A neo-Downsian model of group-oriented voting and racial backlash

We extend the standard Downsian framework to suppose that voters consider the identity of each candidate's supporters when deciding whom to support, rather than considering only the announced policy positions of the candidates. In particular we posit the existence of a class of voters whose support for a candidate reduces support by some other voters for that candidate. Our most important result concerns the conditions under which the addition to the electorate of new voters on one side of the policy spectrum shifts the equilibrium toward the opposite direction. The model can explain why enfranchisement of blacks did not immediately help the election of liberal candidates.     

Crisis and contract breach: The domestic and international determinants of expropriation

The Review of International Organizations - In this paper we address how external factors shape government decisions to break or uphold contracts, specifically focusing on how economic shocks and...     

Public Management on the Ground: Clustering Managers Based on Their Behavior

Public management research has identified a dizzying array of management variables that affect organizational performance. While scholars have learned much by analyzing one or a few specific behavioral dimensions of public management at a time, we argue for the value of a more holistic and inductive approach that uses data on several aspects of public management for identifying manager types. Such an approach accounts for both the cognitive processes of people affected by management and the reality that managers’ individual behavioral decisions are interrelated. We examine the overlap of 21 aspects of public school management behavior using cluster analysis. We identify four different manager types (“firefighters,” “laissez-faire managers,” “administrators,” and “proactive floor managers”), each reflecting a distinct constellation of managerial behaviors. The manager types we call “administrators” and “proactive floor managers” are associated with relatively better outcomes, while “firefighters” are associated with relatively worse outcomes.     

PTSD and female military returnees from Iraq and Afghanistan： What does the evidence tell us？

In the United States of America, women make up almost 15% of active duty forces, while they form 11% of the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is also the first time in history that women have been directly involved in torturing men, with sexual identity and gender being used as instruments of torture. This paper focuses on post-traumatic stress disorder （PTSD） and female veterans by reviewing the available literature. Studies examining the psychological and physical health of women veterans as well as women＇s working and living conditions in the army are presented. The paper highlights the psychological processes women marines go through to establish themselves in the male dominated army environment and the implications such processes may have on their perception of female identity and on their psychological well-being. Studies on deployment experiences in relation to the emergence of PTSD in female military personnel are presented. Finally, the effects of veterans＇ PTSD on their familial relationships and psychological adjustment of family members are also considered, stressing the lack of relevant research with female veterans. In this new historical reality and as these women are called on, upon their return home, to resume female care giver roles, to become the primary caregivers to children, the elderly and those who are ill, we conclude by highlighting the urgent need for further research into the emergence of PTSD in female military returnees from and on their families. Iraq and Afghanistan and the effects this may have on them and on their families.     

Consensus Arbitration: A Negotiation‐Based Decision‐Making Process for Arbitrators

In reaching their decisions, arbitrators are currently expected to act like judges by listening fully to both sides and then withdrawing to write the final and complete decision. But because of some key differences between their roles, I argue, arbitrators and judges should exercise completely different styles of decision making. Unlike judges, who make decisive rulings in order to enforce the law, arbitrators are empowered and chosen by the parties themselves to handle specific disputes or govern continuing relationships. Instead of shifting a negotiated process into an authoritative one, arbitrators have the capacity to solicit input from parties as they craft the award. Under a new model of arbitration that I call “consensus arbitration,” arbitrators would facilitate negotiation between the parties but retain the power to break impasses with partial, incomplete decisions, behaving more like facilitators than judges.     

Implicit Outgroup Favoritism and Intergroup Judgment: The Moderating Role of Stereotypic Context

Implicit outgroup favoritism has been documented in a variety of socially disadvantaged groups, yet little is known about the implications of having such bias. The present research examined whether implicit outgroup favoritism predicts judgments of ingroup versus outgroup members, and whether that relationship depends on stereotypic context. One hundred and ten African-American participants were assigned a Black versus a White work partner for a task that required skills that are stereotypically White (e.g., intellect) versus Black (e.g., athleticism). Participants rated Black partners as less competent than White partners on the stereotypically White task. Furthermore, participants who implicitly favored Whites liked Black partners less than White partners, but only on the stereotypically White task. Implications for system justification theory are discussed.