The Heinz Eulau prize is awarded annually for the best article published in the American Political Science Review and for the best article published in Perspectives on Politics in the calendar year. It carries a prize of $750. Special thanks go to Cambridge University Press for support of the new prize given in 2005, recognizing scholarship in Perspectives on Politics.
In 2004, the APSA Council acted to incorporate the best paper published in Perspectives in Politics under the umbrella of the Heinz Eulau Award, as well as the best paper published in APSR. This action was taken to allow APSA to recognize articles in Perspectives on Politics in a way parallel with APSR, without transgressing a council moratorium on new awards. As we build up award endowment, we expect in the future that the two awards will be separated. To manage the effort involved in selecting best articles for two journals, APSA President Margaret Levi, in consultation with the Award Committee Chair, increased the number of appointees to the Eulau Committee from 3 to 5, and suggested that two members focus on APSR articles and two on Perspectives on Politics articles, with the chair acting as the swing participant and coordinating voice.
Matthew T. Pietryka is an assistant professor of political science at Florida State University. His broad research interests include political behavior, social networks, political communication, and political psychology. His recent work explores how individuals’ locations in their social networks interweave with their geographic locations, creating patterns of segregation and shaping their perceptions of the political world. This work examines how these socially- and geographically-segregated perceptions facilitate the spread of various norms, values, and political preferences.
Pietryka and DeBats’s article leverages the as-yet unmined historical data to analyze the impact of individuals’ social networks on their likelihood to vote and on their partisan choices. The authors reconstruct voters’ social proximity to elites in 19th-century statewide and municipal elections in Virginia and Kentucky by pairing newly discovered records of viva voce voting in those elections with archival data from public sources and church memberships, and show that individuals that are more socially proximate to elites are more likely to turn out to vote, and individuals that are more socially proximate to a given political party’s elites are more likely to vote for that party. Pietryka and DeBats’ strategy of analysis allows them to evaluate the network effects on a much broader set of connections than the few most immediate social connections of each individual. The authors also distinguish between the effect on voting participation of individuals who are centrally placed in the network and the effect of social proximity to elites. The former effect is not unequivocally positive and depends on the voting behavior of those central individuals: it is positive if they vote, but negative if they don’t. By contrast, social proximity of individuals to elites consistently encourages voting, by giving individuals more access to political information, reducing their cost of voting, strengthening their sense of political efficacy and putting social pressures on them to vote. Pietryka and DeBats’ analysis of historical datasets bear out their general hypothesis, which is also supported by the analysis of a contemporary dataset on municipal elections in Williamsburg, VA. The article by Pietryka and DeBats constituted an impressive piece of scholarly research, and a worthy winner of the 2018 Eulau Award.