Democracy as a coalition of cultures

Aaron Wildavsky was until his recent death Class of 1940 Professor of Political Science and Public Policy and a member of the Survey Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley. A brief appreciation of his life and work follows.     

Decentralization: Conceptualization and measurement

Decentralized government institutions are doing more of the work of government than ever before, but there is little agreement about 1) what decentralization means, or 2) how it should be measured. To overcome this confusion, this article builds on standard definitions of decentralization that include three core dimensions: fiscal, administrative, and political. The article offers an empirical test of that definition using factor analysis of data from 1996 for sixty-eight countries. Factor analysis confirms these three core dimensions and generates a score for each case in each dimension, allowing countries to be measured according to their type and degree of decentralization. In future work, these scores can be used for hypothesis testing about the causes and effects of decentralization on important social outcomes. This exercise demonstrates that conceptual confusion need not hamper research when empirical tests can help verify conceptual categories. Aaron Schneider is a political scientist at the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex. His research interests include comparative politics, public finance, and methodology. His current research projects include studies of federalism, decentralization, party systems, budgeting, and taxation. He has conducted research in Brazil and India, and plans to apply the measures derived in this article to study the impact of decentralization. Tel:+44 (0)1273 678270; fax: +44 (0)1273 621202; email: a.schneider@ids.ac.uk. For valuable comments and suggestions, the author would like to thank Mick Moore, Arnab Acharya, Marcus Kurtz, Benjamin Goldfrank, and anonymous reviewers from Studies in Comparative International Development. Financial support was provided by the Department for International Development. All errors or omissions are the author’s own.     

Polarization,Ideology, and Vote Choice in U.S. Congressional Elections

Despite the debate about mass polarization, most scholars agree that parties in Congress have become increasingly polarized over time. Scholars have sought to connect party polarization to the beliefs and perceptions of individual citizens, but little work exists on the relationship between polarization and the vote choices made by ordinary citizens. In this article, I examine the link between party polarization at the elite level, the use of ideology by citizens, and their vote choices in Congressional elections. I argue that the increased polarization that has occurred over time has led people to place more weight on ideology when casting their votes in U.S. House elections. My hypothesis stems from work on group conflict theory, which suggests that when people sense a high degree of conflict between two groups, a cue from elites, they will be more likely to rely on their own relevant characteristics or attitudes when making choices. This study differs from previous work on Congressional elections in that I examine variation in the effect of ideology on vote choice over multiple elections rather than just in one or two elections. I argue that an exploration of the political context (or the political context perceived by voters) is necessary in order to more fully understand the use of ideology in U.S. elections. To the extent that polarization facilitates the use of information shortcuts among voters, it might be viewed as a positive development within the context of electoral politics.     

The new Voteview.com: preserving and continuing Keith Poole’s infrastructure for scholars,students and observers of Congress

For the last 40 years, Keith Poole has developed and curated a trove of basic data and measurements related to the United States Congress. He has made these resources freely available through his widely-used Voteview.com website since 1995. At Poole’s Voteview.com, scholars, students, journalists, and the broader public could download gold-standard historical and current roll-call voting data, member rosters, NOMINATE scores, and measures and visualizations of party cohesion and polarization, among many other useful things. In this article, we describe how we are preserving and continuing these vast public-goods contributions through the new Voteview.com. Developed and housed at UCLA, the new Voteview.com carries on the creation of basic roll-call data infrastructure, including the assignment of Poole’s widely-used ICPSR number-like identifiers to new members, data on every roll-call vote ever taken, NOMINATE scores and other standard roll-call vote-based measures such as party-loyalty scores. In addition to serving as a platform for the continuation and dissemination of this basic data infrastructure, the new Voteview.com also provides powerful tools for exploring the history of roll-call voting, the US Congress, and American politics and political history through a simple search interface and interactive visualizations.     

The Real Story of Toy Guns

The truth of the matter is that I was actually dodging the Beijing street vendor a few weeks after asking him if he had anymoretoyfirearms:replicasofrealgunslike M-16’s and AK-47s.I had not seen the dark,wrinkled face of the Chinese man for a long time after happily purchasing two silver-toned     

Interpersonal incomparability in citizens’ views of democracy: survey evidence from Ukraine

ABSTRACT

Do regional differences within a single country influence how survey respondents use response scales when evaluating concepts like democracy? Further, what determines how respondents will assess the level of democracy at home or abroad? We test three hypotheses to answer these questions. First, we hypothesize that differential item function (DIF) exists between regions that are most different along political, cultural, and historical dimensions. Second, we hypothesize that political attitudes will predict views about evaluations of the level of democracy domestically. Third, we hypothesize that regions with stronger ties to and greater affinity for a foreign state will rate that state as more democratic than other regions. We find support for all three hypotheses using a nationally representative survey of Ukraine, but correcting for DIF generates substantively important changes in our interpretations of the results. Specifically, it increases support for hypothesis two but leads to a more measured conclusion about hypothesis three. An analysis of the responses to anchoring vignettes to control for DIF provides some initial suggestive evidence that Ukrainians outside Kyiv may view democracy as more binary in nature than on a nuanced sliding scale. We conclude with recommendations for researchers on deploying anchoring vignettes in sub-national survey research.     

The Costs and Benefits of American Policy‐Making Venues

Many law and policy scholars consider judges inimical to good public policymaking, and the criticisms they level on the judiciary implicitly reflect some of the concerns raised by Alexander Bickel and other critics. Despite the charge by critics that judges are institutionally ill equipped to participate in the policy‐making process and that legal processes are costly, there are reasons to believe otherwise. This article uses field interviews and three case studies of an environmental dispute in the Pacific Northwest to show that the judiciary can be an institutional venue that enhances public input, can be more inclusive than other venues, and produces positive‐sum outcomes when other venues cannot. The findings also suggest that legislative and agency policymaking are just as contentious and costly as judicial policy‐making processes.     

Formalizing China��s armed police: the 2009 PAP Law

While the People??s Armed Police (PAP) has existed in China for over 26 years, the force??s operations, powers and duties have never been formally stipulated. On August 27, 2009, the People??s Armed Police Law was passed by the National People??s Congress. The PAP Law, which contains seven chapters and 38 articles, covers the main areas of the tasks and responsibility, duties and power, safeguard measures, discipline and supervision, and legal responsibilities of the force. The implementation of the PAP Law represents a benchmark development in the history of the Chinese policing. It not only signals official recognition of the need to enhance the legitimacy of China??s social control apparatus, but also maps onto a larger developing trend of progressive legalization of Chinese order today. Although the law provides a legal basis for the existence and functions of a force that plays a critical role in China??s security and stability today, some issues about the boundaries of power and procedures of operation for the PAP remain unaddressed. To what extent that this law will improve the legitimacy and subsequently strengthen the performance of the PAP force is an open question.