To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Competitive authoritarianism, a specific type of hybrid regime, is gaining ground globally. Corruption is particularly prevalent in these contexts as regimes utilise it to consolidate their power. However, some competitive authoritarian regimes also take significant measures to curb certain types of corruption. The present article posits that competitive authoritarian regimes, acting as rational utility-maximising actors, curb or enhance corruption types based on the net costs and benefits—that is, net gains—they yield for the regime. To elucidate the factors influencing net gains, an explanatory framework is presented. Its three constituent elements are accountability costs, transaction costs, and political benefits. The applicability of the framework is demonstrated with case studies of two corruption types in Hungary, namely, informal payments in healthcare and clientelism in awarding tobacco retail concessions.
Previous research has indicated that the success of the directional model of issue voting depends on levels of political sophistication and how party position is measured. Using 1991 and 1995 Belgian Election Surveys, the predictive power of proximity and directional measures are compared controlling for both variables. It is shown that when one uses overall mean placements, instead of mean placements by level of political sophistication, the proximity effect declines most among the highly sophisticated voters. The article also compares the performance of the proximity and directional measures across party systems. Contrary to theoretical expectations, party–system differences between Flanders and Wallonia do not affect the explanatory power of either of these measures. It is only in the cases of the liberal, socialist and extreme right parties that the directional measure is clearly superior. A closer analysis of this result indicates that the relative success of the directional measure is due to the limited number of issues from which those parties draw support.
Is national policy more responsive to the preferences of white Americans than to those of people of color? To answer this fundamental question, we examine how well federal lawmaking reflects the preferences of 520,000 Black, Latino, Asian American, and white citizens from 2006 to 2022. Average racial gaps in responsiveness are small regardless of issue area. However, white voters are significantly advantaged when Republicans control the government. Respondents’ class, age, and ideology cannot explain this disparity. Respondents’ partisanship explains some, but not all, of it. To further investigate, we analyze roll call votes in Congress, focusing on the Senate—the pivotal lawmaking institution. Similar patterns emerge: Republican Senators better represent white (versus Black or Latino) constituents. Moreover, Black-white disparities are larger in states where Black Americans comprise more of the population. This suggests a role for white racial attitudes, and, indeed, we find that state-level white racial resentment predicts Black-white representational disparities.
Spontaneous mentalizing refers to the capacity to attribute mental states to oneself and others without explicit prompts or conscious deliberation. This process enables individuals to comprehend and anticipate social behaviors in a more intuitive manner. Individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia frequently demonstrate deficits in this domain, which contribute to impaired social functioning. The present meta-analysis aims to assess the extent of spontaneous mentalizing impairments in schizophrenia.
Methods
A comprehensive search was conducted in four prominent databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science. Following the review of the retrieved records and subsequent citation searching, a total of 15 studies were selected for inclusion in the quantitative synthesis. The data of 526 patients diagnosed with schizophrenia and 536 controls were subjected to analysis. Effect sizes for intentionality and appropriateness were computed utilizing weighted or standardized mean differences, and heterogeneity was evaluated.
Results
Patients with schizophrenia exhibited substantial impairments in intentionality and appropriateness during mentalizing tasks, with large effect sizes. No significant differences were observed in random movement tasks, although patients also demonstrated deficits in interpreting goal-directed movements. Furthermore, high heterogeneity in some outcomes and variability in study methodologies were also noted.
Conclusions
This analysis corroborates substantial spontaneous mentalizing deficits in schizophrenia, underscoring their potential role in impaired social functioning. In conjunction with previous analyses, the present findings emphasize the pervasive nature of mentalizing deficits in schizophrenia, encompassing explicit, implicit, and spontaneous dimensions. These results hold significant implications for therapeutic strategies designed to augment social cognition in individuals with schizophrenia.
Authored by three of the USA's most well-known scholars on American politics, this undergraduate textbook argues that racial considerations are today-and have always been since the nation's founding-central to understanding America's political system writ large. Drawing on decades of teaching experience and compelling original research, Hajnal, Hutchings, and Lee present an up-to-date and comprehensive survey of race's role in American democracy, spanning topics as wide-ranging as public opinion, voting behavior, media representation, criminal justice, social policy, and protest movements. The reader will examine the perspectives of multiple racial groups, learn how to bring empirical analysis to bear on deeply divided viewpoints, and debate solutions to the many problems of governance in an America that is polarized by party, riven by race, and divided by inequality. Chapters open with a vignette to introduce the core issues and conclude with discussion questions and annotated suggested readings. Full color photos, figures, and boxed features elaborate on and reinforce important themes. Instructor resources are available online.
Chapter Six begins by looking at how Americans of different racial and ethnic stripes think about politics and how these views have changed over time. This chapter looks not only at racial divisions in policy preferences but also at racial differences in public trust and confidence in institutions. Excerpts examine the echo chamber and skepticism over polling and the measurement of public opinion.
The outcomes that we should perhaps care most about are substantive representation and responsiveness, and in particular the extent to which policy matches the interests and preferences of different segments of the public. Here we systematically assess the link between individual preferences and aggregate policy outcomes and conclude that race, more than any other factor, determines who wins and who loses on policy. We also look at variation in responsiveness by time and across context to try to identify factors that lead to more equitable representation.
Our concluding chapter examines race, civil society, and social movements. What do political actors do when the chain of democratic accountability and responsiveness is broken? How do we understand the origins of protest movements and more radical forms of political participation? How do ordinary citizens in a diverse democracy contest and claim power for the people and effect change?
How can institutions be “racist?” What additional challenges are posed when bias is produced and reproduced by everyday institutional practices? This chapter traces the historical evolution of institutional discrimination from Reconstruction to the present, highlighting explicit legal and implicit policy-level discrimination in the Jim Crow era, the New Deal, and historical immigration policy. It also provides more in-depth analysis of the role of race in the present-day housing market, in the criminal justice system, and in election administration.
This framing chapter focuses on the nation’s founding and the salience of inequality and race that is baked into our founding documents. It also discusses the concept of democracy that prevailed at the time of the founding and why it represented a radical departure from the past influences of Anglo and French political thought. It introduces the concept of multiple political traditions within American democracy.
Here we first highlight the central role played by the vote and political participation in the democratic process. We then look at who votes and who participates in politics. The chapter underscores severe racial imbalances across most types of participation—both conventional and less conventional. It then seeks to explain these imbalances through a rigorous examination of factors like socioeconomic status, group identity and consciousness, institutions, and mobilization. We also look at the impact of uneven participation on outcomes in American democracy and introduce potential solutions for existing inequities.
Our next task is to delve more deeply into inputs into our system of government from public opinion to the media, parties, and elections. All of this, we hope, will inform us about the openness of our democracy and about the desires and actions of the public.
Chapters Ten through Fifteen ask: who wins office? What policies do they pursue? Whose voices are heard and whose are ignored? And ultimately how are these patterns of inclusion and exclusion reflected in core policy areas like criminal justice, voting rights, and social rights?
To what extent does race predict vote choice in the array of American elections? How does the impact of race compare with class, gender, age, and other demographic factors? And how has racially polarized voting changed in the face of the growing diversity of the American electorate? After demonstrating an increasingly close connection between race and the vote, this chapter seeks to explain the link between race and vote choice. Although we note that a series of nonracial factors account for some of the racial divide in the vote, research also clearly shows that racial considerations and increasing concerns about immigration greatly shape both sides of the vote. We also focus on the rise of nonpartisanship among the minority population and on the role that parties have played in the past and could play in the future in incorporating immigrants.
The chapter begins with a brief introduction to different conceptions of representation. It proceeds to focus on descriptive representation and the degree to which elected leaders in this nation have demographically mirrored the public over time. Despite enormous gains, it is clear that the halls of power remain overwhelmingly White. The text assesses the implications of the dearth of minorities in office for both policy and minority wellbeing. Next, we seek to understand the causes of the underrepresentation of minorities. We assess the role that institutions, financial resources, candidates, and, perhaps most importantly, White voters play in limiting minority representation.
This chapter covers the media, race, and politics. It begins by introducing the key concepts of priming, framing, and agenda-setting. It then offers a history of the use of race in electoral campaigns highlighting the difference between racially explicit and racially implicit frames on crime, welfare, and other policy areas. That history includes the progression from a Republican ‘Southern Strategy” focused primarily on race and African Americans to one increasingly focused on immigration and religion in recent years. The chapter then turns to different assessments of the impact of these campaigns. Excerpts cover media conglomeration and the debate over whether the media has a liberal bias and/or an anti-minority bias.