Suchergebnisse

Machine generated contents note: 1. Unions and the "World Labor Bazaar" --2. Globalization and Domestic Politics-An Overview 19 --3. Bargaining in a Global Economy 38 --4. Globalization and Union Density-An Empirical Analysis 54 --5. Varieties of Unionism, Explaining the Divergent 78 -- Effects of Globalization --6, Comparative Case Analysis of the United States, 91 -- Sweden and Germany --7. Multinational Workplaces and the Future of Unions 124

As populist parties and politicians have grown in prominence in democracies, scholars have turned their attention to the causes, and consequences, of populist attitudes among citizens. Some preliminary research indicates that individuals with populist attitudes are more likely to express support or tolerance for the use of violence to achieve political objectives. In this study, I examine this relationship further by investigating factors that mediate the effect of populism on endorsement of political violence. Using an original survey of more than 1300 subjects in the United States, I evaluate four elements that theoretically mediate the relationship between populism and support for political violence: economic grievances; distrust of political institutions; perception that social and demographic changes in the United States are threatening; and preferences for politically illiberal or nondemocratic rule. I find that the effect of populism on support for political violence is mediated through fear of social/demographic change and preference for illiberal rule but not through economic grievances or distrust of political institutions. Taken together, over 50% of the effect of populism on support for political violence is mediated through heightened anxiety about social and demographic changes in the U.S. and illiberal attitudes.

Does fear of terrorism prompt some residents of democracies to abandon the ideal of democratic rule and instead endorse non-democratic governance? If so, why? In this study, I theorize that fear of terrorism triggers intolerance of social outgroups which, in turn, contributes to the erosion of pro-democratic norms and embrace of authoritarian rule. I test this argument using an original survey of the US and an investigation of cross-national survey results from 23 democracies. I find that individuals who fear terrorism are more likely to endorse non-democratic governance and the effect of fear of terrorism on support for authoritarianism is mediated through increased racism and xenophobia.

A necessary component of peaceful democratic rule is the willingness of election losers to accept election defeats. When politicians and parties acknowledge defeat in democratic elections, they reinforce the peaceful transition of power that sustains political order. When election losers in democracies reject election results, the public's confidence in democratic institutions is weakened, grievances and polarization abound, and the potential for violent mobilization grows. In this environment, terrorist activity is more likely. I test this proposition using cross-national time series panel data and within-country public opinion data for a wide set of democracies. I find that democracies experience significantly more domestic terrorist casualties when election losers reject election results. Moreover, I find that public willingness to tolerate and justify terrorism as a tactic increases in democratic countries where election losers reject election results.

Does hate speech – rhetoric that targets, vilifies or is intended to intimidate minorities and other groups in society – fuel domestic terrorism? This question is, unfortunately, relevant given the convergence of the use of hate speech by political figures and domestic terrorist incidents in a variety of countries, including the United States. In this study I theorize that hate speech by politicians deepens political polarization and that this, in turn, produces conditions under which domestic terrorism increases. I test this proposition using terrorism and hate speech data for 135 to 163 countries for the period 2000 to 2017. I produce two findings. First, hate speech by political figures boosts domestic terrorism. Second, the impact of political hate speech on domestic terrorism is mediated through increased political polarization.