Political parties provide a crucial link between voters and politicians. This link takes a variety of forms in democratic regimes, from the organization of political machines built around clientelistic networks to the establishment of sophisticated programmatic parties. Latin American Party Systems provides a novel theoretical argument to account for differences in the degree to which political party systems in the region were programmatically structured at the end of the twentieth century. Based on a diverse array of indicators and surveys of party legislators and public opinion, the book argues that learning and adaptation through fundamental policy innovations are the main mechanisms by which politicians build programmatic parties. Marshalling extensive evidence, the book's analysis shows the limits of alternative explanations and substantiates a sanguine view of programmatic competition, nevertheless recognizing that this form of party system organization is far from ubiquitous and enduring in Latin America.

How does the threat of terrorism affect evaluations of female (vs. male) political leaders, and do these effects vary by the politician's partisanship? Using two national surveys, we document a propensity for the U.S. public to prefer male Republican leadership the most in times of security threat, and female Democratic leadership the least. We theorize a causal process by which terrorist threat influences the effect of stereotypes on candidate evaluations conditional on politician partisanship. We test this framework with an original experiment:a nationally representative sample was presented with a mock election that varied the threat context and the gender and partisanship of the candidates. We find that masculine stereotypes have a negative influence on both male and female Democratic candidates in good times (thus reaffirming the primacy of party stereotypes), but only on the female Democratic candidate when terror threat is primed. Republican candidates-both male and female-are unaffected by masculine stereotypes, regardless of the threat environment.

The experimental approach has begun to permeate political science research, increasingly so in the last decade. Laboratory researchers face at least two challenges: determining who to study and how to lure them into the lab. Most experimental studies rely on student samples, yet skeptics often dismiss student samples for lack of external validity. In this article, we propose another convenience sample for laboratory research: campus staff. We report on a randomized experiment to investigate the characteristics of samples drawn from a general local population and from campus staff. We report that campus staff evidence significantly higher response rates, and we find few discernible differences between the two samples. We also investigate the second challenge facing researchers: how to lure subjects into the lab. We use evidence from three focus groups to identify ways of luring this alternative convenience sample into the lab. We analyze the impact of self-interest, social-utility, and neutral appeals on encouraging study participation, and we find that campus staff respond better to a no-nonsense approach compared to a hard-sell that promises potential policy benefits to the community or, and especially, to the self. We conclude that researchers should craft appeals with caution as they capitalize on this heretofore largely untapped reservoir for experimental research: campus employees.

No abstract

Left-right semantics are commonly employed by scholars, the media, and politicians in reference to Latin American politics. Yet, how do citizens understand these terms and what determines the meanings they assign to them? I investigate the significance of left-right labels, as potential political heuristic devices, among and across a selected group of citizens in Mexico and Argentina. Subjective understandings of the left-right semantics were tapped using Q-sort methods. Analyses of these data reveal quite different conceptions across individuals and national contexts. Further, and as hypothesized in the text, the analyses demonstrate that ideological labels (a) reference valence issues, in addition to political actors and policy stances; (b) differ across contexts in ways that correspond to elite packaging; and, (c) vary by individual partisan leanings and political sophistication.