Place,candidate roots,and voter preferences in an age of partisan polarization: Observational and experimental evidence

Throughout the mid-twentieth century, scholars identified considerable contextual variation in American electoral politics. Party platforms varied significantly across the country, split ticket voting was commonplace, and candidate idiosyncrasies appeared to matter a great deal to voters. According to previous research, candidates' roots seemed especially important to voters, with “homegrown” candidates enjoying a boost at the polls. There is good reason to expect, however, that voters may no longer care about candidate roots. Partisan politics have polarized, both ideologically amongst elites and “affectively” amongst the electorate, continually since the mid-1990s (Mason, 2018). In addition, recent work suggests that American political behavior has “nationalized; ” meaning that national level partisan cues dominate voters' decision calculus, from presidential to mayoral races (Hopkins 2018). Both trends suggest little to no role for apolitical candidate characteristics to factor into voters' evaluations of candidates. To reassess voters’ appetite for homegrown candidates, this paper features observational and conjoint experimental studies designed to discern whether individuals in the United States still care about candidate roots. Results indicate that, despite trends of partisan polarization and nationalization, voters continue to consider candidate roots important. Furthermore, this preference appears especially strong among those with a strong place identity, suggesting that those for whom geographical identity is most important are particularly sensitive to geographical cues.     

Radicals,Tories or Monomaniacs? The Birmingham Currency Reformers in the House of Commons, 1832–67*

Benjamin Disraeli described Thomas Attwood as a ‘provincial banker labouring under a financial monomania’. The leader of the Birmingham Political Union, Attwood's Warwickshire accent and support for a paper currency were widely derided at Westminster. However, the themes of Attwood's brief parliamentary career were shared by the other men who represented Birmingham in the early‐ and mid‐Victorian period. None of these MPs were good party men, and this article illuminates the nature of party labels in the period. Furthermore, it adds a new dimension to the historical understanding of debates on monetary policy and shows how local political identities and traditions interacted with broader party identities. With the exception of Richard Spooner, who was a strong tory on religious and political matters, the currency men are best described as popular radicals, who consistently championed radical political reform and were among the few parliamentary supporters of the ‘People's Charter’. They opposed the new poor law and endorsed factory regulation, a progressive income tax, and religious liberty. Although hostile to the corn laws they believed that free trade without currency reform would depress prices, wages and employment. George Frederick Muntz's death in 1857 and his replacement by John Bright marked a watershed and the end of the influence of the ‘Birmingham school’. Bright appropriated Birmingham's radical tradition as he used the town as a base for his campaign for parliamentary reform. He emphasized Birmingham's contribution to the passing of the 1832 Reform Act but ignored the currency reformers' views on other matters, which had often been at loggerheads with the ‘Manchester school’ and economic liberalism.     

No proxy for quality: why journal rankings in political science are problematic for political theory research

ABSTRACT

Journal rankings for political science have been regularly published, from the 1970s onwards, by the American Political Science Association’s ‘state of the discipline’ journal. Politics journals have also been officially ranked by the Australian Political Studies Association into four bands (A*, A, B and C) from 2007 onwards. This article shows, first, that the assumption grounding these exercises (namely, that disciplinary journal rankings can serve as proxies for the quality of articles in their pages) is undermined by the findings of the broader research evaluation literature, especially with respect to sub-disciplines (like political theory, Australian politics, and some types of qualitative comparative politics) that bear certain characteristics. Next, outlining the findings of a 2018 survey, it is argued that the disciplinary use of journal rankings in political studies not only has damaging effects on research in political theory, but also advantages other sub-disciplines. The paper closes with two recommendations.     

Establishing political priority for regulatory interventions in waste management in Australia

ABSTRACT

This paper establishes a multi theory framework to help explain factors and conditions promoting a political priority for policy change. The framework’s analytical utility is illustrated through its application to a case study of waste management in Australia. A lack of political momentum to prioritise regulatory interventions has contributed to uncoordinated responses by the Australian federal and state governments resulting in unsustainable approaches to waste management. Lessons are derived from the analysis that provide insights into the potential for establishing political priority for policy change from uncoordinated voluntary schemes to more coordinated regulatory approaches.     

Policy capacity in disruptive times

ABSTRACT

In considering the widely held view that we have experienced an era of qualitative decline in policy provision, this paper briefly reviews four questions that appear to underlie such a view. Have there been identifiable transitions in deliberative processes, political practices and policy capacity in recent decades (and if so, what were the catalysts)? Has the relationship between policy practitioners and expert providers of policy advice changed (and if so, how)? Have channels of communication between the political/policy community and the research community deteriorated (and if so, why)? Has the political appreciation of public concerns and the public understanding of policy imperatives diminished? We use these to frame the results of a workshop in which researchers, policy practitioners and service providers participated. Our objective is to identify systematically the origin of contemporary policy problems, foreshadowing four articles that illuminate instances of success and failure in disruptive times.