Suchergebnisse

Using quantitative and qualitative evidence, Sumner shows how consumer boycotts can work to dissuade companies from donating money to politicians, but may also encourage companies to attempt influence by largely invisible means. Boycotts do not work as many people expect - by threatening sales. Instead, Sumner shows how boycotts are less a statement of consumer behaviour than a way for people to signal their political inclinations, and they primarily hurt companies by tarnishing their reputation. Political influence is about building relationships, which means that companies have many more options for influence than just PAC contributions and formal lobbying. With these options available, companies can decide how to influence politics when they need to, and the tarnish of boycotts to a company's image can push some businesses to pursue options that are less noticeable to the public.

Using quantitative and qualitative evidence, Sumner shows how consumer boycotts can work to dissuade companies from donating money to politicians, but may also encourage companies to attempt influence by largely invisible means. Boycotts do not work as many people expect - by threatening sales. Instead, Sumner shows how boycotts are less a statement of consumer behaviour than a way for people to signal their political inclinations, and they primarily hurt companies by tarnishing their reputation. Political influence is about building relationships, which means that companies have many more options for influence than just PAC contributions and formal lobbying. With these options available, companies can decide how to influence politics when they need to, and the tarnish of boycotts to a company's image can push some businesses to pursue options that are less noticeable to the public.

AbstractCompanies often donate to support public service delivery in US cities. Although this can help alleviate budgetary struggles for those governments, it is unclear what effect it may have on the individual residents receiving the services. In this paper, we argue that people who receive services funded in part by corporate donations are less likely to hold their local governments accountable if the services are of poor quality, because they no longer conceive of themselves as being the sole set of interests the government is catering to. We test our theory using a survey experiment with a realistic fictional government email and find evidence that, when compared with people receiving strictly taxpayer-funded services, people who are told services are provided in part by companies are less likely to take the quality of services into account when they vote.

After publication of Esarey and Sumner, we recognized substantively significant errors in the paper. We correct those errors here. We discovered these errors as part of work on another, unrelated paper to which one co-author hoped to apply similar methods. The Brambor et al. procedure is overconfident when separately testing multiple hypotheses, as correctly stated in our paper. However, when conjointly testing multiple hypotheses, the Brambor et al. procedure is appropriate. The procedure we suggest on pp. 1161–1163 to correct for overconfidence in the case of separate testing of multiple hypothesis (based on Benjamini and Hochberg) is (to our knowledge) correct, but subject to several limitations unstated in the paper. This corrigendum lays out all errors and limitations and adds a more robust procedure to our interactionTest software.

AbstractAmerican consumers are routinely reminded of the fact that the products sold by American companies are often manufactured abroad. We use a survey‐based priming experiment to explore whether and when those reminders depress Americans' enthusiasm for free trade. We consider in particular that offshoring's effects on policy preferences may be linked to negative perceptions of the offshoring firm, such that portraying the offshoring firm in a positive light might mitigate that effect. We also consider that offshoring's effect may be exaggerated among individuals whose position in the labor market makes them especially sensitive to trade‐related labor market disruption. Our experiment suggests support for both propositions.

AbstractExisting research has found that American politicians benefit from trying to attract investment and creates jobs. In this paper, we build on this work by describing the drivers of Americans' attitudes toward inward foreign investment (FDI). We posit that foreign and Chinese investment are different than domestic investment in the public imagination and that nationalism and proximity to deindustrialization interact to shape public opinion about them. We propose and test two theories of this interaction using a survey experiment that randomizes whether a respondent is responding to a statement about "business investment," "foreign business investment," or "Chinese business investment". We find that (1) Americans are skeptical of business investments by Chinese, and, to lesser degree, "foreign" firms; (2) the gap in enthusiasm for generic business investment and foreign/Chinese business investment rises with local trade-related job losses; and (3) the distinction between nationalists' and non-nationalists' attitudes toward FDI declines in local job losses.

ABSTRACTStart-up packages vary enormously, particularly across institutions, and not all faculty know what items they may negotiate for to support their probationary period. To demystify this part of the hidden curriculum, we discuss the components of start-up packages and other benefits that may be provided to new faculty at the time of hire. We focus on five broad topics: compensation and personal support, general support, research support, teaching support, and service and professional development. Drawing on the results of a survey of tenure-track assistant political science professors in the United States, we also provide an overview of the prevalence of a variety of items at different types of institutions and discuss other considerations in the negotiation process to close the knowledge gap for candidates during negotiations.

Although local government is a rich, important arena for understanding politics, local politics presents a few challenges for understanding and participating in it. To better explore comparative urban politics, we turn to reddit, a social media, news, and discussion platform. We ask if city subreddits are places of discussion of local politics and what can we learn about the salience of local topics, and about local politics, from the content of these subreddits. Using visualization and text analysis, we find that city subreddits are indeed forums for political discussion, finding that approximately a quarter of the topics on city subreddits are political in nature. We observe that people discuss matters including, but not limited to, taxation, policing and crime, homelessness, and education. We conclude with areas for future study, including, most prominently, the rise of nationalized local politics, such as minimum wage increases and body cameras, increasingly discussed and organized on the national stage.