Search results

ObjectiveCompare the impact of being a racial minority for influencing political trust as measured by the standard, NES‐developed measures with its impact on assessments of the capacity of decisionmakers to make racially unbiased spending and hiring decisions. Additionally, to examine the political trust of American Indians, an understudied racial minority.MethodsBivariate and multivariate analysis of 2004 and 2008 National Annenberg Election Study survey data.ResultsSelf‐designation as a racial minority exercises small, inconsistent effects on the standard measures of political trust and external efficacy. When citizens are asked whether Caucasian government officials make decisions on spending and hiring to advantage whites to the disadvantage of blacks and Hispanics, racial minorities state that they expect racial bias. American Indians reveal levels of political trust similar to those held by other racial minorities.ConclusionAn increasingly multiracial society will experience considerable tensions as minorities distrust government decisionmakers of a different race. These tensions will continue to be exploited by ambitious political elites.

This paper explores the relationship between size, type and location of agency and representation of women and minorities in state government agencies through an examination of the recent demographic data on full-time employees in the state governments of Michigan and Pennsylvania. Findings indicate that while type and location of agency are directly linked to female representation in Pennsylvania and Michigan, these variables are not related to minority representation. Women are likely to be overrepresented in redistributive agencies and agencies located in large cities. Surprisingly, size of agency is not linked to female or minority representation in either of these states. Further, women and minorities tend to be overrepresented in clerical and paraprofessional jobs and underrepresented in administrative and technical jobs, as past studies demonstrated. African Americans are well represented, whereas other minorities, such as Hispanics and Asian Americans, are poorly represented in these states.

To what extent do ethnic minority groups influence foreign policy? This question hinges on the impact of cross-border ties between ethnic groups & the extent to which a minority ethnic group can "capture" foreign policy despite opposition from the majority in both democratic & autocratic regimes. The evidence suggests that ethnicity matters, but in a limited fashion: ethnic ties can heighten diplomatic conflict, influence decisions to provide support for insurgent groups, & exacerbate international crises. Yet these ties have little impact on decisions by governments to impose economic sanctions & are far from the primary determinant of international armed conflict. Ethnicity is but one cleavage over which political mobilization might occur, & one that neither scholars nor politicians should reify. 1 Table. Adapted from the source document.

Twenty-six out of twenty-seven Tex cities of more than 50,000 population are surveyed to determine employment opportunities for minority group members in municipal government at various levels. Spanish-surnamed persons are much better represented at professional levels & higher ranks than are blacks. r & regression analysis shows that educational attainments & LF representation are more significant explanatory factors for Spanish-surnamed than black municipal government representation at higher levels. Blacks appear to readily find employment only in large central cities, while Spanish-surnamed persons are more represented in cities with stabler residential patterns & lower manufacturing employment. This suggests the need for federal equal opportunity policies to take into account the different factors involved in the situations of different minorities. 3 Tables. W. H. Stoddard.

Abstract: To what extent do ethnic minority groups influence foreign policy? This
question hinges on the impact of cross-border ties between ethnic
groups and the extent to which a minority ethnic group can "capture"
foreign policy despite opposition from the majority in both democratic
and autocratic regimes. The evidence suggests that ethnicity matters,
but in a limited fashion: ethnic ties can heighten diplomatic conflict,
influence decisions to provide support for insurgent groups, and
exacerbate international crises. Yet these ties have little impact on
decisions by governments to impose economic sanctions and are far from
the primary determinant of international armed conflict. Ethnicity is
but one cleavage over which political mobilization might occur, and one
that neither scholars nor politicians should reify.