| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
181539
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Conventional wisdom holds that landed elites oppose democratization. Whether they fear rising wages, labor mobility or land redistribution, landowners have historically repressed agricultural workers and sustained autocracy. What might change landowning elites’ preferences for dictatorship and reduce their opposition to democracy? Change requires reducing landowners’ need to maintain political control over labor. This transition occurs when mechanization reduces the demand for agricultural workers, eliminating the need for labor-repressive policies. We explain how the adoption of labor-saving technology in agriculture alters landowners’ political preferences for different regimes, so that the more mechanized the agricultural sector, the more likely is democracy to emerge and survive. Our theoretical argument offers a parsimonious revision to Moore’s thesis that applies to the global transformation of agriculture since his Social Origins first appeared, and results from our cross-national statistical analyses strongly suggest that a positive relationship between agricultural mechanization and democracy does in fact exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
110662
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Existing measures of article and journal impact count citations that articles receive in other articles. Such metrics ignore citations that articles receive in monographs and edited-volume chapters. Counting article citations in books reveals that popular measures of article and journal impact discriminate against articles and journals that receive citations in books rather than (or in addition to) citations in other articles, thereby discriminating against the research contributions of scholars who publish such articles. Analysis of citation patterns over 25 years reveals that citations in books have declined in American politics research while citations in articles have increased; citations in both books and articles remain important in the other subfields. Findings suggest that political scientists should supplement indicators of journal impact based on citations in peer-reviewed articles with measures that account for the citations that published articles receive in books.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
177238
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Recent research points to a gender gap in journal-article authorship: women are underrepresented. Given that publishing a book remains central to many political scientists’ careers, this article explores the extent to which gender publication and citation gaps also exist for books. We find that although the gender publication gap for university-press books has narrowed over time, it remains larger than for journal articles. We also find that book-authorship patterns do not reflect the shift toward coauthorship observed for journal articles. Conversely, we find no gender citation gap for books written by one woman. However, books coauthored by coed teams or teams of women receive far fewer citations than books written by one man or one woman or by teams of men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|