The #APSA2004 Annual Meeting took place at the Palmer House Hilton in Chicago, Ill. Below are some highlights of the George Soros dinner.
The APSR will be implementing new manuscript submission guidelines to promote transparency and interpretability in the journal. To accompany the guidelines, the editors have prepared this list of frequently asked questions.
Q1: How will APSR editors treat Institutional Review Board (IRB) rules, or their institutional equivalents, regarding use or dissemination of evidence, including requirements for confidentiality or anonymity of respondents?
A: The editors will honor IRB or equivalent institutional approvals regarding human subject protections. APSR editors expect that authors will have obtained IRB or equivalent approval at their home institution for research that involves human subjects and/or respondents.
Q2: Can authors decline to make evidence available if it will be difficult or impossible to preserve confidentiality or anonymity, even if the evidence is not explicitly covered by an IRB?
A: Yes. The editors will NOT ask authors to divulge information that may reveal identities of interview subjects who spoke on condition of anonymity, or to provide details that may endanger interview subjects. However, the editors may ask authors to provide a statement explaining why preservation of confidentiality and/or anonymity is essential.
Q3: How will APSR editors treat transparency requirements for data whose legality may be in question, such as Wikileaks?
A: The editors will review papers that employ data whose legality is in question, and will process such a paper in the same way as any other submission to the APSR. However, if the paper is accepted for publication, the authors will need to ascertain that they may legally use the data prior to the article appearing in print.
Q4: How will APSR editors treat transparency requirements for administrative datasets that, if combined with other datasets such as voter files, could reveal information about particular individuals?
A: In such cases, authors can provide an appendix with guidance regarding the steps others can take to obtain the data themselves.
Q5: Does transparency of archival material require active citation or TRAX? If not, what is needed in order for archival documents to be made sufficiently transparent?
A: The editors do not require use of active citation or Transparency Appendix (TRAX). Authors should try to provide clear and precise references to archival materials, with the objective of allowing others to locate the same materials by accessing the archives at which they are stored.
Q6: How much of my evidence must be made available if I use qualitative material such as quotations from interviews, coded open-ended survey questions, or contextual information derived from field notes to support an empirical claim in an APSR article?
A: Authors should provide—either through footnotes or an online appendix—sufficient information about the qualitative evidence to be able to persuade the reader that the arguments in the article are a fair representation of the research findings.
Q7: How do I show production and analytic transparency for research that is primarily ethnographic or based on participant observation—i.e., for which there is no precise interview protocol or systematic “procedures used to collect and/or generate” research materials (see APSR Submission Guidelines here).
A: The authors should produce a brief narrative that provides an account of the efforts in which they engaged. For example, they should explain the nature of their own participation or the procedures they used in the ethnography.
Q8: How long may I keep my research evidence or data private, so that I can develop additional publications before other scholars obtain access to the materials?
A: If the evidence or data are part of a larger project, the authors should only provide the portion that was used in producing the article published in the APSR.
Q9: Will authors be at a disadvantage if they choose to submit transparency-related materials after acceptance rather than at the time of submission?
A: No. Upon conditional acceptance authors are expected to provide sufficient information to proceed to full acceptance.
Q10: Will the APSR editors post data on transparency-related practices after the guidelines are implemented, including requests for exemptions and the type(s) of evidence submitted by authors?
A: Yes, these data will be included as a normal part of the editors’ annual report to APSA Council.
Note from the Editors
We emphasize that the editors do not believe that a “one-size-fits-all solution” is appropriate to promote transparency and interpretability in the APSR, given the diversity of scholarly work in our discipline. We hope the published guidelines and this FAQ demonstrate our continued commitment to maintain a fully inclusive APSR. That said, as editors, we reserve the right to request further information from authors, where appropriate.
We welcome further questions; please feel free to contact the editors at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Historical institutionalism challenged older forms of comparative historical analysis by moving away from purely structural explanations of historical outcomes. Instead it posited that there were critical junctures in which actors chose between institutional alternatives, which in turn led to path dependence. I examine a phenomenon neglected both by historical institutionalism and older forms of historical analysis—chronic instability. Instead of institutional lock-in, some junctures lead to periods of instability in which a series of regimes replace each other in rapid succession. Three different causal mechanisms that routinely contribute to chronic instability—external shocks, changing configurations of actors, and disjuncture between the logic of change and mechanisms of reproduction—are explored in depth. The plausibility of the theory is illustrated by an examination of regime instability in Germany from the collapse of the Empire in 1918 through the founding of the Federal Republic in 1949. [Read more.]
Chronic Instability and the Limits of Path Dependence by Michael Bernhard / Perspectives on Politics / Volume 13 / Issue 04 / December 2015, pp 976-991
The following letter, signed by 20 former, present, and future presidents of the American Political Science Association, was sent on January 7, 2016, to the editors of each of the 27 journals that signed the Journal Editors Transparency Statement (JETS). The JETS statement, followed by the list of journals, can be accessed at http://www.dartstatement.org/#!blank/c22sl. The letter expresses concern about the language in the JETS statement and asks journal editors to clarify how their journals will interpret these policies, so that they promote the goals of data access and research transparency while recognizing the legitimate concerns of scholars whose work includes the creation of original data sets, whose work is partly or wholly qualitative or interpretive, or whose work requires protecting the rights and well-being of human subjects.
[Editor’s name, title, and journal name]
Dear [Editor of journal],
We write to you in your capacity as [title, e.g., Editor-in-Chief] of the [journal name].
We are impressed, but also concerned, that so many top political science journals have simultaneously adopted the JETS (Journal Editors Transparency Statement).
The commitments expressed in the JETS are a milestone in the long efforts to improve research transparency and facilitate replication in political science. Many of us have strongly supported these efforts. Indeed, APSA formally adopted a commitment to research transparency and data access in its Ethics Guidelines in 2012. We welcome the journals’ commitments to move towards concrete implementation of the broad policy statements. We appreciate your joining in this difficult task. As (in many cases) former editors, we are sympathetic to the labor involved.
Nonetheless, we are concerned that the adoption by so many journals of the abbreviated interpretation of the APSA Ethics Guidelines expressed in the JETS statement may have unanticipated negative consequences. We are especially concerned by the reactions of many of our colleagues, who perceive that the JETS policies will severely constrain their research. We fear that the statement, unless fully explained, will hinder the development of original data and research in our discipline. These concerns are not inconsistent with the views expressed in the Statement on the Data Access and Research Transparency Initiative of November 24, 2015, by the current president, president-elect, and immediate former president.
We would urge, therefore, that each journal publish a more nuanced statement of the implementation of transparency policies. Some journals have already published such detailed statements or moved in that direction. We applaud this and urge others to follow.
The JETS statement seems to us (a) alarmingly vague in its declaration that “all relevant analytic materials” should be made available; (b) flawed in neglecting the admonition in the APSA Ethics Guidelines that the creators of new data sets should have first access and a period of personal use before making them available; (c) insufficiently sensitive to the many complexities of non-quantitative data; and (d) regrettably silent on the rights and well-being of human subjects, including confidential informants. The complexities of non-quantitative data have been discussed in many places and further deliberation and development is underway. We hope that the more detailed and nuanced statements specific to your particular journals would address these and other issues, providing both guidance and reassurance to publishing scholars.
We especially hope that these statements would recognize the complex balance between providing enough material to clarify process and facilitate replication, on the one hand, while on the other still enabling original creators of new data sets to publish specific pieces of research from the data as at the same time that they develop other and/or more comprehensive analyses with some protection for originality.
We would also hope that the detailed policy statements would recognize the on-going, dynamic nature of the replication and transparency movement, especially in the areas of qualitative data, and stress openness to a variety of approaches to achieve the broader goals and avoid research-chilling costs.
We stress that we are signing this statement as individuals, not as representatives of the American Political Science Association.
APSA President in 2011-2012
Sidney Verba, APSA President in 1994-1995
Arend Lijphart, APSA President in 1995-1996
M. Kent Jennings, APSA President in 1997-1998
Matthew Holden, Jr., APSA President in 1998-1999
Robert O. Keohane, APSA President in 1999-2000
Robert Jervis, APSA President in 2000-2001
Robert D. Putnam, APSA President in 2001-2002
Theda Skocpol, APSA President in 2002-2003
Margaret Levi, APSA President in 2004-2005
Robert Axelrod, APSA President in 2006-2007
Dianne Pinderhughes, APSA President in 2007-2008
Peter Katzenstein, APSA President in 2008-2009
Henry Brady, APSA President in 2009-2010
Carole Pateman, APSA President in 2010-2011
Jane Mansbridge, APSA President in 2012-2013
John Aldrich, APSA President in 2013-2014
Rodney E. Hero, APSA President in 2014-2015
Jennifer Hochschild, APSA President in 2015-2016
David A. Lake, APSA President-Elect.
I propose the concept of “ignoring” to capture situations in which government officials appear dismissive (either through inaction or contempt) of popular mobilization. The concept refers not only to actions by regime officials but also captures protesters’ perceptions of those actions. Examples of ignoring include not communicating with protesters, issuing condescending statements, physically evading protesters, or acting with contempt toward popular mobilization. Existing conceptual tools do not adequately capture these dynamics. Although repression and concessions have been extensively theorized, scholars lack conceptual tools to understand responses that fall short of both repression and concessions. I introduce the concept of “ignoring” as a useful tool to focus on a subset of actions on the part of regime officials who are the targets of mobilization, with discernible consequences for subsequent mobilization. Drawing on research on the role of emotions in protest politics and on framing and social movements, I argue that ignoring protests can trigger emotional responses that encourage people to engage in protest, such as anger, indignation, and outrage. By integrating protesters’ perceptions of the behavior of the targets of mobilization, not just of the security forces, the concept of “ignoring” helps explain protesters’ reactions and their future mobilization, in a way that conventional concepts such as tolerance cannot capture. This analysis has important implications for broader theoretical debates on the relationship between regime response to protests and subsequent mobilization. Most importantly, it urges scholars to consider how ignoring can interact with other responses to mobilization, thereby altering the dynamics of the infamous the “concession-repression dilemma.” I use evidence from workers’ protests in late Mubarak Egypt to illustrate these dynamics. [Read more.]
The Politics of Ignoring: Protest Dynamics in Late Mubarak Egypt by Dina Bishara / Perspectives on Politics / Volume 13 / Issue 04 / December 2015, pp 958-975
by Melani Cammett, Julia Lynch and Gavril Bilev
Using individual-level data from the 2008 European Social Survey and country-level health care financing data we analyze the influence of private financing of health care on political trust in twenty-five European countries. Net of known predictors of trust at the individual and country level, we find that trust in government is significantly lower where the health system is financed to a greater degree by private sources. This negative relationship occurs because in countries with more private financing, low-income citizens perceive themselves to be at greater risk for not receiving needed health care. This perception of risk is associated with more negative evaluations of the performance of the health care system, which in turn is associated with less trust in government.
When states do less to ensure the basic health care needs of members of society who are at greatest risk, these citizens may come to place less trust in government institutions. Hence, the increasing pressure on European governments to privatize the financing of health care in the wake of the financial crisis that is also characterized by growing income inequality threatens to make citizens trust government less. At the same time, implementation of the Affordable Care Act could signal a renaissance for political trust in the United States, if a growing role in the health care system is accompanied by a redistribution of risk. [Read more.]
The Influence of Private Health Care Financing on Citizen Trust in Government by Melani Cammett, Julia Lynch and Gavril Bilev / Perspectives on Politics / Volume 13 / Issue 04 / December 2015, pp 938-957
Since its English language publication last year, Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century has taken the world by storm, offering hard evidence to show how class inequalities are endemic to the historical development of capitalism. In the December 2015 issue of Perspectives on Politics, Leo Panitch tackles the insights and limitations of Piketty’s work, along with recently published books by Fred Block and Margaret Somers, Wolfgang Streeck, and Colin Crouch. Taking these arguments together, Panitch makes the case for why political science needs to once again critically assess how state institutions, not just in the developing world but also in the West, have become more dependent on capitalist accumulation, and what implications this will have on democracy and equality in the decades to come. [Read more.]
Capital and Politics by Leo Panitch / Perspectives on Politics / Volume 13 / Issue 04 / December 2015, pp 1075-1083
Capital in the Twenty-First Century. By Thomas Piketty. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014. 696p. $39.95 cloth.
The Power of Market Fundamentalism: Karl Polanyi’s Critique. By Fred Block and Margaret Somers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014. 312p. $49.95 cloth.
Buying Time: The Delayed Crisis of Democratic Capitalism. By Wolfgang Streeck. London: Verso, 2014. 240p. $95.00 cloth, $26.95 paper.
Making Capitalism Fit for Society. By Colin Crouch. Cambridge, UK: Polity 2013. 216p. $64.95 cloth, $19.95 paper.
Before the welfare state, people were protected from disabilities resulting from illness, old age, and other infirmities by care work provided within the family. When the state assumes responsibility for care-work tasks, in effect it assumes parental roles, thereby becoming a form of familial government in which the public provision of goods and services is analogous to care work provided in the family. My research pushes back the origins of the state’s obligation to care for people to a preindustrial form of government, hereditary monarchies—what Max Weber termed patrimonialism. It explicates how monarchs were cast as the parents of the people, thereby constituting kingship as a care work regime that assigned to political rulers parental responsibility for the welfare of the people. Using historical and quantitative analysis, I establish that retaining the legitimacy of monarchies as the first form of familial government in the course of Western European democratizing makes it more credible to the public and to political elites to accept the welfare state as the second form of familial government. That, in turn, promotes a more robust public sector supportive of social provision. The results reformulate conceptions of the contemporary welfare state and its developmental legacies. [Read more.]
Ripples from the First Wave: The Monarchical Origins of the Welfare State by Eileen McDonagh /Perspectives on Politics / Volume 13 / Issue 04 / December 2015, pp 992-1016