新时代中国国家治理的六维认知

新时代中国国家治理现代化的学术研究经由党的十八届三中全会开题、十九大定调、十九届四中全会谋篇布局,三个历史节点高潮迭起,党的十九届五中全会的胜利召开则标志着中国国家治理研究进入了深化发展阶段。在时空压缩与双化叠加的大背景下,深入理解“中国之治”内生性演化的历史底色、创造性转化的时代新色、现代性生成的本体特色、原创性深化的价值本色、自主性优化的实践成色和发展性更化的战略亮色,有利于廓清和加深对中国国家治理现代化的基本理论认知,进一步深化治理研究和提升国家治理认知力,既是持续推进国家治理体系与治理能力现代化的内在规定,也是加速推动国家治理效能得到新提升的现实要求。     

A second chance elsewhere. Estimating the effect of winning (vs. being the runner-up) on future electoral prospects

The effect of being the winner (vs. being the runner-up) on winning subsequent elections has been estimated across a series of countries using regression discontinuity design. We contribute to this literature by incorporating politicians who move across constituencies. The US and the UK are our case studies. UK–US differences are not apparent when comparing estimates of the individual incumbency advantage, i.e., winning the same office in the same constituency. UK–US differences in the career advantage of winning office are almost entirely driven by the ability of the UK’s close-race runners-up to win elsewhere subsequently. Runners-up are more likely to move to safer seats. Marginal winners become locked-in to their seat. In the US, we observe negligible movement across constituencies.     

中国制度自信的文化密码

文化是制度建构的灵魂支撑。探究中国特色社会主义制度自信何以可能,应从文化与制度的二维互动中寻求制度自信的关系密码,把握中国制度自信的文化向度;从治道理想、思维方式、主题主线探寻中国制度自信的历史密码,把握中国制度自信的文化厚度;从发展主题、发展动力、发展指向上解读马克思主义文化精神对中国制度构建的价值塑造,追问中国制度自信的价值密码,把握中国制度自信的文化高度。     

Does the early bird always get the worm? First round advantages and second round victories in Latin America

Runoff systems allow for a reversion of the first-round result: the most voted candidate in the first round may end up losing the election in the second. But do voters take advantage of this opportunity? Or does winning the first round increase the probability of winning the second? We investigate this question with data from presidential elections since 1945, as well as subnational elections in Latin America. Using a regression discontinuity design, we find that being the most voted candidate in the first round has a substantial positive effect on the probability of winning the second round in mayoral races – especially in Brazil –, but in presidential and gubernatorial elections the effect is negative, though not statistically significant at conventional levels. The positive effect in municipal races is much stronger when the top-two placed candidates are ideologically close – and thus harder to distinguish for voters – but weakens considerably and becomes insignificant when the election is polarized. We attribute these differences to the disparate informational environment prevailing in local vs. higher-level races.