Showing papers in "Political Science Quarterly in 1984"
1,283 citations
1,128 citations
595 citations
535 citations
358 citations
TL;DR: The work in this article is based on a doctoral dissertation I wrote at Yale University and was published by the University of Chicago Press in 1983, with the help of a large amount of advice, commentary, and criticism.
Abstract: Additional Information: © 1983 University of Chicago Press. This book grew directly out of the doctoral dissertation I wrote at Yale University. I would like to thank several people there who helped me immeasurably by providing generous amounts of advice, commentary, and criticism: above all, my advisor, Donald R. Kinder; my teachers David Cameroon, Paul Johnson, Gerald Kramer, Robert Lane, David Mayhew, Steve Rosenstone, and Edward Tufte; my fellow graduate students Jim Austin, Jay Budzizewski, Tom Cavanagh, Jennifer Hochschild, John Morgan, Joe Morone, and Harold Stanley; and my wife Lorraine. I would also like to thank Sandy Aivano for her help in programming and computing, and Yale University for its generous financial aid during my years in graduate school. During the last few years I have also benefited from extensive discussions of this research with my colleagues at Caltech, especially Bob Bates, Bruce Cain, John Ferejohn, Morris Fiorina, and Roger Noll. I am also indebted to Richard Brody, Ben Page, and David Sears for their valuable comments and criticism. Finally, I would like to thank Barbara Calli for a superb job of word processing and Carl Lydick for his valuable assistance in preparing this book for publication.
353 citations
237 citations
149 citations
144 citations
127 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that the establishment of larger and more viable local units that render more extensive and higher quality public services under a system affording them greater autonomy will cause citizens to look on these local governments as more important and thus to participate more actively in their politics.
Abstract: Movements for territorial reorganization of local government have been widespread and remarkably successful in Western Europe in the 1960s and 1970s. These movements have invariably stressed potential improvement of citizen participation as one of the central goals, in tandem with the objective of achieving greater administrative efficiency and economy. The argument is made that the establishment of larger and more viable local units that render more extensive and higher quality public services under a system affording them greater autonomy will cause citizens to look on these local governments as more important and thus to participate more actively in their politics. Others, who share the assumption that greater citizen participation is a social value to be maximized, take a quite different tack toward its accomplishment. Bigness in government, they argue, is generally evil and is more likely to result in alienation than in greater involvement. Change therefore should be in the direction of decentralizing large-scale government as much as possible to the neighborhood or some other small-population unit level. In general, such advocates believe that it is at the local level, where both issues and office holders are closer to the people, where public interest in governmental affairs should be keenest and where the popular will can most accurately be given effect. While the two positions are of course not totally at odds with each other, controversy along these lines, with both groups claiming to speak for a strengthening of local government and for more adequate popular control, has recently been
TL;DR: The first edition of America in the Gilded Age was published in 1984, and it soon acquired the status of a classic, and was widely acknowledged as the first comprehensive account of the latter half of the nineteenth century to appear in many years as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: When the first edition of America in the Gilded Age was published in 1984, it soon acquired the status of a classic, and was widely acknowledged as the first comprehensive account of the latter half of the nineteenth century to appear in many years. Sean Dennis Cashman traces the political and social saga of America as it passed through the momentous transformation of the Industrial Revolution and the settlement of the West. Revised and extended chapters focusing on immigration, labor, the great cities, and the American Renaissance are accompanied by a wealth of augmented and enhanced illustrations, many new to this addition.
TL;DR: The Burger Court: The Counter-Revolution That Wasn't, a collection of eleven essays on the Burger Court's decisions, is an optimist's book as mentioned in this paper, whose thesis is clear from the subtitle: liberals feared that the Burger court would gut the advances in civil liberties made during the Warren era, but it has not.
Abstract: An optimist is a person who, after being pushed out of a thirtiethstory window, replies to a questioner on the fifteenth floor, \"All right so far!\" The Burger Court: The Counter-Revolution That Wasn't,\" a collection of eleven essays on the Burger Court's decisions, is an optimist's book. Its thesis is clear from the subtitle: liberals feared that the Burger Court would gut the advances in civil liberties made during the Warren era, but it has not. Defending this thesis requires that one both identify the advances in civil liberties made by the Warren Court and determine to what extent, if any, the Burger Court has undermined them. If one agrees, as I do on balance, that no counterrevolution has occurred, two additional questions need answers. Why didn't the counterrevolution occur, given what we think we know about the political predelictions of the Nixon and Reagan appointees? And if no counterrevolution occurred, what did happen? This Review takes up those questions. 2
TL;DR: The system of this book of course will be much easier. No worry to forget bringing the threat inside the soviet military machine book as discussed by the authors, You can open the device and get the book by on-line.
Abstract: Reading is a hobby to open the knowledge windows. Besides, it can provide the inspiration and spirit to face this life. By this way, concomitant with the technology development, many companies serve the e-book or book in soft file. The system of this book of course will be much easier. No worry to forget bringing the threat inside the soviet military machine book. You can open the device and get the book by on-line.
TL;DR: Allison's Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis was one of the most influential works of political science in the last decade as discussed by the authors. Yet the author took pains to specify that he presented only a tentative account of foreign policy decision-making; he left the door open for the refinement of his models of decisionmaking.
Abstract: Graham T. Allison's Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis was one of the most influential works of political science in the last decade. Yet the author took pains to specify that he presented only a tentative account of foreign policy decision-making; he called for more testing of his propositions and left the door open for the refinement of his models of decisionmaking.' Since these models have been so helpful in understanding what passes for the Kennedy administration's "finest hour," the Cuban missile crisis, it seems appropriate to respond to Allison's call for further case studies by applying his concepts to John F. Kennedy's "worst hour," the Bay of Pigs. This article therefore tests Allison's concepts by applying them to the decision to land a brigade of anti-Castro exiles in Cuba on 17 April 1961. This investigation comprises several parts that correspond to Allison's three conceptual models. Each part
TL;DR: The Reagan administration is rapidly gaining a reputation as one of the most effective presidencies in recent history as discussed by the authors, where the administration has tried to reverse a cycle begun fifteen years ago, despite intense opposition from environmental organizations, Congress, and the public, leading to the forced resignations of his top environmental officials during 1983.
Abstract: The Reagan administration is rapidly gaining a reputation as one of the most effective presidencies in recent history. At least in domestic policy, President Reagan has accomplished greater change in less time than any administration since Franklin D. Roosevelt's "hundred days." Nowhere is this more evident than in the field of environmental pQlicy, where the administration has tried to reverse a cycle begun fifteen years ago. Notwithstanding intense opposition from environmental organizations, Congress, and the public, leading to the forced resignations of his top environmental officials during 1983, Ronald Reagan has set federal environmental regulation on a new course in the 1980s. 1 Few would have predicted such dramatic change prior to 1981. Despite Reagan's longstanding antipathy to regulation, his espousal of the "sagebrush rebellion" in the late 1970s, and a mandate from the 1980 Republican platform to review the costs and benefits of existing environmental programs, most observers assumed that Reagan's agenda for regulatory relief would be blunted by strong public support for environmental protection. Both the Carter administration and Congress had shown increasing interest in use of cost-benefit analysis to improve the efficiency of environmental programs, but neither had questioned the basic premises and goals of the "environmental decade" of the 1970s. By 1980
TL;DR: In the mid-1970s, the successive enactment of three multibilliondollar block grants for manpower training, community development, and social services led many close observers of the federal system to anticipate that consolidation of narrowly defined "categorical" grants into larger, more flexible block grants would be the wave of the future in federal aid to state and local governments as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: In the mid-1970s, the successive enactment of three multibilliondollar block grants for manpower training, community development, and social services led many close observers of the federal system to anticipate that consolidation of narrowly defined "categorical" grants into larger, more flexible block grants would be the wave of the future in federal aid to state and local governments. As Ralph Widner wrote in a 1974 article: "We should expect the federal government over the next half decade or so to get out of the categorical grant-inaid business and to continue to shift toward revenue sharing and other broadpurpose fiscal transfers."' Yet no new block grants were approved by Congress during the late Ford and Carter administrations. In 1981, however, the dramatic consolidation of seventy-seven programs into nine new block grants renewed expectations that federal program decentralization would become the intergovernmental agenda of the future. Such hopes were reinforced by confident predictions that centralized government had become obsolete and incompatible with the demands of postindustrial society.2 Careful analysis of the political origins of recent block grants does little to support such expectations, however. Indeed, grant reform politics have been transformed in such a way that future enactments may now be more rather than
TL;DR: In the last few electoral cycles, political action committees (PACs) have become major organizers of political power in American politics as discussed by the authors, and they have become a major concern for many Americans.
Abstract: Of all the resources of political power, none excites American suspicions quite as surely as money. When the source of the money is novel, well organized, and, above all, widely thought to be politically effective, suspicions turn quickly to apprehensions or even to real fear. That, in brief, seems to explain the preoccupation with political action committees (PACs) in the last few electoral cycles.' Most public and scholarly attention to the newly vigorous PACs has centered on two issues of influence and power. The first concerns their ability to affect the outcome of elections, both as a consequence of the sums of money they give to candidates and the precision and sophistication with which they do so. Implicit in this issue is a possible altering of the balance of political interests -the favoring of incumbents or conservatives, for example -as a result of the uneven distribution of PAC expenditures. The second is the issue of subsequent donor influence in legislatures: the belief that PACs will eventually influence some of the legislative behavior of their recipients. It is the issue summed up in that cynical cliche about "the best Congress money can buy." If these suppositions or fears are right, or even partially right, PACs have become major organizers of political power in American politics. And therein lies another major policy issue: their accountability. Americans have worried for
TL;DR: In this paper, John J. Stephan shatters several historical illusions that have almost come to be accepted as facts, highlighting the ambiguous nature of history and highlighting the importance of history.
Abstract: In this text, John J. Stephan shatters several historical illusions that have almost come to be accepted as facts, highlighting the ambiguous nature of history.
TL;DR: The authors examined the history of Marxist philosophical issues in particular, dialectical materialism as developed by French Communist Party intellectuals, and concluded that "the history of philosophical issues is clear, deeply researched, and well-written".
Abstract: "Examine[s] the history of Marxist philosophical issues in particular, dialectical materialism as developed by French Communist Party intellectuals... Remarkably clear, deeply researched, and well-written."- Political Science Quarterly
TL;DR: The authors argue that without judicious prompting from the U.S., Europe would have dragged out the decolonization process for the rest of the century, and that little real change occurred, this group argues, was the result of protest and rebellion on the part of the Africans.
Abstract: Many writers consider U.S. policy toward decolonization, at least under John F. Kennedy, as an extension of Americans' traditional support for self-determination, and argue that without judicious prompting from the U.S., Europe would have dragged out the decolonization process for the rest of the century.' Radical and Third World authors, on the other hand, claim that in those very rare instances in which U.S. foreign policy was conducive to decolonization, it simply fostered the transition from formal control under European masters to informal control under the aegis of American corporations.2 What little real change occurred, this group argues, was the result of protest and rebellion on the part of the Africans. These conflicting interpretations and dis-