Suchergebnisse

ch 1. Introduction / by Immanuel Wallerstein -- ch. 2. Ecology and the geography of capitalism / by Ana Esther Cecena -- ch. 3. Economic inequality, stratification, and mobility / by Roberto Patricio Korzeniewicz and Timothy Patrick Moran -- ch. 4. Cities / by Peter J. Taylor, Michael Hoyler, and Dennis Smith -- ch. 5. Peasantries / by Eric Vanhaute, Hanne Cottyn, and Yang Wang -- ch. 6. Large enterprises and corporate power / by Jorge Fonseca -- ch. 7. Intellectual property / by Ravi Sundaram -- ch. 8. The States / by Atilio A. Borom and Paloma Nottebohm -- ch. 9. Citizenship / by Oleksandr Fisun and Volodymyr Golovko -- ch. 10. Women's spaces and a patriarchal system / by Linda Christiansen-Ruffman -- ch. 11. Deviance / by Ari Sitas. [et al.] -- ch. 12. Conclusion / by Immanuel Wallerstein.

Cover -- Half Title -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Table of Contents -- Acknowledgments -- Chapter 1 Introduction -- Chapter 2 Ecology and the Geography of Capitalism -- Chapter 3 Economic Inequality, Stratification, and Mobility -- Chapter 4 Cities -- Chapter 5 Peasantries -- Chapter 6 Large Enterprises and Corporate Power -- Chapter 7 Intellectual Property -- Chapter 8 The States -- Chapter 9 Citizenship -- Chapter 10 Women's Spaces and a Patriarchal System -- Chapter 11 Deviance -- Chapter 12 Conclusion -- Bibliography -- About the Author.

Congressional debates are increasingly defined by gridlock and stalemate, with partisan showdowns that lead to government shutdowns. Compromise in Congress seems hard to reach. But do politicians deserve all the blame? Legislators who resist concessions and stand firm to their convictions might be doing just what voters want them to do. If this is true, however, then citizens must shoulder some of the responsibility for gridlock in Congress. This book challenges this wisdom and argues that Americans value compromise as a way to resolve differences in times of partisan division. Using evidence from a variety of surveys and innovative experiments, the book demonstrates that citizens want more from politics than just ideological representation - they also care about the processes by which disagreements are settled.

Inequality and Neighbourhood Change: Context, Concept, and Process / Larry S. Bourne and J. David Hulchanski -- Plus ça Change: Neighbourhood Inequality in Canadian Cities since 1900 / Richard Harris -- Using Social Dimensions and Neighbourhood Typologiesto Characterize Neighbourhood Change / Ivan Townshend and Robert Murdie -- Inequality and Neighbourhood Change in the Greater Toronto Region / Alan Walks -- Montreal: The Changing Drivers of Inequality between Neighbourhoods / Xavier Leloup and Damaris Rose -- The Social Geography of Uneven Incomes in Metropolitan Vancouver / David Ley and Nicholas Lynch -- Hamilton: Poster Child for Concentrated Poverty / Richard Harris -- Halifax: Scaling Inequality / Jill L. Grant and Howard Ramos -- Neighbourhood Change in Calgary: An Evolving Geography of Income Inequality and Social Difference / Ivan Townshend, Byron Miller, and Derek Cook -- People, Policies, and Place: Winnipeg's Indigenized and Internationalized Inner-City Neighbourhoods / Jino Distasio and Sarah Zell -- Mapping Canada's Fragmented Social Policy Space: Plotting Ways to Reverse Trends in Inequality and Segregation through Coordinated Poverty Reduction / Scott Graham, Stephanie Procyk, and Michelynn Laflèche -- Evaluating Neighbourhood Inequality and Change: Lessons from a National Comparison / Jill L. Grant, Alan Walks, and Howard Ramos.

"Political Polarization in American Politics provides short, accessible chapters about the nature and extent of political polarization within the American public and in American political institutions. These chapters capture the central ideas and debates in political science research on polarization, and are written by leading scholars in this subfield. Each chapter is accompanied by discussion questions and a guide to further reading, making this a great addition to any course looking at issues of polarization"--

This dissertation examines the polarizing effects of electoral competition in Kenya's multiethnic democracy. I argue that polarization results from a combination of the messages parties use to demonize opponents and the tendency by voters to accept more readily messages from co -ethnic leaders. The argument starts with an investigation of campaign targeting decisions. I show, contrary to much of the existing ethnic politics literature, that in Kenya the competition for swing groups (ethnic communities that do not have a co-ethnic leader in the presidential race) is at the heart of electoral contests. The need to attract support across group lines drives message development, leading parties to craft appeals that communicate their inclusive intentions while relying on negative ethnic messages to vilify opponents as ethnic chauvinists. I argue that because of the strong association between ethnicity and trust, voters in the ethnic communities associated with the leading parties internalize messages offered by distinct sets of political elites during campaigns. The result is that negative ethnic appeals exacerbate divisions across communities during the race. To develop and test these claims, I draw on a wide range of empirical evidence collected from Kenya's four multiparty races since the reintroduction of competitive presidential elections in 1991

"When questions of belonging enter the forefront of political debates, so too does heritage. From different ends at the political spectrum, people invoke the past to validate their stance on immigration, equality and security. In the wake of European crises and a polarized US political landscape, heritage is invoked to both halt and embrace immigration, as well as to resist and further globalization. Essays demonstrate how ancient monuments and sites, bygone eras and political regimes, even your genetic ancestry, can become wrapped up in polarized political debates. Together, the texts pave the way for a better understanding of the role of the heritage in society"--

The objective of this paper is to explain populist attitudes that are prevailing in a number of European democracies. Populist attitudes usually lead to social protests and populist votes. We capture the populist wave by relying on values that are traditionally viewed as populist—such as distrust of institutions and neighbors, rejection of migrations and strong preferences for law and order—rather than on voting behavior. Our study covers the period 2004 to 2018 and 25 European countries for which we match aggregated indicators of populist values and social polarization based on ESS and SILC survey micro-data. We show that social polarization varies dramatically across European regions, but at the same time some convergence is observed. Our estimations confirm, in most cases, a positive and statistically significant relation between social polarization and populist attitudes. ; Peer reviewed

America is divided by two clashing views about individual responsibility. Liberals see many people as not completely responsible for the situation they are in, their opportunities limited by their class, race, and sex. Distribution of outcomes is therefore seen as unjust, and the government has to help offset the limits people face. In contrast, conservatives believe individuals can and must live their lives with a presumption of personal responsibility for what happens. Government assistance is not seen as valuable, but as creating dependency and ultimately crippling to those who receive it.

America is "currently fighting its second Civil War." Partisan politics are "ripping this country apart." The 2016 election "will go down as the most acrimonious presidential campaign of all." Such statements have become standard fare in American politics. In a time marked by gridlock and incivility, it seems the only thing Americans can agree on is this: we're more divided today than we've ever been in our history. In Unstable Majorities Morris P. Fiorina surveys American political history to reveal that, in fact, the American public is not experiencing a period of unprecedented polarization. Bypassing the alarmism that defines contemporary punditry, he cites research and historical context that illuminate the forces that shape voting patterns, political parties, and voter behavior. By placing contemporary events in their proper context, he corrects widespread misconceptions and gives reasons to be optimistic about the future of American electoral politics.