Specification Issues in Proximity Models of Candidate Evaluation (with Issue Importance)

Bryce E. Corrigan Department of Political Science, University of Michigan, 5700 Haven Hall, 505 S. State Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1045 e-mail: becorrig{at}umich.edu e-mail: grynaviski{at}uchicago.edu (corresponding author) The use of the proximity model to represent the relationshipbetween citizens' policy attitudes and the positions of candidateson the issues of the day has considerable appeal because itoffers a bridge between theoretical models of political behaviorand empirical work. However, there is little consensus amongapplied researchers about the appropriate representation ofvoter behavior with respect to the measurement of issue distance,candidate location, or whether to allow heterogeneity in theweight that each individual places on particular issues. Eachof these choices suggests a different, and reasonably complicated,nonlinear relationship between voter utility and candidate andvoter issue positions which may have a meaningful influenceon the substantive conclusions drawn by the researcher. Yet,little attention has been given to the best way to representthe proximity model in applied work. The purpose of this paperis to identify which forms of the proximity model work best,with particular consideration given to the identification offunctional forms that are invariant to the choice of scale forthe independent variables.     

Necessary Illusions: Misperception,Cooperation, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty

A significant and growing body of literature related to security regimes focuses on the importance of either common knowledge or common norms to the success of efforts to limit military competition. This paper challenges this central pillar of the arms control literature. Security regimes, in particular arms control regimes, are not necessarily the product of common knowledge, norms, or shared identities. Rather, actors can and sometimes do cooperate because they do not fully understand one another and lack information. In these cases, examples of what I will refer to as “imagined intersubjectivity”—the mistaken belief that two actors share information, norms, and identities when in fact each has an idiosyncratic understanding—the lack of information is crucial for international cooperation. I analyze the record of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty negotiations. Through process-tracing, I will argue that three crucial moments in the negotiation process were premised on a misunderstanding of the position of the other party. The implications for cooperation without intersubjectivity are then explored.     

Did southerners favor slavery? Inferences from an analysis of prices in New Orleans, 1805–1860

During the years immediately following the American Revolution, it was common for Southern elites to express concerns about the morality or long-term viability of slavery. It is unclear, however, whether such expressions of anti-slavery sentiment were genuine, especially given the failure of so many slave owners to emancipate their slaves. In this paper, we show that there was a change in elite rhetoric about slavery, initiated by Whig politicians in the mid-1830s seeking a campaign issue in the South, in which anti-slavery rhetoric became linked to attempts by abolitionists to foment slave unrest, making anti-slavery an unsustainable position for the region’s politicians. Before that development, we contend that some planters believed that slavery might some day be abolished. After it, those concerns largely went away. We argue that the change in slave owners’ beliefs about the probability of abolition in the mid-1830s should have been reflected in slave prices at auction and test that claim using evidence from the New Orleans auction market.