| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
165505
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The recent censorship requests made by Chinese authorities to Western academic publishers have sent shockwaves throughout the academic world. This article examines the high-profile The China Quarterly incident as a case in point. Because the censorship is expected to be followed by similar demands to other publications, it is important for the academic community to explore the logic behind it. This research article provides a preliminary analysis of publications on the censorship list and compares them to uncensored articles on similar themes. This exercise allows us to draw important insights. Theoretically, this article makes an original contribution by going beyond the censorship within to outside China. Empirically, it offers a comprehensive analysis of what China wants to censor and the context for its actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
165504
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
165489
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Conventional accounts of Donald Trump’s unexpected electoral victory stress idiosyncratic events and media celebrity because most observers assume this unusual candidate won without much organized support. However, considerable evidence suggests that the support of conservative organizational networks, including police unions such as the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), propelled Trump to victory. The FOP is both a public-sector union and a conservative, mass-membership fraternal association that was courted by the Trump campaign at a time of politically charged debates about policing. Four years before, the FOP had refused to endorse Republican candidate Mitt Romney because he opposed public-sector unionism, which provided fruitful and rare variation in interest-group behavior across electoral cycles. Using a difference-in-differences approach, I find that FOP lodge density contributed to a significant swing in vote share from Romney to Trump. Moreover, survey evidence indicates that police officers reported increased political engagement in 2016 versus 2012. Belying the notion that Trump lacked a “ground game,” this research suggests that he tapped into existing organizational networks, showing their enduring importance in electoral politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
165490
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
More than 60 years ago, Angus Campbell offered an explanation for why the president’s party regularly loses congressional seats in midterm elections. He argued that peripheral voters “surge” to the polls in presidential elections and support the president’s congressional co-partisans but “decline” to turn out in the midterm. In his turnout-based explanation for midterm loss, Campbell speculated that “bad weather or an epidemic may affect the vote” but largely dismissed weather’s utility to test his theory (Campbell 1960, 399). I revisit Campbell’s speculation and employ a new identification strategy to investigate the “surge and decline” account of midterm loss. I show that as the costs of voting increase—due to above-average rainfall on Election Day—the strength of the relationship between presidential and congressional voting weakens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
165488
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The surprise outcome of the 2016 presidential election continues to raise more questions as experts grapple with the evidence for why most prognosticators considered a Hillary Clinton victory almost certain. This article uses the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study data to show that a primary explanation for why the election of Donald Trump was difficult to predict is that the bulk of his support did not materialize until Election Day, in the battleground states that he had to carry to win the Electoral College.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
165494
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
165518
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
165493
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
165498
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
165502
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
165491
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In federal political systems such as the United States, there has long existed a view that citizens should be more politically competent at the local level than at the federal level of government. Recent studies have challenged this view. This article argues that these findings may reflect only one part of the broader picture. Through a review of two recent studies, I contend that research in this realm must consider more than only the level of government. Odd as this sounds, assumptions about varying levels of political competence at different levels of government have always been premised on the notion that local-level politics is smaller and less complex than federal-level politics. However, when local politics takes place today against the backdrop of small villages and towns as well as in large cities, these are assumptions that must be reevaluated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
165484
|
|
|
| 13 |
ID:
165497
|
|
|
| 14 |
ID:
165499
|
|
|
| 15 |
ID:
165500
|
|
|
| 16 |
ID:
165512
|
|
|
| 17 |
ID:
165510
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article uses descriptive statistics and social-network analysis to examine which regions and countries were selected in studies comparing-two countries that have been published in America’s renowned academic journals in comparative politics (CP): Comparative Political Studies and Journal of Comparative Politics. Which regions and countries are favored (and disfavored) by these studies? Analysis shows that the US-based CP journals strongly favor research on the countries of Western Europe and North America. There may be several explanations for this, but the uneven distribution of research publications with respect to continents and countries may be a source of several biases that should be of concern in the CP field.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 18 |
ID:
165501
|
|
|
| 19 |
ID:
165508
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article develops a number of measures of the research productivity of political science departments using data collected from Google Scholar. Departments are ranked in terms of citations to articles published by faculty, citations to articles recently published by faculty, impact factors of journals in which faculty published, and number of top publications in which faculty published. Results are presented in aggregate terms and on a per-faculty basis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 20 |
ID:
165496
|
|
|