Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-jb2ch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-25T12:38:14.827Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Determinants of Representatives' Votes on the Flake Amendment to End National Science Foundation Funding of Political Science Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2013

Joseph E. Uscinski
Affiliation:
University of Miami
Casey A. Klofstad
Affiliation:
University of Miami

Abstract

In May 2012, political scientists learned of efforts by representative Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to eliminate political science funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF) budget. The American Political Science Association (APSA) was caught off-guard, and concerned political scientists scrambled to contact their representatives and urge the amendment's defeat. Flake's initial effort to cut funds overall from the NSF was defeated, but a second measure, specifically to keep the NSF from funding political science, passed only hours later. This was the second time in three years that legislators targeted the NSF Political Science Program. Although these measures have been sponsored and widely supported by Republicans, some Democrats have supported these measures as well. This article examines the vote on the Flake Amendment to understand why individual representatives voted for or against cutting NSF funding for political science research.

Type
Features
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bawn, Kathleen, and Koger, Gregory. 2008. “Effort, Intensity and Position Taking: Reconsidering Obstruction in the Pre-Cloture Senate.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 20: 6792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardiff, Christopher, and Klein, Daniel B. 2005. “Faculty Partisan Affiliations in All Disciplines: A Voter-Registration.” Critical Review 17: 237–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
A Different Agenda.” 2012. Nature: International Weekly Journal of Science 487.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard. 1973. Congressmen in Committees. Boston, MA: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Klein, Ezra. 2012. “Jeff Flake's Plan to Politicize the National Science Foundation.” The Washington Post.Google Scholar
Lane, Charles. 2012. “Congress Should Cut Funding for Political Science Research.” The Washington Post.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. “Congressional Elections: The Case of the Vanishing Marginals.” Polity 6: 295317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress.” American Political Science Review 57: 4556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2007. Ideology and Congress. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Rocca, Michael, Sanchez, Gabriel R., and Uscinski, Joseph E.. 2008. “Descriptive Attributes of Latino Representatives.” Social Science Quarterly 89: 392405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, James M., and Groseclose, Tim. 2000. “Estimating Party Influence in Congressional Roll-Call Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 44: 193211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, Jacqueline 2012. “Political Scientists Are Lousy Forecasters.” The New York Times Sunday Review.Google Scholar
Tomz, Michael, Wittenberg, Jason, and King, Gary. 2001. “Clarify: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results.”Google Scholar
Uscinski, Joseph E., and Klofstad, Casey A.. 2010. “Who Likes Political Science?: Determinants of Senators' Votes on the Coburn Amendment.” PS: Political Science & Politics 43: 701–06.Google Scholar
Uscinski, Joseph, Rocca, Michael S., Sanchez, Gabriel R., and Brenden, Marina. 2009. “Congress and Foreign Policy: Congressional Action on the Darfur Genocide.” PS: Political Science and Politics 42: 489–96.Google Scholar