Suchergebnisse

The 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act targeted electoral structures as significant determinants of minority representation. The research regarding electoral structures and representation of constituents, however, has produced conflicting results, and the continued application of some of the provisions set forth in the Voting Rights Act is in doubt. This article addresses the impact of at-large elections on African American representation and reveals a striking and unanticipated finding: African Americans are now overrepresented on school boards that have at-large elections when African Americans are a minority of the population. Using the 1,800 largest school districts in the United States (based on original surveys conducted in 2001, 2004, and 2008), we find that partisanship changes the relationship between electoral structures and race to benefit African American representation.

Less than a decade ago, the future of American energy looked bleak. Domestic production of both oil and gas was dwindling, and big U.S. energy companies, believing their fortunes lay offshore, had long since turned away from the mainland. But then something remarkable occurred: a surge of innovation allowed companies to extract vast quantities of natural gas trapped in once-inaccessible deposits of shale. The resulting abundance drove down U.S. gas prices to about one-third of the global average. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractWhy are some Latin American states plagued by persistent policy volatility while the policies of others remain relatively stable? This article explores the political economy of natural resource rents and policy volatility across Latin America. It argues that, all else equal, resource rents will create incentives for political leaders, which will result in repeated episodes of policy volatility. This effect, however, will depend on the structure of political institutions. Where political institutions fail to provide a forum for intertemporal exchange among political actors, natural resource rents will result in increased levels of policy volatility. Alternatively, where political institutions facilitate agreement among actors, resource rents will be conducive to policy stability. This argument is tested on a measure of policy volatility for 18 Latin American economies between 1993 and 2008. The statistical tests provide support for the argument.

Anti-vote-buying campaigns led by NGOs and political elites denounce the practice as a crass economic transaction detrimental to democracy. Do potential clients stigmatize vote buying to the same degree, or does the mass public have a more conditional view of the acceptability of vote buying? We theorize that normative evaluations of vote buying vary based on individuals' understanding of the transaction itself and abstract societal costs associated with the practice. We assess this perspective using survey experiments conducted in several Latin American countries that present hypothetical vote-buying situations for evaluation by respondents, varying the socioeconomic status of the hypothetical client and the client's political predispositions. We find that the disapproval of vote buying is highly conditional on the attributes of the hypothetical client and that evaluations of vote buying depend on conceptions of the concrete benefits and abstract costs of vote buying as a part of electoral politics. Adapted from the source document.

While inequality in Latin America has decreased, being poor and being of indigenous descent are still interchangeable. Uneven progress and policy dereliction with respect to indigenous groups have their consequences: increasingly organized indigenous movements in Latin America struggle today to reclaim and provide new spaces of citizenship around notions of local governance of natural resources and self-determination under harsh social realities. As globalization flattens production and consumption beyond the purview of the traditional nation-state, excluded groups like the indigenous peoples of Latin America have quickly assumed a position of political prominence. Indigenous movements fill the vacuum left by urban groups that today marginally participate in reaping the rewards of higher, commodity-driven growth. In Latin America, indigenous demands have turned into calls for constitutional reform against the interests of governments that wish to develop valuable mineral resources in indigenous regions. However, these indigenous movements are at a crossroads: while instrumental, their situation in political alliances is precarious as governments resort to capital-intensive strategies for the development of resources under their care. Si bien la desigualdad en América Latina ha disminuido, ser pobre y ser de ascendencia indígena aún son intercambiables. Progreso desigual y negligencia en el cumplimiento de políticas con respecto a los grupos indígenas tienen sus consecuencias: los movimientos indígenas cada vez más organizados de América Latina luchan hoy para reclamar y ofrecer nuevos espacios de la ciudadanía acerca de las nociones de gobernabilidad local de los recursos naturales y de la autodeterminación en virtud de las realidades sociales difíciles. Dado que la globalización aplana la producción y el consumo más allá del ámbito de competencia del Estado-nación tradicional, los grupos excluidos, como los pueblos indígenas de América Latina, han asumido rápidamente una posición de prominencia política. Los movimientos indígenas llenan el vacío dejado por los grupos urbanos que hoy participan marginalmente en recoger las recompensas del superior crecimiento del producto impulsado. En América Latina, las demandas indígenas se han convertido en reclamaciones para la reforma constitucional en contra de los intereses de los gobiernos que deseen desarrollar recursos minerales valiosos en las regiones indígenas. Sin embargo, estos movimientos indígenas se encuentran en una encrucijada: si bien instrumental, su situación en las alianzas políticas es precaria ya que los gobiernos recurren a estrategias de uso intensivo de capital para el desarrollo de los recursos bajo su cuidado.

Many people are familiar with Tocqueville's Democracy in America (1835). Yet it is not widely known that the French government originally sent Tocqueville to the United States in the early nineteenth century to report back on its prisons, not its democratic institutions and civil society. Tocqueville and his traveling companion Gustave de Beaumont arrived here to study the American penitentiary, which had become world famous by the 1830s. Tocqueville collected notes for his classic study of the social and political conditions of the new republic as he and Beaumont traveled from prison to prison, interviewing wardens and prisoners and collecting information about everything from living conditions to disciplinary practices. Tocqueville's paeans to democracy in Democracy in America are widely cited. Yet his and Beaumont's dark observations about the connection between the penal system and American democracy are seldom noted. Tocqueville and Beaumont warned nearly 200 years ago: "While society in the United States gives the example of the most extended liberty, the prisons of the same country offer the spectacle of the most complete despotism" (1833/1979, 79). Their dark observations are even truer today. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright The American Academy of Political and Social Science.]

AbstractCentred around a May 1970 shooting at the Israeli embassy in Asunción, this article traces a chain of actions and reactions that began with Israel's victory in the Six-Day War in June 1967 and ended after the June 1972 verdict of a Paraguayan court regarding two Palestinians. Situated among Israeli officials, Palestinian refugees and Syrian-Lebanese elites, authoritarian Paraguay was not only encompassed by but also accommodated the post-1967 Arab–Israeli conflict, revealing the connection between the 'areas' of South America and the Middle East through ideas about relocating Palestinians as well as their actual displacement.

A review essay covering books by 1) Marcelo Bergman and Laurence Whitehead (Eds.), Criminality, Public Security, and the Challenge to Democracy in Latin America (2009), 2) Hector Dominguez-Ruvalcaba and Ignacio Corona (Eds.), Gender Violence at the U.S.-Mexico Border: Media Representation and Public Response (2010), 3) Rosa-Linda Fregoso and Cynthia Bejarano (Eds.), Terrorizing Women: Feminicide in the Americas (2010), 4) Maria Helena Moreira Alves and Philip Evanson, Living in the Crossfire: Favela Residents, Drug Dealers, and Police Violence in Rio de Janeiro (2011), 5) Gabriela Polit Duenas and Maria Helena Rueda (Eds.), Meanings of Violence in Contemporary Latin America (2011), and 6) Irina Carlota Silber, Everyday Revolutionaries: Gender, Violence, and Disillusionment in Postwar El Salvador (2010).

Do big cities exert more power than less populous ones in American state legislatures? In many political systems, greater representation leads to more policy gains, yet for most of the nation's history, urban advocates have argued that big cities face systematic discrimination in statehouses. Drawing on a new historical dataset spanning 120 years and 13 states, we find clear evidence that there is no strength in numbers for big-city delegations in state legislatures. District bills affecting large metropolises fail at much higher rates than bills affecting small cities, counties, and villages. Big cities lose so often because size leads to damaging divisions. We demonstrate that the cities with the largest delegations—which are more likely to be internally divided—are the most frustrated in the legislative process. Demographic differences also matter, with district bills for cities that have many foreign-born residents, compared with the state as a whole, failing at especially high rates.

Although there is considerable evidence that religion influences political opinions, it is unclear how this story plays out across different segments of the U.S. population. Utilizing the 2000 Religion and Politics Survey, we examine the effects of religious beliefs, behaviors, and affiliations on citizens' attitudes relating to issues of egalitarianism. Our study is one of the few to comparatively analyze the link between religious measures and political outlooks for the nation's three largest ethno-racial groups. The findings show that conservative Christianity is consistently associated with less tolerant and less egalitarian views among whites. Religious African Americans and Latinos, however, hold more equitable opinions about disadvantaged individuals. To further strengthen our arguments, we also replicate these results using the 2008 American National Election Study. Overall, we demonstrate that a single perspective on religion and public opinion does not apply to all groups. Adapted from the source document.