Putting the Special Case in Its Place: Switzerland and Small‐N Comparison in Policy Research

This research note presents a set of strategies to conduct small‐N comparisons in policy research including the Swiss case. Even though every country can be considered “special” to some extent, the Swiss political system is often viewed as a particularly difficult case for comparison because of the impact of its idiosyncratic institutional features (most notably direct democracy). In order to deal with this problem, our note sets out two possible strategies ‐ the use of functional equivalents and of counterfactual reasoning ‐ and explains how to implement them empirically through process tracing and the establishment of causal chains. As an illustration, these strategies are used for a comparison of the process of electricity market liberalisation in Switzerland and Belgium.     

The motivated electorate: Voter uncertainty,motivated reasoning,and ideological congruence to parties

This paper investigates the consequences of voter uncertainty on voter–party ideological congruence. Building on the theory of motivated reasoning, it argues that voter feelings about political parties should determine whether they will be attracted or repelled by uncertain policy positions. The empirical analysis demonstrates the following. First, voters employ a ‘likability’ heuristic: they perceive more (less) ideological proximity to the party they (dis)like, regardless of the actual party position. Second, the likability effect boosts as the voter’s uncertainty increases. Facing a party with a vague ideological position, voters who dislike the party exaggerate the ideological distance, whereas those who like the party underestimate this distance. These findings imply that raising voter uncertainty might help the party to the extent that it is liked, but it can backfire if the party is not popular enough. More generally, the results bear important implications for the literature on voter uncertainty and party strategies.     

Theory building: the debate between modernist and interpretive social science in the pursuit of democratic governance

Bevir’s Democratic Governance advances a new theory of governance. The theory rejects reliance on bureaucracy, market and community on the one hand, and strives to embrace a participatory and deliberative rationality to achieve democratic governance on the other. The fundamental question remains: in what ways can his theory ease the tension and bridge the gap between democracy and bureaucracy? If readers are interested in the development of a more coherent theory on public administration or prefer a more balanced perspective in the study of democratic governance, this book serves as a good start, though it may not be able to give you the ultimate answer.     

Character Weakness,Partisan Bias,and Presidential Evaluation: Modifications and Extensions

In a recent article Goren (American Journal of Political Science, 46, 627–641, 2002) draws upon theories of negativity bias, partisan bias, and motivated reasoning to posit that the more strongly people identify with the opposition party of a presidential candidate, the more heavily they will rely on character weakness impressions to construct global candidate evaluations. This paper modifies the theoretical framework by positing that (1) partisans will judge opposition nominees most critically on the traits owned by the former’s party and (2) partisan bias promotes negativity bias in the evaluation of incumbent presidents seeking reelection and incumbent vice presidents seeking the presidency. Analysis of data from the 2000 and 2004 NES surveys, along with a reconsideration of the results from the 1984 to 1996 period covered in the original piece, yields strong empirical support for these expectations.

法律逻辑的基本问题

法律领域里有三种推理:事实推理、法律推理、判决推理。法律推理是法律逻辑的主要研究对象,法律推理的正当性问题的探讨是法律逻辑的基本问题,解决法律推理的正当性判定问题和推导问题是法律逻辑的重要任务。     

The Motivated Processing of Political Arguments

We report the results of an experiment designed to replicate and extend recent findings on motivated political reasoning. In particular, we are interested in disconfirmation biases—the tendency to counter-argue or discount information with which one disagrees—in the processing of political arguments on policy issues. Our experiment examines 8 issues, including some of local relevance and some of national relevance, and manipulates the presentation format of the policy arguments. We find strong support for our basic disconfirmation hypothesis: people seem unable to ignore their prior beliefs when processing arguments or evidence. We also find that this bias is moderated by political sophistication and strength of prior attitude. We do not find, however, that argument type matters, suggesting that motivated biases are quite robust to changes in argument format. Finally, we find strong support for the polarization of attitudes as a consequence of biased processing.

判决书中的法官形象

全面看待法官是公民的权利和公民责任,全面展示法官形象则是法官的本分。于法官或公民而言,全面的法官形象应该在判决书中。在一份全面、充分说理的严格意义的判决书中,法官是法律信用的督察者、法律解释中的立法者、道德与普法教育中的教师、法律服务中的售货员、合议博弈中的商人以及学者。     

Introduction

Abstract

This article aims to review the effectiveness of the “Reasoning and Rehabilitation” programme in reducing recidivism. Sixteen evaluations (involving 26 separate comparisons) were located in which experimental and control groups were compared. A meta-analysis showed that, overall, there was a significant 14% decrease in recidivism for programme participants compared with controls. This programme was effective in Canada, the USA, and the UK. It was effective in community and institutional settings, and for low risk and high-risk offenders. Smaller and larger evaluation studies, and older and newer studies, concluded that the programme was effective. Future evaluations should use larger samples, randomized controlled trials and better measures of recidivism (including self-reports, numbers, types and costs of offences committed).     

浅析日常语言中的几种诡辩手法

在日常生活工作中 ,经常有人为自己的行为作一些似是而非的辩护 ,实际上是隐含着某种逻辑错误的诡辩。常见的诡辩术有偷换概念、偷换论题、捏造论据和无效推理     

法的不确定性与可推导性

实在法是一个不完全的、非协调的、开放的体系。实在法是不确定的、可推导的和可修正的。立法者不可能为每个具体案件都准备好现成的法律答案，法官们不得不在法律不确定条件下探寻解决当前案件的裁决理由。解决法律不确定性的过程是一个法律推理的过程，可以将这些法律推理概括为：解释推导、还原推导、演绎与类比推导、辩证推导、衡平推导。法律的不确定性问题以及如何解决它的问题，是法律逻辑的中心问题与重大课题，应当而且能够从逻辑学角度出发进行研究。以往“经典逻辑加法律例证”的法律逻辑体系，不涉及也不可能解答法律的不确定性及其推导问题．没有充分涵盖法律领域中的推理与论证．不能作为法律逻辑的基本框架和主要内容。