Series Editor's Preface. Introduction by John Breuilly. Acknowledgements. 1. Definitions. State and nation. The nation. 2. Culture in Agrarian Society. Power and culture in the agro-literature society. The varieties of agrarian rulers. 3. Industrial Society. The society of perpetual growth. Social genetics. The age of universal high culture. 4. The Transition to an Age of Nationalism. A note on the weakness of nationalism. Wild and garden culture. 5. What is a Nation. The course of true nationalism never did run smooth. 6. Social Entropy and Equality in Industrial Society. Obstacles to entropy. Fissures and barriers. A diversity of focus. 7. A Typology of Nationalisms. The varieties of nationalist experience. Diaspora nationalism. 8. The Future of Nationalism. Industrial culture - one or many?. 9. Nationalism and Ideology. Who is for Nuremberg?. One nation, one state. 10. Conclusion. What is not being said. Summary. Select bibliography. Bilbliography of Ernest Gellner's writing: Ian Jarvie. Index

Nations and Nationalism

Thank you for reading experimental and quasi experimental designs for research. Maybe you have knowledge that, people have search numerous times for their favorite readings like this experimental and quasi experimental designs for research, but end up in malicious downloads. Rather than reading a good book with a cup of tea in the afternoon, instead they cope with some infectious virus inside their laptop.

Experimental And Quasi Experimental Designs For Research

The Tragedy of Great Power Politics

Competition is a defining element of democracy. One of the most noteworthy events over the last quarter-century in U.S. politics is the change in the nature of elite party competition: The parties have become increasingly polarized. Scholars and pundits actively debate how these elite patterns influence polarization among the public (e.g., have citizens also become more ideologically polarized?). Yet, few have addressed what we see as perhaps more fundamental questions: Has elite polarization altered the way citizens arrive at their policy opinions in the first place and, if so, in what ways? We address these questions with a theory and two survey experiments (on the issues of drilling and immigration). We find stark evidence that polarized environments fundamentally change how citizens make decisions. Specifically, polarization intensifies the impact of party endorsements on opinions, decreases the impact of substantive information and, perhaps ironically, stimulates greater confidence in those—less substantively grounded—opinions. We discuss the implications for public opinion formation and the nature of democratic competition.

How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation (WP-12-14)

Jeremy M. Weinstein, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007 xx +402 pp. £43.00 ISBN 0-521-86077-6 (hardback); £16.99 ISBN 0-521-67797-1 (paperback) Inside Rebellion offers an insightful accoun...

Inside Rebellion: The Politics of Insurgent Violence

Domestic approaches to compliance with international commitments often presume that international law has a distinct effect on the beliefs and preferences of national publics. Studies attempting to estimate the consequences of international law unfortunately face a wide range of empirical and methodological challenges. This article uses an experimental design embedded in two U.S. national surveys to offer direct systematic evidence of international law's effect on mass attitudes. To provide a relatively tough test for international law, the surveys examine public attitudes toward the use of torture, an issue in which national security concerns are often considered paramount. Contrary to the common contention of international law's inefficacy, I find that legal commitments have a discernible impact on public support for the use of torture. The effect of international law is also strongest in those contexts where pressures to resort to torture are at their highest. However, the effects of different dimensions in the level of international agreements' legalization are far from uniform. In contrast to the attention often devoted to binding rules, I find that the level of obligation seems to make little difference on public attitudes toward torture. Rather, the relative precision of the rules, along with the degree to which enforcement is delegated to third parties, plays a much greater role in shaping public preferences. Across both international law and legalization, an individual's political ideology also exerts a strong mediating effect, though in varying directions depending on the design of the agreement. The findings have implications for understanding the overall impact of international law on domestic actors, the importance of institutional design, and the role of political ideology on compliance with international agreements.

/pdf/international-law-and-public-attitudes-toward-torture-an-3mwhi352nh.pdf

International Law and Public Attitudes Toward Torture: An Experimental Study

Despite the increased emphasis on domestic politics in the study of international law, scholars remain divided about whether and how international law affects domestic institutions. Moreover, while public support is a core ingredient for sustainable, legitimate policies in a democracy, research at the individual level of analysis remains limited. Weighing in on these areas of study, we investigate the use of drone strikes for counterterrorism, a subject of considerable debate. Proponents in the government point to drones as both effective for disrupting terrorist networks and compatible with international law. Critics from groups such as international organizations (IOs) and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) respond that attacks create more terrorists than they kill and violate legal commitments. The central question we ask in this article is whether these international legal criticisms impact public support for drone strikes, the centerpiece of US counterterrorism policy, or whether individuals are mo...

International law, military effectiveness, and public support for drone strikes

Audience costs theory posits that domestic publics punish leaders for making an external threat and then backing down. One key mechanism driving this punishment involves the value the public places on consistency between their leaders’ statements and actions. If true, this mechanism should operate not only when leaders fail to implement threats, but also when they fail to honor promises to stay out of a conflict. We use a survey experiment to examine domestic responses to the president's decision to “back down” from public threats and “back into” foreign conflicts. We find the president loses support in both cases, but suffers more for “backing out” than “backing in.” These differential consequences are partially explained by asymmetries in the public's treatment of new information. Our findings strongly suggest that concerns over consistency undergird audience costs theory and that punishment for inconsistency will be incurred, regardless of the leader's initial policy course

/pdf/backing-out-or-backing-in-commitment-and-consistency-in-3pyffcbndw.pdf

Backing Out or Backing In? Commitment and Consistency in Audience Costs Theory

/pdf/surrendering-the-higher-ground-the-abuse-of-combatants-veqccjl515.pdf

Surrendering The Higher Ground: The Abuse Of Combatants During War

Under what conditions are individuals more likely to approve of human rights abuses by their governments? While various theoretical expectations have been offered about public approval of repression, many of them have not been directly tested. We analyze the effects of differing opposition tactics, differing government tactics, and legal constraints on approval of repression through a series of survey experiments in India, Israel, and Argentina. Our results indicate that violent action by opposition groups consistently increases support for government repression. In the context of contentious politics, we find that the effects of international law vary by national context. While our respondents in India were less likely to approve of their government when told the government violated international law, the same information likely increased approval of the government in our Israel experiment. The findings provide insights into the microfoundations of existing theories and suggest areas for theory refinement. Replication Materials: The data, code, and any additional materials required to replicate all analyses in this article are available on the American Journal of Political Science Dataverse within the Harvard Dataverse Network, at: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/ZRZGTT. Under what conditions are individuals more likely to approve of human rights abuses by their governments? One of the core responsibilities often mandated to governments, particularly in democracies, is guaranteeing basic rights and freedoms. Public support for abuses, especially violent forms like torture, therefore presents a puzzle. A common assumption is that individuals generally value human rights, despite differences in their precise content and contours (Donnelly 2003, 43–45, 89–92). Yet numerous historical and contemporary accounts reveal individuals (sometimes reluctantly, other times enthusiastically) supporting abuses (Rejali 2007, 22–23). Examining when publics are willing to reject or approve of repression can therefore provide a crucial understanding of the microfoundations for the circumstances under which mass opinion serves as a constraint, or an enabler, of human rights abuses. Yonatan Lupu is Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, George Washington University, Monroe Hall, Room 417, 2115 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20052 (ylupu@gwu.edu). Geoffrey P. R. Wallace is Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Washington, 139 Gowen Hall, Box 353530, Seattle, WA 98195-3530 (gprwall@uw.edu). This research was supported in part by a grant from the National Science Foundation Law & Social Sciences Program (SES-1627079) and the iCourts Centre of Excellence for International Courts at the University of Copenhagen. For comments on previous drafts, we thank Boaz Atzili, Ryan Brutger, Stephen Chaudoin, Adam Chilton, Chris Fariss, Evgeny Finkel, Danny Hill, Miles Kahler, Will Moore, James Morrow, Amanda Murdie, Emily Ritter, James Ron, Patrick Shea, Beth Simmons, Mila Versteeg, Erik Voeten, Joe Young, Sophia Jordán Wallace, and Thomas Zeitzoff, as well as participants in workshops at American University, George Washington University, Lehigh University, Penn State University, Rice University, Universidad Torcuato di Tella, University of Geneva, University of Michigan, University of Minnesota, University of Virginia, Uppsala University, and Yale University. For research assistance, we thank Jack Hasler and Marko Zilovic. Macrolevel theory suggests that both conflict characteristics and legal institutions can affect support for human rights abuses. Public opinion depends in part on the tactics adopted by the targets of such abuses and the type of repressive tactics used by governments (DeMeritt 2016). International human rights treaties prohibiting many repressive tactics can shape individuals’ perceptions of abuses (Conrad and Ritter 2019; Sikkink 2011; Simmons 2009). These claims ultimately rely on assumptions about public opinion that have not been directly tested at the micro level. While some important insights have been gained about public support for violence (Condra and Shapiro 2012; Piazza 2015), there has been little systematic study comparing the public opinion effects of alternative forms of repression and dissent. Likewise, existing work generally shows that knowledge of international law reduces public support for abuses American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 00, No. 0, xxxx 2019, Pp. 1–16 C ©2019, Midwest Political Science Association DOI: 10.1111/ajps.12416

Geoffrey P. R. Wallace

Papers

International Law and Public Attitudes Toward Torture: An Experimental Study

International law, military effectiveness, and public support for drone strikes

Backing Out or Backing In? Commitment and Consistency in Audience Costs Theory

Surrendering The Higher Ground: The Abuse Of Combatants During War

Violence, Nonviolence, and the Effects of International Human Rights Law