Suchergebnisse

The volume brings together some of the best of both the most established and the newest urban scholars in political science, sociology, and history, each of whom makes a new argument for rethinking the relationship between cities and the larger project of state-building

The volume brings together some of the best of both the most established and the newest urban scholars in political science, sociology, and history, each of whom makes a new argument for rethinking the relationship between cities and the larger project of state-building.

American political development (APD) endeavors to understand the dynamism and durability of institutions. This focus has much in common with kindred scholarship in political science on the temporal construction of politics, yet the points of connection between APD and other fields are not always clear. As a remedy, this article reviews the various modes of institutional change found in the literature, the causal mechanisms in each, and the metaphors scholars sometimes use to capture processes that are difficult to observe directly. Using these various modes, mechanisms, and metaphors, scholars of APD explore institutional dynamics at different levels of analysis, highlighting the connections between the micropolitics of situated action and broader transformations at the macro level of the polity. The review concludes by showing how the study of APD speaks to issues of power and political economy that are once again central to political science scholarship. Adapted from the source document.

Despite its origins in explorations of the political & institutional history that had become unfashionable in History departments, the Political Science subfield of American Political Development (APD) has drifted toward the "history-from-below" view against which it was originally a reaction. Perhaps this is a normal tendency in democratic cultures that ground their legitimacy on the will of the people. But it may also be due to a failure of APD scholars to appreciate that even in a (nominally) democratic country such as the United States, the state may acquire autonomy from the public will because of the vast scope of state activity, & the restricted ability of the people to monitor, understand, & control that activity. Philip E. Converse's signal contribution to the public-opinion literature can thus be the starting point for a revision of American political history with an eye to the autonomy that political elites may gain from public ignorance of their actions. Adapted from the source document.

Although the rest of the American politics subfield has taken up many of the research challenges that LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) politics poses, there has been very little attention to LGBT politics within APD (American political development). Yet LGBT politics has deeply developmental and "state-centered" dynamics. Until the middle of the twentieth century, sexual orientation was simply not widely and deeply politicized in the United States. But abruptly, in a period of a decade and a half (roughly 1940-1955), national political and bureaucratic actors created a national sexuality regime that has taken 60 years of LGBT struggle to partly reverse. In seeking to substitute a different, overtly inclusive sexuality regime, LGBT citizens and their straight allies have initiated far-reaching changes in public policy, regulation of the workplace, and the institution of marriage. American politics has thus been developed by LGBT politics-and in the process, a fruitful research agenda has emerged. Adapted from the source document.

In addition to the longest chapter, featuring Ceaser's exposition of 'Foundational Concepts and American Political Development,' the book also includes three critical responses by historian Jack Rakove, political theorist Nancy Rosenblum, and political theorist Rogers Smith, respectively.

Following an overview of currents in American political development (APD), specific lines of APD inquiry are detailed, exposing multiple orders, ingrained incompatibilities, & colliding principles of organization as emergent premises for investigation of US politics. Discussion begins with APD studies of American political culture goaded by the work of Louis Hartz (1955). Next, analyses building on V. O. Key's (1955) proposition of periodization, ie, that US politics is periodically punctuated by "sharp & durable changes," are addressed. Attention turns to institutions & their construction of politics, attending to three versions of the constructivist thesis, policy & polity, & intercurrence. Conclusions center on a sketch of two conceptions of history developing from these studies. J. Zendejas

American political development (APD) endeavors to understand the dynamism and durability of institutions. This focus has much in common with kindred scholarship in political science on the temporal construction of politics, yet the points of connection between APD and other fields are not always clear. As a remedy, this article reviews the various modes of institutional change found in the literature, the causal mechanisms in each, and the metaphors scholars sometimes use to capture processes that are difficult to observe directly. Using these various modes, mechanisms, and metaphors, scholars of APD explore institutional dynamics at different levels of analysis, highlighting the connections between the micropolitics of situated action and broader transformations at the macro level of the polity. The review concludes by showing how the study of APD speaks to issues of power and political economy that are once again central to political science scholarship.

Although the rest of the American politics subfield has taken up many of the research challenges that LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) politics poses, there has been very little attention to LGBT politics within APD (American political development). Yet LGBT politics has deeply developmental and "state-centered" dynamics. Until the middle of the twentieth century, sexual orientation was simply not widely and deeply politicized in the United States. But abruptly, in a period of a decade and a half (roughly 1940–1955), national political and bureaucratic actors created a national sexuality regime that has taken 60 years of LGBT struggle to partly reverse. In seeking to substitute a different, overtly inclusive sexuality regime, LGBT citizens and their straight allies have initiated far-reaching changes in public policy, regulation of the workplace, and the institution of marriage. American politics has thus been developed by LGBT politics—and in the process, a fruitful research agenda has emerged.

State theory must recognize that the US national state has three distinct components, each subject to quite different political processes, & with differential linkages to societal interests. Discussions of the interactions of "state managers" with representatives of the "capitalist class," presumed to be the font of national public policy, present an inaccurate & truncated view of the state, & also ignore diverse important social movements whose grievances are the motive for state response. The defensive reactions of capitalists & executive branch officials to such pressure are often inaccurately portrayed as the origins of state initiatives. It is argued that a political economy approach is a better way to analyze the creative interaction of state officials & societal forces than instrumentalist or narrowly state-centered accounts. Examples are drawn from a study of political development in the progressive era. 29 References. AA