This paper develops a dynamic theory of the social and political foundations of governance quality. In the model, groups of citizens have different expected needs for a public service, and citizens choose whether to demand service when the need arises. Politicians representing these groups can determine policy benefits and delegate to bureaucrats the ability to invest in long-run service quality. The main feature of the theory is its foundation for citizen–government interactions, which draws from well-known queueing models of organizational service provision. The model provides a framework for characterizing the effectiveness and durability of government programs. A main implication is that politicized bureaucracies improve program survivability and increase the frequency of investment, while insulated bureaucracies increase the intensity of investment; overall service quality trades off between these two factors. Other results examine the implications of cross-group inequality, electoral conditions, and decentralization.

The broad use of the “dictatorial” powers granted by the German constitution to the president and the widespread popular demand for constitutional and administrative reform are the two dominant themes of political discussion in Germany today. Both are centered in the problem of what place the executive power occupies, and should occupy, in the German constitutional order. In this age of dictatorship and national concentration, the question is by no means peculiar to Germany. But the German situation contains a number of unusual features which it is the object of this paper to make more vivid and understandable. To this end, I shall first sketch the earlier history of a rather independent executive, then show the place of the executive power in the ordinary parliamentary system of the Weimar constitution, and finally discuss the emergence of a more independent executive under the presidential emergency power.

Conventional comparisons of national industrialization strategies place a strong emphasis on the cultural development of a modern ethic of work performance as an important component of effectively attaining industrial growth. In the case of Czarist and Soviet Russia, most studies maintain that Russian workers are exceptional inasmuch as they have always lacked a modern work ethic and therefore remain necessarily less productive than the more ethically disciplined work forces of Europe, Japan, and North America. However, such studies fail to deal with the problems of Soviet industrialization and distort the actual historical processes of Western capitalist industrialization. This analysis argues that a modern work ethic has developed within the Soviet workplace since 1917. it maintains that the social origins of this cultural code of disciplined labor are to be found, in large part, in the cultural values and group practices of the radical Russian intelligentsia before 1914, a group that provided the concrete class bases of the Bolshevik reconstitution of Marxism as a culture-transforming ideology for industrializing Russia.

The article is a methodological examination of public choice analysis, with particular reference to the currently topical policy field of natural resources. It is also a methodological critique of public choice analysis on logical, epistemological, and normative grounds. Its purpose is to make scholars of natural resources management aware of the substantive and methodological features of the public choice approach to the field, and to make public choice scholars and philosophers of science aware of the methodological grounds of the approach.

The so-called hard core of concepts of public choice are first described in relation to the natural resource policy field, and the selection of these hard core concepts, as well as their distinguishing features from political science, economics, and public administration, are justified. The argument is advanced that the hard core is interrelated by the methodological criterion of logical consistency—one interpretation of the notion of rationality—and the criterion accounts for the impetus behind the growth of the paradigm. It is also argued that the paradigm is buttressed and protected from rival approaches at an epistemological level, and it is shown that a variety of epistemologies have been linked to the approach. Finally, I argue that the congruence of public choice with this variety of epistemologies makes many of the criticisms about the normative implications of the approach inaccurate and misleading.

Like all languages, the language of American law can liberate or confine thinking. Its confining power is illustrated by the absence of the radical “group rights” claim in the Bakke litigation despite the prominence of that argument in the popular debate over affirmative discrimination. This absence establishes the limitations of the metaphor developed to give meaning to the concept “persons” in the equal protection context. While capable of investing the corporation with many of the attributes of “personhood” as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment, the metaphor makes absurd the claim of a racial group to exercise rights or privileges distinct from those of its members. This analysis illuminates the metaphorical structure of law language and concludes that the restricted range of metaphorical thinking in law weakens the law's capacity to mediate struggles over social goals.

Professors Converse and Rusk have replied to my present paper in two different ways: the former by a short, sharp rejoinder and the latter by a longer and more diffuse article. For space reasons alone, my commentary on their remarks must be concise; and while there is much which I should like to discuss further, there comes a time when the case must be sent to the jury.

It is best, I think, to confine most of my comments on Philip Converse's Note to the last half of it. We begin with The American Voter and the SRC “paradigm” as I see them. Having also reread this book, I will go even further in my praise of it than Converse has. It is not only a meticulous piece of scholarship; it is also truly a classic, a seminal work which justly gives permanent professional honor to those who wrote it. A seminal work is one which not only contributes to knowledge but permanently reorganizes the shape of a scholarly field. This can be done only by providing a conceptual framework for the myriad nonseminal but essential scholarly activities which take place in that field thereafter. As a meticulous piece of work, The American Voter was indeed qualified and judicious in its statements and generalizations. It also had at least as much sensitivity to the time dimension as could be expected for 1960.

The 1944 action of the Supreme Court voiding the white primary ended the last effective legal block to Negro voter registration in the South. After that, resort to legal steps to block Negro registration was either outlawed by the courts or else could only be a delaying device. In the state of Louisiana, however, the decision in Smith v. Allwright did not result in Negro registration comparable to white registration. In 1956, twelve years later, 30 percent of the potential Negro voting population was registered, compared to 73 percent of the whites. This study is an investigation of some factors in that discrepancy, and in particular, of the differences in registration between Catholic and Protestant areas.

An important characteristic of Negro registration in Louisiana is the extreme range of variation to be found among the several parishes. Table I shows 17 parishes with fewer than 20 percent of the eligible Negroes registered, and 11 parishes with 70 percent or more of the potential Negro vote registered. Therefore, the statewide “average” percentage of Negro registration has little meaning without more detailed interpretation.

The crucial feature of the period 1946–1958 in France, in many respects, has been the contrast between the changes which have occurred in French society and the performance of a political system which seemed to repeat and to magnify the vices of the Third Republic's last years. On the one hand, the image of a static France obstinately clinging to protectionism, to a pastoral or artisanal ideal, to the security afforded by restrictive practices and state favors, was becoming obsolete. On the other hand, the political system appeared unable either to deal with the tensions, economic growth and change created in society, or to define a coherent policy for overseas affairs.

At the meeting of the Political Science Association last year, in the general discussion, on the subject of the recall, I was surprised and I must admit, a little shocked to hear our recall of judges compared to the English removal of judges on address of the houses of parliament.

If we must compare unlike things, rather than place the recall beside the theory or the practice of the joint address, I should even prefer to compare it to a bill of attainder.

In history, theory and practice the recall as we have it and the English removal by joint address have hardly anything in common, save the same general object.

Though I may not (as I do not) believe in the recall of judges, this paper concerns itself not at all with that opinion, but only with the history and nature of the tenure of English judges, particularly as affected by the possibility of removal on address. I believe a study of that history will show that any attempt to force the address into a close resemblance to the recall, whether for the purpose of furthering or of discrediting the latter, is utterly misleading.

In the history of the tenure of English judges the act of 12 and 13 William III, subsequently known as the Act of Settlement, is the greatest landmark. The history of the tenure naturally divides into two parts at the year 1711. In dealing with both parts, for the sake of brevity, I shall confine myself strictly to the judges who compose what since 1873 has been known as the supreme court of judicature.

This article presents a model of decision making and introduces a new theoretical variable to the literature, namely, the modes of decision making. The theoretical focus is on the face-to-face group, and the article also develops an innovative methodology for studying this type of decision-making behavior. Variation in the decision modes is explained as a function of the strategic considerations of individual decision makers. These considerations are affected by a set of four independent variables: structure of the decision group, substance of the conflict, context of the conflict, and the decision process. The data, drawn from observations of decision-making groups in Switzerland, are tested with discriminant analysis and a simulation. In both cases total correct classifications exceed 55 percent, indicating that there is a meaningful structure relating variation in the decision modes to the theoretical framework.

The question of whether campaign contributions buy roll-call votes is both important and contentious. Although researchers often find positive correlations between the two, it is difficult to conclude that these correlations are causal because interest groups may be simply giving to their supporters rather than attempting to change members’ voting behavior. In this paper we use a pair of votes on antisugar subsidy amendments to investigate the causal effects of contributions on voting. With multiple votes we can control for the supportiveness of the district or member by using fixed effects. We find strong evidence that changing contribution patterns caused significant changes in the probability that a district or member would vote to support the sugar industry (i.e., against the amendments). Our results hold in both district and incumbent fixed effects models and also when we redefine the time window for measuring relevant contributions.

The prominence of colonization in Tocqueville's life and works has been widely noted, yet scholars disagree about its importance. The perceived tension between Tocqueville's analysis of democracy and his advocacy of colonization continues to be the subject of heated scholarly debate. Revisiting Tocqueville's analytical and practical engagement with colonization, this essay reexamines its relationship to Tocqueville's account of democracy. It argues that, while lending political support to the French empire, Tocqueville was a clairvoyant critic of colonial rule; and that his involvement with colonization could only be properly understood in light of the historical and civilizational vista that informs his oeuvre as a whole. Proposing that Tocqueville viewed European expansionism as an instrument of the global movement toward democratic equality, the essay concludes with an assessment of the significance of Tocqueville's colonial writings for his “new political science,” and their relevance today.

Who is deemed vulnerable and in need of protection has a bearing on important policy decisions, such as refugee acceptance or provision of aid. In war, dominant narratives construe women as paradigmatic victims, even while civilian men are disproportionately targeted in the most lethal forms of violence. How are such gender-essentialist notions reflected in public opinion? Do regular citizens have inaccurate perceptions of male victimization in war, and with what consequences for their policy preferences? We carried out survey experiments among U.S. and U.K. respondents on both real and hypothetical conflicts, where we emphasized or varied the gender of the victims. In support of our expectations, respondents consistently underestimate the victimization of men, perceive civilian male victims as less innocent, and hold anti-male biases when it comes to accepting refugees and providing aid. However, informing respondents of the vulnerability of male civilians to targeted assassinations and massacres mitigates these effects.

Neorealism and some versions of realism seek to furnish nomothetic theories of the international system at the same time that they also strive to prescribe policy for political leaders. Insofar as practical advice is insufficiently articulated by means of either nomothesis or the structural theoretical framework that (neo-)realist paradigms supply, these two aspirations seem contradictory. This essay is an examination of what contemporary realism and, especially, neorealism require to make practical wisdom available for practitioners. It argues that narrative, which is exemplified in the so-called classical realism of Thucydides, remains a crucial component of practical realism and neorealism.

This study undertakes a major reanalysis of the decision-making processes in eight committees of the U.S. House of Representatives–Agriculture, Education and Labor, Interior and Insular Affairs, International Relations, Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Post Office and Civil Service, Public Works and Ways and Means. While past studies have relied mainly on interviews, this study uses a data base composed of recorded committee roll-call votes. The analysis consists of a Q-component analysis to determine voting blocs or factions; an R-component analysis to discover issue dimensions; and step-wise regression and correlation utilizing demographic, political and electoral characteristics to define the nature of the voting blocs. The results are then compared with previous analyses of the same eight committees to determine what changes, if any, have occurred since the committees were last analyzed. The findings suggest that partisanship and ideology have become stronger influences on committee decision making than previously noted.

“The theorist can never foresee what the experimenter will find when his range is extended to include fields at present inaccessible.”

Man behaved economically, politically, and otherwise long before social scientists theorized about his behavior. In fact, present day social science is of comparatively recent origin, being the product of that progressive specialization which began in the eighteenth century.

This specialization has produced diverse problems, with one of which the present paper is concerned. The problem in question is suggested by the central thesis of this paper: that although an economist (or political scientist) must delimit what he studies qua economist (or political scientist), his understanding of economic (or political) behavior is governed by his understanding of human behavior as a whole. While this paper was written primarily from the point of view of an economist to illustrate how psychology and noneconomic social science may contribute to our understanding of economic behavior, it also suggests how political science may draw upon the disciplines treated and indicates how economists envisage a number of questions of fundamental significance to students of government.

By faithful representation we mean the delegation of decision making to a relatively small committee that, using a weighted voting rule, will for each pair of alternatives make sincere choices identical to those that would be made by the society as a whole, and with the same vote margins. We show that for any society, no matter how large, faithful representation is possible by a committee with no more than m(m − 1)/2 members, where m is the number of alternatives. We also show that for any society, no matter how nonideological the bulk of its electorate, social preferences can be faithfully represented by a committee whose members all have singlepeaked or single-troughed preferences. Thus, all societies can be faithfully represented by a committee whose members see the world in unidimensional terms—that is, representatives can share a coherent ideological perspective even though the electorates they represent lack such a perspective. We further show that the usual mechanisms of proportional representation and the modified form of proportional representation recently proposed by Chamberlin and Courant (1983) do not guarantee faithful representation, and we discuss mechanisms that may provide faithful representation, even in a context in which new alternatives can arise.