Search results

On September 30, 2020, several of us dialed in to attend a webinar panel discussion on "Race, Identity and Culture in the (Post-)Globalization Era." The participants shared their thoughts on how and why race factors into international political and economic processes. In the spirit of addressing the topic from a political economy perspective, it seems worthwhile to outline the decision calculus that determines why considering race in international political economy (IPE) research is a good idea. If the benefit b of accounting for race times the probability p of success outweighs the costs c weighted by the probability (1 - p) of failure, race should be a key component of IPE research moving forward.

ObjectiveGroups defined by race and ideology are well‐known predictors of interpersonal and political trust, but gender‐based effects are undecided. I investigate whether disaster experience conditions a difference in political trust between women and men.MethodsExamining the hurricane data set of U.S. public opinion, I analyze intersectionality's influence on disaster‐based political trust with a three‐way interaction between race, class, and gender.ResultsAmong disaster survivors, black women trust less than all other race–gender groups, and white men trust the most. The difference between black and white women survivors' political trust is attenuated by education. Education exacerbates race‐based political trust among observers. Among observers, there is not a gender‐based distinction.ConclusionDisasters create new identities based on shared experience, and offer a moment in time that illustrates how trust varies along gender–race–class–disaster dimensions. Knowing how trust differs according to intersectionality allows managers to manage critical events better.

AbstractLittle is known about how different sources of information drive citizen trust in government. To address that gap this article compares disaster evacuees to observers, noting how trust differs as attention to media coverage increases. First‐hand experience supplies information to update trust through biological and personal processes and performance assessments, while secondary sources provide information about other people's experiences, filtered through lenses that take an active role in crafting information. These two types of information have varying effects depending on the level of government being trusted. Using surveys administered a year after Hurricane Katrina, I find that Katrina evacuees have the highest trust in federal government, until they start paying attention to media coverage, and that attention to coverage has the most dramatic effect on these evacuees compared to all other groups. I also find that increasing attention to second‐hand information corresponds with higher trust in local officials, and that this effect decreases as the level of government increases. It appears media coverage creates a comparison in the mind of hurricane evacuees, causing them to update their performance assessments based on comparing their own experience to that which they observe, thereby updating their political trust.

After several disasters in the United States, the return-migration rate of blacks to post-disaster areas has been lower than that of other races. Does this pattern have a political explanation? I investigate political trust as the causal mechanism through which race affects people's decisions of where to live after forced evacuation. After accounting for economic, demographic, and sociological influences on return migration, I use mediation analysis to find that political trust acts as a mediator between race and return migration. I am thus able to explain the salience of race to the return-migration decision: race does not have a direct effect on return migration but rather works through the causal mechanism of political trust to determine return-migration decisions. As blacks are more likely to have low levels of political trust, and those with lower political trust are less likely to return, blacks are less likely to return to post-disaster areas.

The topic of nonprofit reform has sparked a debate on the battle between efficiency and effectiveness. Why do ineffective nonprofits survive? Prospective donors favor applicants likely to fulfill donor priorities. Donors with limited time and energy look for signals that reveal recipients' true capabilities. Knowing this, recipients attempt to send the right signals to prospective donors. If the process of sending and reading signals is efficient, funding decisions will tend toward an optimal outcome in which only effective agencies survive. What signals do donors consider the most helpful? Are organizations that send such signals receiving the highest payoffs? What is the financial yield of each signal to recipients? This article uses a signaling game to sharpen our understanding of nonprofit fundraising and derive the conditions under which signals will be credible. Interview and survey evidence gathered in Brazil indicate that signals of accessibility, reliability, and credibility attract the highest payoffs.

The topic of nonprofit reform has sparked a debate on the battle between efficiency and effectiveness. Why do ineffective nonprofits survive? Prospective donors favor applicants likely to fulfill donor priorities. Donors with limited time and energy look for signals that reveal recipients' true capabilities. Knowing this, recipients attempt to send the right signals to prospective donors. If the process of sending and reading signals is efficient, funding decisions will tend toward an optimal outcome in which only effective agencies survive. What signals do donors consider the most helpful? Are organizations that send such signals receiving the highest payoffs? What is the financial yield of each signal to recipients? This article uses a signaling game to sharpen our understanding of nonprofit fundraising and derive the conditions under which signals will be credible. Interview and survey evidence gathered in Brazil indicate that signals of accessibility, reliability, and credibility attract the highest payoffs. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Ltd., copyright holder.]

On January 18, 1998, I walked off a plane in São Paulo, Brazil. As I
cleared customs and weaved through the hot, steamy airport, the
cafes and newsstands, I noticed one young woman's face on the front
pages of all the newspapers and journals I passed. She was wearing a
beret and hugging Bill Clinton in the photo, and her name was Monica
Lewinsky. Never having heard of her before, I assumed the interest
in her was specific to Brazil. Surely I would know her name
if she actually mattered to anyone, I thought, and went
on.

The COVID-19 pandemic has drawn worldwide attention to the difficulties inherent in managing disasters. Scholars across disciplines have been forced to consider the impact disasters have on interstate relations, state resilience, patterns of violence and hostility, and the vulnerabilities that condition conflict. This special issue offers new insights to help disentangle the relationship between disasters, conflict, and cooperation, by adhering to a three-pronged theoretical framework. First, all pieces in this issue are underpinned by a unified understanding of disasters as endogenous social phenomena. Second, we acknowledge that disasters occur as processes rather than discrete events. Finally, we explore the possibility that disasters and conflict are co-determined by a common set of factors. The articles herein were chosen not only because they advance academic thought about the disaster–conflict nexus, but also because of their potential to advance the practical impact of this line of research on the global conflict and disaster landscape. We highlight the relevance of this special issue for further work investigating the effects of conflict on disasters and the relationship between the hazards cycle process and patterns of violence and hostility, as well as the implications of adopting this suggested framework for policymaking and data collection.