Democracy for All: Conceptualizing and Measuring Egalitarian Democracy

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 595-612 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Sigman ◽  
Staffan I. Lindberg

Although equality figures prominently in many foundational theories of democracy, liberal and electoral conceptions of democracy have dominated empirical political science research on topics like political regimes, democratization and democratic survival. This paper develops the concept of egalitarian democracy as a regime that provides de facto protection of rights and freedoms equally across the population, distributes resources in a way that enables meaningful political participation for all citizens and fosters an environment in which all individuals and social groups can influence political and governing processes. Using new indicators from the Varieties of Democracy project, the paper develops and presents measures of these important concepts, demonstrates their relationship to existing measures, and illustrates their utility for advancing the study of democracy in ways that more fully embrace the richness of democratic theory.

Author(s):  
Nadia E. Brown ◽  
Guillermo Caballero ◽  
Sarah Gershon

At its heart, intersectionality is a study of relative power. As such, political scientists have employed this approach as both a theory and method to examine political behavior and the state’s interaction with social groups as citizens and noncitizens. Intersectionality is a framework that recognizes the interconnectedness of sociopolitical categories that overlap with systems of discrimination or disadvantage. The study of intersectionality is interdisciplinary and does not have one academic home. As such, we compiled a list of texts that have used this concept, methodological framework, or theoretical approach to answer questions using a political science lens with the goal of providing a broad summary of contemporary research in this field. Furthermore, we made an effort to represent research that highlights the variation among social groups, regions, and issues as a way to illustrate the diversity within intersectional research projects. In political science, intersectionality has been used as a normative theoretical argument and a methodological approach to empirical research. Rooted in Black feminist theory and praxis, intersectionality has been employed as an analytical tool to bring to light issues of marginalization and systematic oppression that were previously invisible by using a single axis approach. Much of political science research seeks to understand the experiences of those with one or more marginalized identities as political actors. The research in this field is diverse in the populations and questions examined as well as the methods employed. Contemporary research on intersectionality includes comparative and international research on nations around the world. It explores the role of institutions, culture, and context as well as individual political identities, attitudes, and behavior. This scholarship also examines the differences of experiences within populations—such as women and racial, ethnic, or religious minorities often grouped for analysis in other fields. In applying an intersectional analysis to political experiences of these populations, this research often highlights the ways in which different identities are associated with distinct attitudes, behavior, and political outcomes. As a result, intersectionality research in political science offers deeper insights into political phenomena that were previously examined with a single axis approach. For example, studies of women’s political involvement that did not account for difference among groups of women failed to account for how ethno-racial, sexual orientation, nativity, disability, or religion may have influenced women’s political experiences and political outcomes. Among the debates engaged by this literature are questions revolving around the political experiences associated with multiple marginalized identities. Specifically, do groups, candidates, or public officials who possess multiple marginalized identities experience a so-called double disadvantage? Some research indicates this is the case, while others find strategic advantage associated with intersectional identities.


2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 90-98
Author(s):  
Pia Rowe ◽  
David Marsh

While Wood and Flinders’ work to broaden the scope of what counts as “politics” in political science is a needed adjustment to conventional theory, it skirts an important relationship between society, the protopolitical sphere, and arena politics. We contend, in particular, that the language of everyday people articulates tensions in society, that such tensions are particularly observable online, and that this language can constitute the beginning of political action. Language can be protopolitical and should, therefore, be included in the authors’ revised theory of what counts as political participation.


Author(s):  
Erik Lin-Greenberg ◽  
Reid Pauly ◽  
Jacquelyn Schneider

Author(s):  
Sumeer Gul ◽  
Sangita Gupta ◽  
Sumaira Jan ◽  
Sabha Ali

The study endeavors to highlight the contribution of women in the field of Political research globally. The study is based on the data gathered from journal, Political Analysis which comprises a list of articles published by authors for the period, 2004-2014. The proportion of the male and female authors listed in the publication was ascertained. There exists a colossal difference among male and female researchers in the field of Political Science research, which is evident from the fact that 88.30% of publications are being contributed by male authors while as just 11.70 % of publications are contributed by female authors. Furthermore, citation analysis reveals that highest number of citations is for the male contributions. In addition, the collaborative pattern indicates that largest share of the collaboration is between male-male authors. This evidently signifies that female researchers are still lagging behind in the field of Political Science research in terms of research productivity (publications)and thus, accordingly, need to excel in that particular field to overcome the gender difference. The study highlights status of women contribution in the Journal of Political Analysis from the period 2004-2014. The study provides a wider perspective of female research-contribution based on select parameters. However, the study can be further be enriched by taking into consideration various other criteria like what obstacles are faced by female researchers impeding their research, what are the effects of age and marital status on the research-productivity of female authors, etc.


2013 ◽  
Vol 46 (02) ◽  
pp. 426-427

The 2013 APSA RBSI Program has received funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to continue the RBSI for 2013. Additional program funding is provided by Duke University and APSA. Each summer, the Institute gives 20 students a look at the world of graduate study with a program of two transferable credit courses, one in quantitative analysis and one in race and American politics, to introduce the intellectual demands of graduate school and political science research methods. For a final project for both courses, students prepare original, empirical research papers, and top students are given the opportunity to present their research at APSA's Annual Meeting. Named in honor of the 1950 Nobel Peace Prize winner and former APSA President, Ralph J. Bunche, the Ralph Bunche Summer Institute (RBSI) program goal is to encourage students to pursue academic careers in political science. Students were notified of their acceptance into this year's program in mid-March. For more information about the program, visitwww.apsanet.org/rbsi.


2012 ◽  
Vol 45 (01) ◽  
pp. 124-126

The Political Science Program at the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces it awards for basic research support and dissertation improvement grants for fiscal year 2011. The Program funded 25 new projects and 44 doctoral dissertation improvement proposals. The Political Science Program spent $5,234,470 on these research, training and workshop projects and $483,822 on dissertation training grants for political science students. The program holds two grant competitions annually —Regular Research, August and January 15; Dissertation Improvement, September 16 and January 15— and constitutes a major source of political science research funding as part of fulfilling NSF's mission to encourage theoretically focused empirical investigations aimed at improving the explanation of fundamental social and political processes and structures.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document