The Political Environment for Mayors in the 21st Century

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Druckman ◽  
Samara Klar ◽  
Yanna Krupnikov ◽  
Matthew Levendusky ◽  
John B. Ryan

Affective polarization is a defining feature of 21st century American politics—partisans harbor considerable dislike and distrust of those from the other party. Does this animus have consequences for citizens’ opinions? Such effects would highlight not only the consequences of polarization, but also shed new light onto how citizens form preferences more generally. Normally, this question is intractable, but the outbreak of the novel coronavirus allows us to answer it. We find that affective polarization powerfully shapes citizens’ attitudes about the pandemic, as well as the actions they have taken in response to it. However, these effects are conditional on the local severity of the outbreak, as the effects decline in areas with high caseloads—threat vitiates partisan reasoning. Our results clarify that closing the divide on important issues requires not just policy discourse but also attempts to reduce inter-partisan hostility.


Author(s):  
Harry Nedelcu

The mid and late 2000s witnessed a proliferation of political parties in European party systems. Marxist, Libertarian, Pirate, and Animal parties, as well as radical-right and populist parties, have become part of an increasingly heterogeneous political spectrum generally dominated by the mainstream centre-left and centre-right. The question this article explores is what led to the surge of these parties during the first decade of the 21st century. While it is tempting to look at structural arguments or the recent late-2000s financial crisis to explain this proliferation, the emergence of these parties predates the debt-crisis and can not be described by structural shifts alone . This paper argues that the proliferation of new radical parties came about not only as a result of changes in the political space, but rather due to the very perceived presence and even strengthening of what Katz and Mair (1995) famously dubbed the "cartelization" of mainstream political parties.   Full text available at: https://doi.org/10.22215/rera.v7i1.210


2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 312-329
Author(s):  
Joe Penny ◽  
Clive Barnett ◽  
Crystal Legacy ◽  
Mustafa Dikec ◽  
Marit Rosol ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 94-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samir Barbana ◽  
Xavier Dumay ◽  
Vincent Dupriez

This article aims to understand how new accountability instruments in the context of the French-speaking Belgian educational system are appropriated by schools. After having characterised the specific nature of those instruments in the context of a traditionally highly decentralised system involved in a significant process of centralisation, we identify their effects through the case study of three schools. Using a new institutionalist lens, the analyses show that these instruments refer, in the French-speaking Belgian context, to a specific demand from the political environment of schools: developing and framing a common educational landscape, rather than to a logic of teacher evaluation. The data also indicate a reaffirmation, against this specific political demand, of three traditional ways of functioning tied up to the requests made by local educational communities. Thus, the analyses show a conflict between inherited institutions highly embedded in local contexts and the political signal associated with the new accountability instruments aiming to institutionalise common norms at the system level.


2015 ◽  
Vol 05 (01) ◽  
pp. 1550015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Yonce

The investment behavior of US firms exhibits systematic variation over the political cycle. After controlling for investment opportunities, US firms reduce investment expenditures approximately 2.0% during Presidential election years, 5.3% during periods of single-party government, and 8.7% during Republican presidential administrations. Neoclassical investment theory has little to say about direct links between investment and the political environment. I show that the empirical results arise naturally in a model of investment under regulatory and political uncertainty, provided that (i) regulatory policy affects the cash flows of the firm, (ii) firms have flexibility over the scale of their investments and (iii) regulatory uncertainty resolves quickly.


2004 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 589-610 ◽  
Author(s):  
JAMES ADAMS ◽  
MICHAEL CLARK ◽  
LAWRENCE EZROW ◽  
GARRETT GLASGOW

Previous research explains the evolution of parties' ideological positions in terms of decision rules that stress the uncertainty of the political environment. The authors extend this research by examining whether parties adjust their ideologies in response to two possible influences: shifts in public opinion, and past election results. Their empirical analyses, which are based on the Comparative Manifesto Project's codings of parties' post-war programmes in eight West European nations, suggest that parties respond to shifts in public opinion, but that these effects are only significant in situations where public opinion is clearly shifting away from the party's policy positions. By contrast, no evidence is found here that parties adjust their ideologies in response to past election results. These findings have important implications for parties' election strategies and for models of political representation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (324) ◽  
pp. 125-141
Author(s):  
Andrzej Jaeschke

The paper concerns the evolution of the political position of the House of Lords until the end of the 19thcentury. The author presents the time of stabilisation of the relations of the two parliamentary chambers andidentifies its causes. He also discusses the increasing disruption of relations between the two chambers ofthe British Parliament following from electoral reforms and, consequently, the decomposition of the hithertounified conservative political environment and the emergence of liberal forces. This resulted in increasinglystrong ideological and political rivalry between the conservative House of Lords and the largely liberal Houseof Commons.


2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 309-328
Author(s):  
Hatsuru MORITA

AbstractCorporate law shapes the fundamental business environment and affects various stakeholders. It is possible to determine the behaviour of various stakeholders by examining the politics of the reform process of corporate law. In order to understand the process, this paper uses the notice-and-comment procedure (public-comment procedure). Under this procedure, people submit comments to the Ministry of Justice; some of the comments are reflected in the final Bill, while others are not. The paper performs a quantitative analysis of a hand-collected dataset from two recent public-comment procedures on corporate law reform. The results showed that the bureaucrats are rigid and not willing to take public comments seriously. However, on some technical issues, legal academics, and legal professionals influence the behaviour of the bureaucrats. In addition, the bureaucrats employed these comments to honour the technical views of professionals. In other cases, corporate managers significantly influence the reform process.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document