Partisan Polarization and Legislators’ Agendas

Sulkin, Tracy; Schmitt, Carly

doi:10.1057/pol.2014.9

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…9 However, Democrats and Republicans tend to differ on policy matters, where the Republican Party and its constituents support fewer government regulations, smaller government, and lower overall costs for doing business. 10 Conversely, the Democratic Party and its supporters typically defend worker rights, protections for the environment, and a larger role for the state in the economy (Jackson and Engel, 2003; Sulkin and Schmitt, 2014).…”

Section: Chinese Investment In the Usamentioning

confidence: 99%

The Politics of Chinese Foreign Direct Investment in the USA

Biglaiser

2019

Journal of Asian and African Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although recently Chinese investment in the USA has grown exponentially, it has not flowed equally among the US states. Controlling for popular explanations in the foreign direct investment literature, we carry out subnational analysis to assess the determinants of Chinese investment in the USA. Using a panel dataset for all states from 2006 to 2016, we find that Chinese firms are more attracted to states where Republican governors hold office. Republican-governed states particularly attract greenfield investments from Chinese firms. However, we also find that US national security concerns and Chinese goals appear to affect investment flows in high-technology states, limiting the role of partisanship. Our results indicate that it is too soon to dismiss the importance of politics on foreign direct investment.

show abstract

Section: Chinese Investment In the Usamentioning

confidence: 99%

The Politics of Chinese Foreign Direct Investment in the USA

Biglaiser

2019

Journal of Asian and African Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to Sulkin and Schmitt (2014), there is a growing consensus about the causes of partisan polarization between Democrats and Republicans, but that we know much less about its consequences, especially how polarization has or has not affected other components of legislative activity, such as the issue agendas individual members of Congress pursue in their introduction and co-sponsorship of legislation. Sulkin and Schmitt (2014) focused on the individual level by discussing three interrelated issues. First, the degree of partisan polarization in the main agendas of both Democrats and Republicans and whether they devote their time and effort to different issues.…”

Section: Game Theoretic Explanation Of Partisan Polarizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Political Economy of the United States in the Era of Hatred and Partisan Polarization

Owoye¹

2018

ASSRJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper uses conceptual economics to analyze the consequences of the rising racialgender hatred and partisan polarization on the political economy of the United States. The upsurge in hate crimes nationwide is due to the politicians' peddling of hatecreating stories and false narratives. This paper identifies and discusses the three interdependent institutions through which hatred and partisan polarization could destabilize the political economy; and tests whether the increasing racial-gender hate crimes, partisan polarization, and government shutdowns have adverse effects. The statistical tests confirm the research hypotheses about the rising racial-gender hate crimes; and that partisan polarization and government shutdowns have negative effects on Congressional productivity in the United States.States (POTUS) has consistently accused our allies as "free riders" and exploiters in global alliances and trade. In addition, I use a simple game theoretic framework to show that Democrats (DEM) and Republicans (REP) are players in a political game of tit-for-tat; therefore, the retaliatory tendencies from both parties will exacerbate overt hatred and partisan polarization into the foreseeable future. Since both parties are scared of the REP-POTUS and are afraid to enforce the rule of law and all political norms, the complicity would enable the unchecked dictatorial propensities to undermine representative democracy and destroy global alliances that relied of the United States' leadership since World War II.As further contribution to the literature, this paper identifies three categories of interdependent institutions -economic, political, and social -through which I examine the effects of overt racial-gender hatred 1 and partisan polarization on the political economy and representative democracy in the United States. To date, researchers have not examined whether hate crime laws pre-and post-the Hate Crime Prevention Act of 2009 were effective in reducing hate crimes or analyze the effects partisan polarization on the three interdependent institutions in a representative democracy. There is no doubt that strong economic, political, and social institutions are pivotal in nurturing the growth and sustainability of representative democracy; therefore, the contention is that the growing racial-gender hatred and partisan polarization would weaken these institutions, global alliances, and thus undermine representative democracy and the political economy of the United States.Another contention is that in this era of growing overt racial-gender hatred and extreme partisan animosity characterized by toxic tribal politics, it appears that Congressional Democrats and Republicans are too reluctant to perform their Constitutional duty of providing the required checks and balances. In doing so, they are enabling a REP-POTUS or a DEM-POTUS to weaken the institutional (economic, political, and social) bedrocks of representative democracy in the United States. This implies that a REP-POTUS or a DEM-POTUS can contribute to and normal...

show abstract

“…Такая цель подразумевает использование альтернативных точек зрения в качестве инструмента обоснования продвигаемой властью политики. Но и здесь есть сложность: даже согласие по наиболее важным политическим вопросам может сопровождаться расхождением мнений относительно механизмов реализации политики [Sulkin, Schmitt, 2014].…”

unclassified

«Не Делом, А Словом»: Дискурс-Сетевой Анализ Парламентских Обсуждений Закона О Повышении Пенсионного Возраста В России

Помигуев,

Алексеев,

Зарипов

2024

MONITORING OF PUBLIC OPINION

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Исследование направлено на выявление в российском парламенте дискурсивных сообществ и механизмов их формирования в ходе рассмотрения инициатив, предполагающих изменение политического курса. Базируясь на теориях легитимации и обоснования политики, авторы выявляют типичные размежевания в речах парламентариев, а также тематические блоки для аргументации их позиций в рамках этих размежеваний. В качестве эмпирических данных в статье использованы материалы парламентской дискуссии о повышении пенсионного возраста ― инициативы, принятой парламентом и подписанной президентом в 2018 г. С помощью метода дискурс-сетевого анализа и соответствующего программного обеспечения авторы собрали и проанализировали значительный массив данных о тематических блоках, в рамках которых наблюдалась поляризация мнений и позиций парламентариев по исследуемому вопросу. Анализ результатов показал, что поляризация позиций парламентариев, несмотря на кажущуюся непримиримость, оказалась не столь значительной. Как парламентская оппозиция, так и фракция большинства действовали и опирались на аргументы в рамках одних и тех же тематических блоков и категорий, различаясь лишь расхождением (порой незначительным) мнений (за/против) по обсуждаемым тематикам. Кроме того, анализ дискурсивных сетей позволил оценить значение парламентских процедур рассмотрения законодательных инициатив для определения дискурса, а также влияние внутрипарламентских структур на высказываемую парламентариями позицию. Авторы обнаружили, что слова, публично произнесенные в парламенте, способны точнее представить политическую позицию выступающего, чем результаты его действий, например голосований по тому или иному вопросу. Благодарность. Исследование выполнено за счет гранта Российского научного фонда № 22-78-00201, https://rscf.ru/project/22-78-00201/.

show abstract

Partisan Polarization and Legislators’ Agendas

Cited by 5 publications

References 16 publications

The Politics of Chinese Foreign Direct Investment in the USA

The Politics of Chinese Foreign Direct Investment in the USA

The Political Economy of the United States in the Era of Hatred and Partisan Polarization

«Не Делом, А Словом»: Дискурс-Сетевой Анализ Парламентских Обсуждений Закона О Повышении Пенсионного Возраста В России

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About