明诺布鲁克:反思与观察

新公共行政学在公共行政领域具有重要的地位,对公共行政理论与实务的发展,产生了重要而持续的影响。作为对20世纪60年代美国动荡不安的社会现状的回应,新公共行政学者们对主流行政学研究方法进行了质疑与批判,并对当时的主流价值提出抗衡性观点。新公共行政学的理论意涵经由三次明诺布鲁克会议（1968年、1988年和2008年）而延续,尽管三次会议的背景与主题各不相同。然而,在其发展过程中,新公共行政的影响力仍然无法扩展至整个学科领域。     

Coalition formation and polarisation

Party ideology plays an important role in determining which government coalitions form. Research on coalition formation tends to focus on the ideological distance between coalition parties. However, the distribution of preferences within the coalition, and the legislature, also has implications for which government coalition forms – that is, a party's willingness to join a coalition depends not only on its prospective coalition partners, but also on the alternative coalitions it could form. Several hypotheses about the effects of legislative polarisation are offered and tested using data on coalition formation in 17 parliamentary democracies in the postwar period. This article also demonstrates how the traditional measure of ideological divisions within coalitions fails to capture certain aspects of ideological heterogeneity within the cabinet (and the opposition) and how Esteban and Ray's polarisation index helps in addressing these deficiencies.     

Experimental Estimation of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects Related to Self‐Selection

Social scientists widely regard the random‐assignment experiment as the gold standard for making causal inferences about the world. We argue that it can be improved. For situations in which self‐selection and heterogeneity of treatment effects exist, an alternative experimental design that retains random assignment to treatment or control and supplements it with some self‐selection of condition offers a clear advantage. It reveals the average treatment effect while also allowing estimation of the distinct effects of the treatment on those apt and inapt to experience the treatment outside the experimental context.     

Turnout as a Habit

It is conventional to speak of voting as “habitual.” But what does this mean? In psychology, habits are cognitive associations between repeated responses and stable features of the performance context. Thus, “turnout habit” is best measured by an index of repeated behavior and a consistent performance setting. Once habit associations form, the response can be cued even in the absence of supporting beliefs and motivations. Therefore, variables that form part of the standard cognitive-based accounts of turnout should be more weakly related to turnout among those with a strong habit. We draw evidence from a large array of ANES surveys to test these hypotheses and find strong support.