Suchergebnisse

"Students of history, politics, economic change, social hierarchy, and even Fascism will view this book as provocative and indispensable. It illuminates how plagues, blockades, migrations, and such world-changing innovations as the invention of printing precipitate political and social revolutions in some societies but peaceful adaptation in others"--

In the fourteenth century, the Black Death killed as much as two thirds of Europe's population; in the fifteenth, the introduction of moveable-type printing rapidly expanded Europe's supply of human capital; between 1850 and 1914, Russia's population almost tripled; and in World War I, the British blockade starved some 800,000 Germans. Each of these, Shocking Contrasts argues, amounted to an unanticipated shock, positive or negative, to the supply of a crucial factor of production; and elicited one of four main responses: factor substitution; factor movement to a different sector or region; technological innovation; or political action, sometimes extending to coercion at home or conquest abroad. This book examines parsimonious models of factor returns, relative costs, and technological innovation. It offers a framework for understanding the role of supply shocks in major political conflicts and argues that its implications extend far beyond these specific cases to any period of human history.

Frontmatter -- Contents -- List of Illustrations -- List of Tables -- Preface and Acknowledgments -- List of Abbreviations -- CHAPTER ONE Why Changing Exposure to Trade Should Affect Political Cleavages -- CHAPTER TWO The Revolutionary Expansion of Trade, 1840 to 1914 -- CHAPTER THREE The Interwar Period and the Depression of the 1930s: The Decline and Fall of World Trade -- CHAPTER FOUR Renewed Expansion of Trade, 1948 to the Present -- CHAPTER FIVE Earlier Periods of Changing Trade: Classical Greece, the Declining Roman Empire, and Sixteenth-Century Europe -- CHAPTER six Some Implications for Other Theories and Conjectures in the Social Sciences -- CHAPTER SEVEN Conclusion -- Appendix -- Bibliography -- Index

This book confronts one of the central questions of political science: how people choose to accept or not to accept particular governments. In contrast to the prevailing view that citizens' decisions about the legitimacy of their governments are strongly conditioned by political culture and socialization and are hence largely non-rational, Ronald Rogowski argues that such decisions may indeed be the product of rational choice. The book proceeds both from recent work in the theory of voting and constitutional choice and from the older tradition of contract theory to postulate that decisions a

This book confronts one of the central questions of political science: how people choose to accept or not to accept particular governments. In contrast to the prevailing view that citizens' decisions about the legitimacy of their governments are strongly conditioned by political culture and socialization and are hence largely non-rational, Ronald Rogowski argues that such decisions may indeed be the product of rational choice. The book proceeds both from recent work in the theory of voting and constitutional choice and from the older tradition of contract theory to postulate that decisions a

Political science produces highly policy-relevant research, but politicians ignore it in favor of their own (or their supporters') biases. I give examples from such fields as anti-immigrant politics, political business cycles and the politics of redistribution. The sole area in which politicians do attend closely to scholarly research is where it assists their own efforts at electoral success (e.g. effect and duration of political advertising). But politicians equally ignore the expertise of climatologists, physicists, biologists, economists and even spies, where that expertise contradicts their own preferred policies. All of this points more to a problem of democratic politics than of political (or any other) science.

We report on the journal's operations during the year from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011. We once again express our thanks to the APSA: Presidents Brady and Pateman, the staff (especially Michael Brintnall and Polly Karpowicz), Council, and Publications Committee. (While we have enjoyed ready access to previous presidents, it has been a new experience to have an APSA president right down the hall from the lead editor.) Members of our Editorial Board, this year as last, have given us wise counsel on more than a few submissions. Joseph Riser, our senior editor, has continued his seemingly tireless and unflappable service; and our editorial assistants, Joslyn Barnhart, Darin Dewitt, and Beltrán Undurraga, have pulled together in harness as have few previous teams, keeping our technical processing rapid and our backlog almost always at zero. As rotation on the panel of co-editors continues, we express our profound gratitude to departing editor Jeff Lewis, who exhibited a new level of masochism by becoming UCLA department chair, but who also agreed to finish (and since has finished) all of his pending assignments and to be available for consultations on an "as needed" basis. We also thank, once again, the authors who submitted their papers for consideration, the referees who reviewed them, and the patience, dedication, and forbearance that all demonstrated.

We report here on the journal's operations during the year from July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2010.

We report here on the journal's operations during the year from July 1, 2008, to June 30, 2009. In doing so, we want first to express our thanks to the APSA: its staff, Council, and Publications Committee, both for good advice and for important material support. The impact of both is documented, albeit only partially, in the following article. The APSR Editorial Board and its Executive Committee have also been invaluable, and we have benefited particularly from the concentrated counsel that a subcommittee provided during a two-day site visit to UCLA in July. Editorial Board members have also given unstintingly of their time to serve as guest editors on UCLA-connected submissions that might otherwise raise conflicts of interest. We owe very special debts of gratitude to our Senior Editor, Joseph Riser, whose serene and wise disposition seems never to falter; our graduate editorial assistants (EAs), Megan Gallagher, Diana Ichpekova, Rebekah Sterling, and Matt Spence; two of our original co-editors, Kathleen Bawn and Michael Chwe, who gave extraordinarily dedicated service but decided to leave the group effective July 1, 2009; and Gary Cox (UCSD) and Arthur Lupia (Michigan), who agreed to join our weekly meetings via videoconference—in Gary's case, for the long term; in Skip's, temporarily. Finally, we thank the authors of the nearly 700 papers submitted to us and the over 2,000 referees who gave, unremunerated and anonymously as always, their astute and often admirably detailed counsel.

Call it a bad equilibrium or a self-reinforcing cycle—APSR has clearly been stuck in one for many years when it comes to qualitative research in political science (with "qualitative" understood to include all branches of methodology associated with the qualitative tradition, broadly defined). We, as the current team of Editors, want to break the cycle. We want to see, and have hoped from the beginning to see, a lot more excellent qualitative work in the Review. We regret that that has not happened, and we hope that this brief missive can be the beginning of a new and more successful effort.