Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T16:13:16.517Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Notes from the Editor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2005

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Is political science the real dismal discipline? One might think so, given the head-shaking, hand-wringing, and tut-tutting for which political scientists are responsible during every election cycle. Too few citizens, we lament, take the trouble to vote, and too many of those who do vote base their decisions on superficial or whimsical grounds. The unease we feel as professionals-cum-citizens over the distance between the noble idea of elections-in-theory and the sorry conduct of elections-in-practice has a long pedigree. In the first century A.D., Juvenal decried the tendency of imperial politicians to sweep serious policy issues under the rug by satiating the populace with panem et circenses. Colonial-era British politicians also courted votes with food and drink. The famous 1757 painting “Canvassing for Votes” by William Hogarth depicts vote-seekers gaining electoral support based upon their skills as genial hosts, not policy advocates. In many American cities, elections have long been notoriously corrupt, the classic case being New York's Tammany Hall and its ethos of “I seen my opportunities and I took ‘em.” Today, as fledgling democracies around the world are holding elections, they are experiencing many of the forms of electoral corruption and graft that have become so familiar in more established democracies, and undoubtedly they are devising some new forms as well.

Type
NOTES FROM THE EDITOR
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 99 , Issue 3 , August 2005 , pp. iii - viii
Copyright
© 2005 by the American Political Science Association

In This Issue1

Drafted by APSR editorial assistant Lee Michael.

Is political science the real dismal discipline? One might think so, given the head-shaking, hand-wringing, and tut-tutting for which political scientists are responsible during every election cycle. Too few citizens, we lament, take the trouble to vote, and too many of those who do vote base their decisions on superficial or whimsical grounds. The unease we feel as professionals-cum-citizens over the distance between the noble idea of elections-in-theory and the sorry conduct of elections-in-practice has a long pedigree. In the first century A.D., Juvenal decried the tendency of imperial politicians to sweep serious policy issues under the rug by satiating the populace with panem et circenses. Colonial-era British politicians also courted votes with food and drink. The famous 1757 painting “Canvassing for Votes” by William Hogarth depicts vote-seekers gaining electoral support based upon their skills as genial hosts, not policy advocates. In many American cities, elections have long been notoriously corrupt, the classic case being New York's Tammany Hall and its ethos of “I seen my opportunities and I took ‘em.” Today, as fledgling democracies around the world are holding elections, they are experiencing many of the forms of electoral corruption and graft that have become so familiar in more established democracies, and undoubtedly they are devising some new forms as well.

Argentina cast off military rule just two decades ago. Susan C. Stokes demonstrates that parties there, as elsewhere, use material inducements and social pressures to try to gain support on Election Day. In “Perverse Accountability: A Formal Model of Machine Politics with Evidence from Argentina,” Stokes uses a broad range of methodological tools to analyze the electoral tactics of political machines. Her analysis should be of particular interest to both comparativists and Americanists, and it should serve more generally as a reminder of both the promise and pitfalls of electoral democracy.

Argentina reappears in Tulia G. Falleti's “A Sequential Theory of Decentralization: Latin American Cases in Comparative Perspective.” Decentralization is often seen as empowering subnational leaders at the expense of the central government. Falleti argues instead that decentralization has administrative, fiscal, and political dimensions, the combination of which does not inevitably lead to greater subnational power. Rather, the interplay of sequence and interlevel interests determines the course and consequences of decentralization. Local leaders prefer autonomy, money, and then responsibility, but a different ordering could leave subnational governments burdened with unfunded mandates. Based on fresh ideas and revealing interviews with local officials in several Latin American countries, Falleti's study is likely to lead to a reconsideration of widely accepted ideas about decentralization and its effects.

In many established democracies, greens, ultra-nationalists, and other non-“mainstream” parties, once mere footnotes in electoral politics, are “playing with the big boys now.” Bonnie M. Meguid examines the emergence and performance of new, single-issue, or “niche” parties in “Competition Between Unequals: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy in Niche Party Success.” Existing explanations, Meguid argues, pay insufficient heed to the mainstream parties' strategic responses to the threat that niche parties pose to their hegemony. Accordingly, Meguid develops a modified spatial model and uses it to assess the impact of mainstream parties' strategies on the electoral performance of niche parties in 17 Western European countries.

Notwithstanding Vince Lombardi's dictum that “Winning isn't everything—it's the only thing,” winning elections is only the first hurdle for political parties. The task of governing remains. But do parties really matter insofar as governing is concerned, or—at least in the American context—is party just a label? This question divides students of congressional politics. Much debate has taken place at the theoretical level, with each side ceding little ground to the other. In “Uncovering Evidence of Conditional Party Government: Reassessing Majority Party Influence in Congress and State Legislatures,” William T. Bianco and Itai Sened take the discussion to the next level by evaluating expectations drawn from the competing theories. Drawing on data from several sessions of Congress and several state legislatures, Bianco and Sened conclude that party leaders are more like chessmasters than cat-herders, often using their influence to set the agenda and to structure outcomes in favor of their parties' interests. These findings constitute an important addition to our understanding of the role of parties in legislatures and provide a foundation for additional research.

Issues involving race and ethnicity are never far from center stage in the play of American politics. Paul Frymer takes contemporary explanations of racism to task for emphasizing individual-level psychological factors at the expense of institutional ones. Making innovative use of data from the National Labor Relations Board's handling of cases of alleged racism in union elections, Frymer explores how rules, institutions, and politics can contribute to individual acts of racism. Both general readers and specialists in the politics of race and ethnicity will find much of interest in “Racism Revisited: Courts, Labor Law and the Institutional Construction of Racial Animus.”

Other than their shared focus on international relations and negotiations, the next three articles in this issue may seem to have little in common. Each of them, however, demonstrates that a human touch is often necessary to navigate safely through various diplomatic pitfalls and obstacles.

In an era of globalization and free trade, governments are often conflicted about honoring international trade agreements, lest they be viewed as insincere abroad, without angering citizens anxious about job security, lest they risk defeat at the polls. This Putnamesque insight underlies B. Peter Rosendorff's “Stability and Rigidity: Politics and Design of the WTO's Dispute Settlement Procedure.” Rosendorff argues that the World Trade Organization's dispute settlement procedure enables states to have it both ways by suspending their obligations temporarily during periods of increased domestic pressure for protectionism. Because this analysis assesses the balance between rigidity and stability in the design of international institutions, is likely to resonate across a wide readership, ranging from scholars concerned with institutional design to those concerned more generally with the relationship between the international and domestic arenas and the effect that this intersection has on policy outcomes.

People behave differently—often “better”—when they know they are being watched. That, according to Jennifer Mitzen, is particularly true for diplomats who must explain their country's positions to other diplomats across the negotiating table; the simple act of talking things out in a visible, public forum can “refine and enlarge” views of allies, adversaries, and even enemies. Mitzen's “Reading Habermas in Anarchy: Multilateral Diplomacy and Global Public Spheres” contributes significantly to international relations scholarship by treating horizontal discourse between states as a public sphere capable of legitimating state action and mitigating anarchy, and broadens the theoretical foundation for scholars interested in a wide range of topics, including the security dilemma, global governance, the democratic peace, and discourse theory.

Before trying to scale a high fence, it can help to throw something valuable over the top first; that should enhance the motivation to succeed. Political leaders employ a similar logic when they publicly predict negotiating successes in hopes of precluding unwanted compromises or concessions, argue Bahar Leventoglu and Ahmer Tarar in “Prenegotiation Public Commitment in Domestic and International Bargaining.” The structure of the bargaining situation provides incentives to overstate one's goals, which, in turn, should maximize one's potential gains. The danger is that when all parties at the table use this tactic, the likelihood of deadlock is greatly increased. Leventoglu and Tarar's analysis provides a formal proof of the common wisdom that agreements and compromises are best forged in secret, as Middle East peace negotiators, constitutional convention delegates, and sequestered cardinals can all attest.

Large-N or small? Both approaches to comparative research have their advantages and their limitations. In “Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research,” Evan S. Lieberman offers a much-needed guide for combining the two approaches in a single research design, in the form of a nested analysis. A mixed strategy of using the large-N approach in case selection and casual inference and the small-N approach to inform measurement and model specification can, Lieberman contends, greatly enhance the methodological quality of research and thereby bolster the validity and reliability of research results.

Few predictions have ever seemed safer than one that was issued in our November 2003 “Notes from the Editor,” to the effect that Sebastian Rosato's “The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory” would be “sure to stir controversy.” The trio of responses to Rosato's article that appear in the “Forum” section of the current issue indicate the great interest and high feelings that surround democratic peace theory. The controversy turns less on the empirical regularity of peace between democracies itself than on the explanation for this phenomenon. Is there something inherently different about the modus operandi of democracies, as democratic peace theory advocates contend, or has a pax Americana imposed order and stability over Western Europe and the New World during the post-World War II era, as realists like Rosato argue?

In “No Rest for the Democratic Peace”, David Kinsella argues that because democratic peace theory is dyadic in its logic, not monadic, much of Rosato's monadically-based analysis is off-target. Branislav L. Slantchev, Anna Alexandrova, and Erik Gartzke, in “Probabilistic Causality, Selection Bias, and the Logic of the Democratic Peace,” find in Rosato's analysis an insufficient appreciation of the probabilistic nature of democratic peace theory, and go on to raise concerns about the impact of selection bias on the substantive results that he reports. Returning in “Three Pillars of the Liberal Peace” to the Kantian basis of democratic peace theory, Michael W. Doyle reminds all involved that republican representation, support for human rights, and transnational interdependence work to produce democratic peace only conjointly.

Responding to these critiques in “Explaining the Democratic Peace?,” Rosato stands by his original points. To Kinsella, Rosato concedes that the empirical regularity on which democratic peace theory is based is dyadic, but emphasizes that the six original logics he identified are monadic. To the methodological concerns of Slantchev, Alexandrova, and Gartzke, Rosato does not disagree that the theory is probabilistic, but sees it as failing even when understood as such; he also argues that new evidence on accountability makes the selection bias charge unconvincing. Finally, Rosato concurs with Doyle that Kantian democracies will rarely go to war but sees their co-pacifism as having little to do with democracy.

This four-sided exchange concludes the discussion insofar as the APSR is concerned, but another safe prediction is that it will not conclude the discussion overall. As debate and research continue on the root causes of war and peace, we hope that this “Forum” exchange will play a useful role in clarifying the remaining theoretical, conceptual, and methodological issues.

INSTRUCTIONS TO CONTRIBUTORS

General Considerations

The APSR strives to publish scholarly research of exceptional merit, focusing on important issues and demonstrating the highest standards of excellence in conceptualization, exposition, methodology, and craftsmanship. Because the APSR reaches a diverse audience of scholars and practitioners, authors must demonstrate how their analysis illuminates a significant research problem, or answers an important research question, of general interest in political science. For the same reason, authors must strive for a presentation that will be understandable to as many scholars as possible, consistent with the nature of their material.

The APSR publishes original work. Therefore, authors should not submit articles containing tables, figures, or substantial amounts of text that have already been published or are forthcoming in other places, or that have been included in other manuscripts submitted for review to book publishers or periodicals (including on-line journals). In many such cases, subsequent publication of this material would violate the copyright of the other publisher. The APSR also does not consider papers that are currently under review by other journals or duplicate or overlap with parts of larger manuscripts that have been submitted to other publishers (including publishers of both books and periodicals). Submission of manuscripts substantially similar to those submitted or published elsewhere, or as part of a book or other larger work, is also strongly discouraged. If you have any questions about whether these policies apply in your particular case, you should discuss any such publications related to a submission in a cover letter to the Editor. You should also notify the Editor of any related submissions to other publishers, whether for book or periodical publication, that occur while a manuscript is under review by the APSR and which would fall within the scope of this policy. The Editor may request copies of related publications.

If your manuscript contains quantitative evidence and analysis, you should describe your procedures in sufficient detail to permit reviewers to understand and evaluate what has been done and, in the event that the article is accepted for publication, to permit other scholars to carry out similar analyses on other data sets. For example, for surveys, at the least, sampling procedures, response rates, and question wordings should be given; you should calculate response rates according to one of the standard formulas given by the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys (Ann Arbor, MI: AAPOR, 2000). This document is available on the Internet at <http://www.aapor.org/default.asp?page=survey_methods/standards_and_best_practices/standard_definitions>. For experiments, provide full descriptions of experimental protocols, methods of subject recruitment and selection, subject payments and debriefing procedures, and so on. Articles should be self-contained, so you should not simply refer readers to other publications for descriptions of these basic research procedures.

Please indicate variables included in statistical analyses by capitalizing the first letter in the variable name and italicizing the entire variable name the first time each is mentioned in the text. You should also use the same names for variables in text and tables and, wherever possible, should avoid the use of acronyms and computer abbreviations when discussing variables in the text. All variables appearing in tables should have been mentioned in the text and the reason for their inclusion discussed.

As part of the review process, you may be asked to submit additional documentation if procedures are not sufficiently clear; the review process works most efficiently if such information is given in the initial submission. If you advise readers that additional information is available, you should submit printed copies of that information with the manuscript. If the amount of this supplementary information is extensive, please inquire about alternate procedures.

The APSR uses a double-blind review process. You should follow the guidelines for preparing anonymous copies in the Specific Procedures section below.

Manuscripts that are largely or entirely critiques or commentaries on previously published APSR articles will be reviewed using the same general procedures as for other manuscripts, with one exception. In addition to the usual number of reviewers, such manuscripts will also be sent to the scholar(s) whose work is being criticized, in the same anonymous form that they are sent to reviewers. Comments from the original author(s) to the Editor will be invited as a supplement to the advice of reviewers. This notice to the original author(s) is intended (1) to encourage review of the details of analyses or research procedures that might escape the notice of disinterested reviewers; (2) to enable prompt publication of critiques by supplying criticized authors with early notice of their existence and, therefore, more adequate time to reply; and (3) as a courtesy to criticized authors. If you submit such a manuscript, you should therefore send as many additional copies of their manuscripts as will be required for this purpose.

Manuscripts being submitted for publication should be sent to Lee Sigelman, Editor, American Political Science Review, Department of Political Science, The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052. Correspondence concerning manuscripts under review may be sent to the same address or e-mailed to .

Manuscript Formatting

Manuscripts should not be longer than 45 pages including text, all tables and figures, notes, references, and appendices. This page size guideline is based on the U.S. standard $8.5×11-inch paper; if you are submitting a manuscript printed on longer paper, you must adjust accordingly. The font size must be at least 11 points for all parts of the paper, including notes and references. The entire paper, including notes and references, must be double-spaced, with the sole exception of tables for which double-spacing would require a second page otherwise not needed. All pages should be numbered in one sequence, and text should be formatted using a normal single column no wider than 6.5 inches, as is typical for manuscripts (rather than the double-column format of the published version of the APSR), and printed on one side of the page only. Include an abstract of no more than 150 words. The APSR style of embedded citations should be used, and there must be a separate list of references at the end of the manuscript. Do not use notes for simple citations. These specifications are designed to make it easier for reviewers to read and evaluate papers. Papers not adhering to these guidelines are subject to being rejected without review.

For submission and review purposes, you may place footnotes at the bottom of the pages instead of using endnotes, and you may locate tables and figures (on separate pages and only one to a page) approximately where they fall in the text. However, manuscripts accepted for publication must be submitted with endnotes, and with tables and figures on separate pages at the back of the manuscript with standard indications of text placement, e.g., [Table 3 about here]. In deciding how to format your initial submission, please consider the necessity of making these changes if your paper is accepted. If your paper is accepted for publication, you will also be required to submit camera-ready copy of graphs or other types of figures. Instructions will be provided.

For specific formatting style of citations and references, please refer to articles in the most recent issue of the APSR. For unusual style or formatting issues, you should consult the latest edition of The Chicago Manual of Style. For review purposes, citations and references need not be in specific APSR format, although some generally accepted format should be used, and all citation and reference information should be provided.

Specific Procedures

Please follow these specific procedures for submission:

  1. You are invited to submit a list of scholars who would be appropriate reviewers of your manuscript. The Editor will refer to this list in selecting reviewers, though there obviously can be no guarantee that those you suggest will actually be chosen. Do not list anyone who has already commented on your paper or an earlier version of it, or any of your current or recent collaborators, institutional colleagues, mentors, students, or close friends.
  2. Submit five copies of manuscripts and a diskette or CD containing a pdf file of the anonymous version of the manuscript. If you cannot save the manuscript as a pdf, just send in the diskette or CD with the word-processed version. Please ensure that the paper and diskette or CD versions you submit are identical; the diskette or CD version should be of the anonymous copy (see below). Please review all pages of all copies to make sure that all copies contain all tables, figures, appendices, and bibliography mentioned in the manuscript and that all pages are legible. Label the diskette or CD clearly with the (first) author's name and the title of the manuscript (in abridged form if need be), and identify the word processing program and operating system. If you are unable to create a diskette or CD, please note this in your submission, and you will be asked to e-mail the appropriate file.
  3. To comply with the APSR's procedure of double-blind peer reviews, only one of the five copies submitted should be fully identified as to authorship and four should be in anonymous format.
  4. For anonymous copies, if it is important to the development of the paper that your previous publications be cited, please do this in a way that does not make the authorship of the submitted paper obvious. This is usually most easily accomplished by referring to yourself in the third person and including normal references to the work cited in the list of references. In no circumstances should your prior publications be included in the bibliography in their normal alphabetical location but with your name deleted. Assuming that text references to your previous work are in the third person, you should include full citations as usual in the bibliography. Please discuss the use of other procedures to render manuscripts anonymous with the Editor prior to submission. You should not thank colleagues in notes or elsewhere in the body of the paper or mention institution names, web page addresses, or other potentially identifying information. All acknowledgments must appear on the title page of the identified copy only. Manuscripts that are judged not anonymous will not be reviewed.
  5. The first page of the four anonymous copies should contain only the title and an abstract of no more than 150 words. The first page of the identified copy should contain (a) the name, academic rank, institutional affiliation, and contact information (mailing address, telephone, fax, e-mail address) for all authors; (b) in the case of multiple authors, an indication of the author who will receive correspondence; (c) any relevant citations to your previous work that have been omitted from the anonymous copies; and (d) acknowledgments, including the names of anyone who has provided comments on the manuscript. If the identified copy contains any unique references or is worded differently in any way, please mark this copy with “Contains author citations” at the top of the first page.

No copies of submitted manuscripts can be returned.

ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO THE APSR

Back issues of the APSR are available in several electronic formats and through several vendors. Except for the last three years (as an annually “moving wall”), back issues of the APSR beginning with Volume 1, Number 1 (November 1906), are available on-line through JSTOR (http://www.jstor.org/). At present, JSTOR's complete journal collection is available only via institutional subscription, e.g., through many college and university libraries. For APSA members who do not have access to an institutional subscription to JSTOR, individual subscriptions to its APSR content are available. Please contact Member Services at APSA for further information, including annual subscription fees.

Individual members of the American Political Science Association can access recent issues of the APSR and PS through the APSA website (www.apsanet.org) with their username and password. Individual nonmember access to the online edition will also be available, but only through institutions that hold either a print-plus-electronic subscription or an electronic-only subscription, provided the institution has registered and activated its online subscription.

Full text access to current issues of both the APSR and PS is also available on-line by library subscription from a number of database vendors. Currently, these include University Microfilms Inc. (UMI) (via its CD-ROMs General Periodicals Online and Social Science Index and the on-line database ProQuest Direct), Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) (through its on-line database First Search as well as on CD-ROMs and magnetic tape), and the Information Access Company (IAC) (through its products Expanded Academic Index, InfoTrac, and several on-line services [see below]). Others may be added from time to time.

The APSR is also available on databases through six online services: Datastar (Datastar), Business Library (Dow Jones), Cognito (IAC), Encarta Online Library (IAC), IAC Business (Dialog), and Newsearch (Dialog).

The editorial office of the APSR is not involved in the subscription process to either JSTOR for back issues or the other vendors for current issues. Please contact APSA, your reference librarian, or the database vendor for further information about availability.

BOOK REVIEWS

The APSR no longer contains book reviews. As of 2003, book reviews have moved to Perspectives on Politics. All books for review should be sent to the Perspectives on Politics Book Review Editor, Jeffrey C. Isaac. The address is Professor Jeffrey C. Isaac Review Editor, Perspectives on Politics, Department of Political Science, Woodburn Hall 1100 E. 7th St., Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405-7110. E-mail: .

If you are the author of a book you wish to be considered for review, please ask your publisher to send a copy to the Perspectives on Politics Book Review Editors per the mailing instructions above. If you are interested in reviewing books for Perspectives on Politics, please send your vita to the Book Review Editors; you should not ask to review a specific book.

OTHER CORRESPONDENCE

The American Political Science Association's address, telephone, and fax are 1527 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 483-2512 (voice), and (202) 483-2657 (fax). E-mail: . Please direct correspondence as follows.

Information, including news and notes, for PS:

Circulation and subscription correspondence (domestic claims for nonreceipt of issues must be made within four months of the month of publication; overseas claims, within eight months):

Advertising information and rates:

EXPEDITING REQUESTS FOR COPYING APSR AND PS ARTICLES FOR CLASS USE AND OTHER PURPOSES

Class Use

The Comprehensive Publisher Photocopy Agreement between APSA and the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) permits bookstores and copy centers to receive expedited clearance to copy articles from the APSR and PS in compliance with the Association's policies and applicable fees. The general fee for articles is 75 cents per copy. However, current Association policy levies no fee for the first 10 copies of a printed artide, whether in course packs or on reserve. Smaller classes that rely heavily on articles (i.e., upper-level undergraduate and graduate classes) can take advantage of this provision, and faculty ordering 10 or fewer course packs should bring it to the attention of course pack providers. APSA policy also permits free use of the electronic library reserve, with no limit on the number of students who can access the electronic reserve. Both large and small classes that rely on these articles can take advantage of this provision. The CCC's address, telephone, and fax are 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400 (voice), and (978) 750-4474 (fax). This agreement pertains only to the reproduction and distribution of APSA materials as hard copies (e.g., photocopies, microfilm, and microfiche).

The Association of American Publishers (AAP) has created a standardized form for college faculty to submit to a copy center or bookstore to request copyrighted material for course packs. The form is available through the CCC, which will handle copyright permissions.

APSA also has a separate agreement pertaining to CCC's Academic E-Reserve Service. This agreement allows electronic access for students and instructors of a designated class at a designated institution for a specified article or set of articles in electronic format. Access is by password for the duration of a class.

Please contact your librarian, the CCC, or the APSA Reprints Department for further information.

APSR Authors

If you are the author of an APSR article, you may use your article in course packs or other printed materials without payment of royalty fees and you may post it at personal or institutional web sites as long as the APSA copyright notice is included.

Other Uses of APSA-Copyrighted Materials

For any further copyright issues, please contact the APSA Reprints Department.

INDEXING

Articles appearing in the APSR before June 1953 were indexed in The Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature. Current issues are indexed in ABC Pol Sci; America, History and Life 1954–; Book Review Index; Current Contents: Social and Behavioral Sciences; EconLit; Energy Information Abstracts; Environmental Abstracts; Historical Abstracts; Index of Economic Articles; Information Service Bulletin; International Index; International Political Science Abstracts; the Journal of Economic Literature; Periodical Abstracts; Public Affairs; Public Affairs Information Service International Recently Published Articles; Reference Sources; Social Sciences and Humanities Index; Social Sciences Index; Social Work Research and Abstracts; and Writings on American History. Some of these sources may be available in electronic form through local public or educational libraries. Microfilm of the APSR, beginning with Volume 1, and the index of the APSR through 1969 are available through University Microfilms Inc., 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 (www.umi.com). The Cumulative Index to the American Political Science Review, Volumes 63 to 89: 1969–95, is available through the APSA.