Driving Legislators' Policy Preferences: Constituent Commutes and Gas Taxes

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah E. Anderson ◽  
Daniel M. Butler ◽  
Laurel Harbridge‐Yong ◽  
G. Agustin Markarian
Keyword(s):  
Policy Preferences

Moral conviction, ideology and policy preferences in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michal Reifen Tagar ◽  
G. Scott Morgan ◽  
Linda J. Skitka ◽  
Eran Halperin
Keyword(s):  
Policy Preferences ◽  
Moral Conviction

Narratives shape cognitive representations of immigrants and policy preferences

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joel Eduardo Martinez ◽  
Lauren Feldman ◽  
Mallory Feldman ◽  
Mina Cikara
Keyword(s):  
Immigration Policy ◽  
Mexican Immigrants ◽  
Policy Preferences ◽  
Cognitive Representations ◽  
Induced Representations ◽  
The Social

Scholars from across the social and media sciences have issued a clarion call to address a recent resurgence in criminalized characterizations of immigrants. Do these characterizations meaningfully impact individuals’ beliefs about immigrants and immigration? Across two online convenience samples (N = 1,054 adult U.S. residents), we applied a novel analytic technique to test how different narratives—criminal, achievement, struggle-oriented—impact cognitive representations of German, Russian, Syrian, and Mexican immigrants and the concept of “immigrants” in general. All stories featured male targets. Achievement stories homogenized individual immigrant representations whereas both criminal and struggle-oriented stories racialized them along a white/non-white axis: Germany clustered with Russia, Syria with Mexico. However, criminal stories were unique in making our most egalitarian participants’ representations as differentiated as our least egalitarian participants’. Narratives about individual immigrants also generalized to update representations of nationality groups. Most important, narrative-induced representations correlated with immigration policy preferences: achievement narratives and corresponding homogenized representations promoted preferences for less restriction, criminal narratives for more.

Conditionality & Coercion

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabela Mares ◽  
Lauren E. Young
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Method ◽  
Personal Characteristics ◽  
Policy Preferences ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Vote Buying ◽  
Private Benefits ◽  
Public Benefits ◽  
Local Actors ◽  
Democratic Systems ◽  
Method Approach

In many recent democracies, candidates compete for office using illegal strategies to influence voters. In Hungary and Romania, local actors including mayors and bureaucrats offer access to social policy benefits to voters who offer to support their preferred candidates, and they threaten others with the loss of a range of policy and private benefits for voting the “wrong” way. These quid pro quo exchanges are often called clientelism. How can politicians and their accomplices get away with such illegal campaigning in otherwise democratic, competitive elections? When do they rely on the worst forms of clientelism that involve threatening voters and manipulating public benefits? This book uses a mixed method approach to understand how illegal forms of campaigning including vote buying and electoral coercion persist in two democratic countries in the European Union. It argues that clientelistic strategies must be disaggregated based on whether they use public or private resources, and whether they involve positive promises or negative threats and coercion. The authors document that the type of clientelistic strategies that candidates and brokers use varies systematically across localities based on their underlying social coalitions, and also show that voters assess and sanction different forms of clientelism in different ways. Voters glean information about politicians’ personal characteristics and their policy preferences from the clientelistic strategies these candidates deploy. Most voters judge candidates who use clientelism harshly. So how does clientelism, including its most odious coercive forms, persist in democratic systems? This book suggests that politicians can get away with clientelism by using forms of it that are in line with the policy preferences of constituencies whose votes they need. Clientelistic and programmatic strategies are not as distinct as previous studies have argued.

Principals’ Policy Preferences concerning Accountability: Implications for Key Competencies, Performance Indicators, and Professional Development

1995 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
pp. 448-481 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. J. S. Mac Macpherson ◽  
Margaret Taplin
Keyword(s):  
Professional Development ◽  
Performance Indicators ◽  
Policy Preferences ◽  
Development Programs ◽  
Stakeholder Groups ◽  
Key Competencies ◽  
Professional Development Programs ◽  
Accountability Practices ◽  
State Schools

In this paper, we examine the policy preferences of Tasmania's principals concerning accountability criteria and processes, compare their views to other stakeholder groups, and identify issues that warrant attention in principals’ professional development programs. We show that there are many criteria and processes related to the quality of learning, teaching, and leadership that are valued by all stakeholder groups, including principals. We conclude that Tasmanian state schools probably need to review and develop their accountability policies, and that the professional development will need to prepare leaders for specific forms of performance and generate key competencies if more educative forms of accountability practices are to be realised in practice.

scholarly journals Soft Law Engagements and Hard Law Preferences: Comparing EU Lobbying Positions between UN Global Compact Signatory Firms and Other Interest Group Types

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
Onna van den Broek
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Political Representation ◽  
Policy Preferences ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Global Compact ◽  
Un Global Compact ◽  
Political Activities ◽  
Policy Issues ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract Although corporate social responsibility (CSR) has gone “mainstream,” the relationship between CSR and corporate political activities (CPA) has received little scholarly attention. This is problematic because firms potentially have a more sizable impact through their lobbying activities for socially and environmentally beneficial (or unbeneficial) public policies than through their own operations. This paper investigates if, and how, UN Global Compact signatory firms differ in their policy preferences on key EU proposals compared to other interest groups. To capture state-of-the-art data on firms’ policy preferences, I draw from the INTEREURO database, which includes firms’ lobbying positions on forty-three directives and twenty-seven regulations covering 112 public policy issues in the European Union. Statistical results show that Global Compact signatory firms significantly lobby for stricter regulation than non-signatory firms and industry associations, however, their positions are still lower than nonbusiness groups. These results are similar across various public policy issues and suggest that the regulatory preferences of firms’ participating in soft law CSR initiatives are more aligned with stakeholders' interests. This paper contributes to public policy literature exploring the relationship between hard and soft law as well as literature studying the political representation of divergent interest.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document