Suchergebnisse

Under which circumstances do two democracies involved in a dispute decide to pursue binding conflict management? I argue that the existing literature is incomplete. In order to fully understand why democratic decision makers choose arbitration or adjudication over alternative strategies, it is necessary to consider the social trust levels of the general populations in both states. During arbitration and adjudication, states give up sovereignty in a crucial domain of foreign policy. This loss of control should be less problematic for high-trusting societies than their low-trusting counterparts. If citizens are generally optimistic about the behavior of strangers, they are more likely to place their country's interests under the control of others. Furthermore, since the general population poses smaller constraints on decision makers in nondemocratic settings, I expect the effect of trust to be strongest in democratic dyads. An empirical analysis with a new data set of social trust provides support for this hypothesis.

Western societies show varying reactions to the challenges of immigration. This is especially true with regards to voting rights for immigrants. This article shows that previous research has neglected generalized trust as a powerful predictor for different degrees of inclusiveness in this policy area. Elections are the gateways to the political decision-making processes in all democracies. For members of the host society, extending voting rights to noncitizens means granting members of an 'out-group' direct influence on their own lives. This requires a 'leap of faith' that is only possible at higher levels of generalized trust.

AbstractSome common explanations of issue polarization and echo chambers rely on social or cognitive mechanisms of exclusion. Accordingly, suggested interventions like "be more open-minded" target these mechanisms: avoid epistemic bubbles and don't discount contrary information. Contrary to such explanations, we show how a much weaker mechanism—the preference for belief—can produce issue polarization in epistemic communities with little to no mechanisms of exclusion. We present a network model (with an empirically-validated structure) that demonstrates how a dynamic interaction between the preference for belief and common structures of epistemic communities can turn very small unequal distributions of initial beliefs into full-blown polarization. This points to a different class of explanations, one that emphasizes the importance of the initial spread of information. We also show how our model complements extant explanations by including a version of biased assimilation and motivated reasoning—cognitive mechanisms of exclusion. We find that mechanisms of exclusion can exacerbate issue polarization, but may not be the ultimate root of it. Hence, the recommended interventions suggested by extant literature is expected to be limited and the problem of issue polarization to be even more intractable.

This article explores the sources of public opinion about territorial disputes. Specifically, it investigates the impact of one particular character trait—social trust—on the policy preferences of Indian citizens in the context of the Sino-Indian dispute over Arunachal Pradesh/South Tibet. We argue that social trust shapes how a citizen thinks about a given territorial dispute and influences which policy options this individual favors in response to another country's claim. Our empirical analysis is based on original survey data collected in the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCT) in January/February 2017. In line with our theoretical expectations, we find that high-trust individuals are: (1) more likely to regard China's claim to Arunachal Pradesh/South Tibet as legitimate; (2) more willing to favor the onset of conflict management; and (3) more supportive of concessions. This article therefore adds to a growing literature examining the individual-level determinants of public opinion in territorial disputes.

Abstract
This article explores the sources of public opinion about territorial disputes. Specifically, it investigates the impact of one particular character trait—social trust—on the policy preferences of Indian citizens in the context of the Sino-Indian dispute over Arunachal Pradesh/South Tibet. We argue that social trust shapes how a citizen thinks about a given territorial dispute and influences which policy options this individual favors in response to another country's claim. Our empirical analysis is based on original survey data collected in the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCT) in January/February 2017. In line with our theoretical expectations, we find that high-trust individuals are: (1) more likely to regard China's claim to Arunachal Pradesh/South Tibet as legitimate; (2) more willing to favor the onset of conflict management; and (3) more supportive of concessions. This article therefore adds to a growing literature examining the individual-level determinants of public opinion in territorial disputes.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to detail a simulation exploring the academic and real-world debates surrounding constitutional design.Design/methodology/approachThe authors deployed this simulation in different contexts: undergraduate courses in comparative politics and middle school classrooms of gifted students in India.FindingsIn conjunction with discussion of institutional setup, such as parliamentary vs presidential systems and judicial review vs parliamentary sovereignty, the students were required to design a new constitution for a fictional country that just overthrew a brutal dictator. Throughout the simulation, the students were assigned to be the representatives of a particular ethnic group, each with distinct interests to be represented during the constitutional convention.Originality/valueThe authors detail the learning objectives and simulation setup for this constitutional convention. Finally, the authors discuss some issues raised by the students during the simulation.

In this paper, we explore how concerns about entrapment influence mass attitudes about armed support for an alliance partner. We focus on two separate dimensions of entrapment: allied crisis instigation and the risk of direct entanglement in a nuclear conflict. Our empirical analysis is based on US experimental survey data, collected in 2021. Our data analysis reveals two main findings. First, people are less likely to endorse military action in support of another country if that state is perceived as the instigator of a given military crisis. However, we find that allied crisis instigation only reduces individual-level support for certain types of military operations (cruise missile and nuclear strikes) but not others. Furthermore, even where significant, the substantive effect of our experimental vignette is fairly limited. This implies that US voters are not particularly sensitive to the potential for offensive entrapment in the US–South Korean alliance. Second, we find that nuclear deterrence threats from international rivals sap public support for military action. However, this is only true (1) for conventional military attacks and (2) if the US President does not provide a substantive justification for military intervention. As soon as leaders offer a detailed rationale for military action, the negative effect of foreign nuclear threats on support for the use of force disappears.

ABSTRACTDespite winning the presidency in 2016, Donald Trump alleged "millions of illegal votes" and other election fraud. He continued using this rhetoric throughout his tenure as president and ultimately suggested that if he did not win reelection in 2020, it would be because it somehow was stolen from him. Through an original survey experiment, this article explores how such allegations of fraud influence the public's attitudes toward the conduct of elections, election outcomes, representation, and democracy as a whole. In doing so, we found that respondents expressed significantly and substantively more negative attitudes toward elections and democracy after being exposed to claims of fraud (even without evidence). Additionally, Republican identifiers were more likely than Democrats or Independents to doubt that their vote was counted fairly. These results bear important implications for our current understanding of politics in the United States.