagement from mainstream politics is likely to worsen.     

Evaluating Urban Public Schools: Parents,Teachers, and State Assessments

Among the most contentious questions in public administration is how the performance of public organizations should be evaluated, and nowhere is this issue more salient than in urban public schools. While significant attention has been devoted to studying administrative measures of public organizations, the views of citizens concerning performance have been widely criticized and are not frequently gathered by schools. How these assessments relate to each other is central to many questions in education policy (e.g., choice, equity) and has important implications for democracy, bureaucratic professionalism, and public performance. This debate can be viewed as focusing on the distinction between convergent validity and discriminant validity. Using data from New York City's public school system with a cross‐sectional time‐series approach, parent and teacher evaluations are compared to government records of schools’ characteristics and performance. The findings suggest that parents and teachers are able to conduct intelligent, meaningful evaluations of school quality.     

Predicting School Sense of Community: Students’ Perceptions at Two Catholic Universities

Understanding the factors that predict sense of community (SOC) among college students has important implications for higher education policy and practice. The present study determined whether perceptions of inclusion and religious pluralism across 2,199 university students' (1,442 women, 757 men; M age = 23.42, SD =7.84) at two Catholic universities predicted levels of school sense of community (SSOC). As expected, results indicated that perceptions of both inclusion and religious pluralism significantly predicted SSOC. However, mixed results were found regarding the interaction of university setting with inclusion and religious pluralism. Limitations and future directions for research are discussed.     

The Defence of Illegality in Private Law

Liverpool Law Review - The defence of illegality is invoked across private law, but has a reputation for being confused. This article argues that the defence can be rendered intelligible and...     

The policy impact of unified government: evidence from 2000 to 2002

Do the outcomes of government action differ between periods of unified and divided government? Using “event study” methodology, this articles addresses the question by looking at sudden shifts between divided and unified government—Bush v. Gore, the Jeffords switch, and the 2002 election. The results show that oil and gas stocks (i.e. Republican “constituent firms”) rose abruptly as Republicans took unified control, while renewable energy stocks (i.e. Democratic “constituent firms”) fell. The pattern reversed, however, when Democrats took back control of the Senate. These outcomes call into question non-partisan theories of law making.