政观快递| Annual Review of Political Science Vol. 22, 2019（中）
期刊简介:《政治学年鉴》（Annual Review of Political Science）自1998年出版以来，其内容涵盖了政治学领域的重大进展，包括政治理论和哲学、国际关系、政治经济学、政治行为、美国和比较政治、公共管理和政策以及方法论等。根据 Journal Citation Reports显示，其2018年的影响因子为3.915，在176种政治科学类期刊中排名第6位（6/176）。
期刊目录
11. 单一国家研究的回归
12. 腐败的国际组织
13. 超越“战争的支柱”：作为一个分支的关于安全的政治经济学
14. 偏见与判决
15. 极化与司法
16. 经济危机的政治回应
17. 大数据和数据科学的挑战
18. 调查中的党派偏见
19. 气候变化与冲突
11. 单一国家研究的回归
题目：The Return of the Single-Country Study
作者：Thomas B. Pepinsky，康奈尔大学政府系教授
摘要：本文回顾了在比较政治学——这一用比较作为定义的领域中——单一国家研究地位的变迁。通过对比较政治顶级刊物所发表的单一国家研究的分析表明，单一国家研究的重点从现象描述与理论生产转向了假设检验和研究设计。这一变化是从关注外部有效性转化为关注内部有效性以及社会科学的量化方法与因果推断革命共同导致的。这一变化的直接后果是学者们的关注点从宏观政治现象转向微观过程，这使得比较政治学有能力去分析许多长期处于领域核心位置的重大政治现象。
This article reviews the changing status of single-country research in comparative politics, a field defined by the concept of comparison. An analysis of single-country research published in top general interest and comparative politics journals reveals that single-country research has evolved from an emphasis on description and theory generation to an emphasis on hypothesis testing and research design. This change is a result of shifting preferences for internal versus external validity combined with the quantitative and causal inference revolutions in the social sciences. A consequence of this shift is a change in substantive focus from macropolitical phenomena to micro-level processes, with consequences for the ability of comparative politics to address many substantive political phenomena that have long been at the center of the field.
12. 腐败的国际组织
题目：Corrupting International Organizations
作者：James Raymond Vreeland，普林斯顿大学政治学系教授
摘要：由于世界上开始出现反对国际机构（的声音），本文回顾了国际组织腐败的证据，重点讨论了二战后出现的三个国际组织：布雷顿森林机构（国际货币基金组织和世界银行）以及联合国。文章考察了作为布雷顿森林机构的主要股东（主要是美国）利用该机构将资金和其他好处输送给具有战略优先意义的国家的证据。随后，本综述讨论了在联合国辩论的一系列议题中的贿选行为，并最终转向了针对专制国家利用联合国人权机构为借口来侵犯人权的隐秘研究。本文的结论是，政府对战略目标的追求可能是全球合作的必要组成部分，但是学界应该继续深入研究本文所呈现的宏观证据背后的微观基础，以便更好地告知改革者如何限制腐败的影响。
As the world turns against international institutions, this article reviews evidence of the corrupting of global organizations. The review focuses on three international organizations that emerged from World War II: the Bretton Woods institutions [the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank] and the United Nations (UN). The article explores evidence of major shareholders (mainly the United States) using the Bretton Woods institutions to funnel money and other favors to strategically preferred countries. Then the review discusses vote buying across a range of issues debated at the UN and finally turns to dark scholarship on the use of UN human rights institutions by autocratic states as a veil to violate those very rights. The article concludes that government pursuit of strategic objectives may be a necessary part of global cooperation, but scholarship should continue to delve into the micro foundations underlying the macro evidence presented here to better inform reformers on how to limit corrupting influences.
13. 超越“战争的支柱”：
作为一个分支的关于安全的政治经济学
题目：Beyond the “Sinew of War”: The Political Economy of Security as a Subfield
作者：Paul Poast，芝加哥大学政治学系教授
摘要：从西塞罗开始，人们就已经知道“金钱是战争的支柱”。政治经济学中有关安全的分支能否提供超越西塞罗这一观点的认知呢？本文旨在通过使用经典的“枪炮-黄油”权衡来描述政治经济学中安全分支的边界，以此界定该分支中的现有文献。对该权衡以及该权衡不存在的情况的认真思考会带来一系列问题，其中最为直接的两个问题是：“枪炮”的消耗如何影响“黄油”的消费？以及“枪炮”的使用如何影响“黄油”的消费？
Since at least Cicero, we have known that “money is the sinew of war.” Is it possible for a political economy of security (PES) subfield to contribute knowledge beyond Cicero's claim? This article aims to delineate the boundaries of a PES subfield by using the classic “guns versus butter” trade-off to define the existing literature within the subfield. Thinking seriously about this trade-off, including conditions under which a trade-off may not exist, raises a host of questions. The two most direct questions are: How does consuming “guns” influence the consumption of “butter”? And how does using “guns” influence the consumption of “butter”?
14. 偏见与判决
题目：Bias and Judging
作者：Allison P. Harris, 宾夕法尼亚州立大学政治学系助理教授; Maya Sen, 哈佛大学肯尼迪政府学院教授
摘要：我们如何能够得知不同背景的法官在判决上是否存有偏见呢？本文回顾了大量研究司法判决的政治学文献，格外关注了法官的人口统计学特征和意识形态如何影响或构造其决断。研究表明，人种、民族、性别等特征有时能够预测法官在特定案件中的判决。然而，文献也表明这些特征在塑造或预测判决结果时，远没有意识形态（或党派）重要。而意识形态或党派又与性别、人种和种族等特点密切相关。这使我们得出结论：因为法官的不同裁决就假定不同背景的法官有偏见，是需要被质疑的。鉴于法律的适用很难有客观的正确答案，法官的判断会因他们的个人背景——或者是因更为重要的意识形态——的不同产生差异就不足为奇了。
How do we know whether judges of different backgrounds are biased? We review the substantial political science literature on judicial decision making, paying close attention to how judges’ demographics and ideology can influence or structure their decision making. As the research demonstrates, characteristics such as race, ethnicity, and gender can sometimes predict judicial decision making in limited kinds of cases; however, the literature also suggests that these characteristics are far less important in shaping or predicting outcomes than is ideology (or partisanship), which in turn correlates closely with gender, race, and ethnicity. This leads us to conclude that assuming judges of different backgrounds are biased because they rule differently is questionable. Given that the application of the law rarely provides one objectively correct answer, it is no surprise that judges’ decisions vary according to their personal backgrounds and, more importantly, according to their ideology.
15. 极化与司法
题目：Polarization and the Judiciary
作者：Richard L. Hasen，加州大学尔湾分校法律与政治学“校长教授”
摘要：美国政治机构和公民之间日益加剧的极化影响了州和联邦法官（包括美国最高法院的法官）的选拔、工作、看法和相对权力。在过去的几十年中，美国的极化至少在四个方面对美国司法运作产生了至关重要的影响。首先，极化会影响司法选拔，无论选拔方法是（有时是基于党派的）选举或由当权者任命。在极化时代，提名法官的州长和总统、同意任命法官的议员以及对法官候选人进行投票的选民更倾向于从党派关系或通过暗示来表示对法官的支持或反对。其次，在选拔机制的驱动下，两极分化可能会反映在法官做出的决定当中，特别是在容易导致政治分裂的议题上，例如堕胎、控枪或平权行动等方面尤为明显。例如，最高法院经常在最突出、最具有争议的案件中表现出基于党派和意识形态的对立和分歧。具而言之，我们已经进入了意识形态路线与现在政党重叠的时期，在这一时期中，所有的自由派法官都由民主党总统任命，而所有的保守派法官都由共和党总统任命。第三，越来越极化的司法判决似乎推动公众更多的从党派视角来审视法官和司法决策（至少在美国最高法院是这样）。第四，极化可以通过授权法院对抗有时陷入僵局的立法机构，从而影响三权分立的运作。本文总结了日益加剧的极化如何与司法和司法部门相互影响，在此基础上提出了未来需要进一步研究的议题。
The increased polarization in the United States among the political branches and citizenry affects the selection, work, perception, and relative power of state and federal judges, including justices of the US Supreme Court. Polarization in the United States over the last few decades matters to the American judicial system in at least four ways. First, polarization affects judicial selection, whether the selection method is (sometimes partisan-based) elections or appointment by political actors. In times of greater polarization, governors and presidents who nominate judges, legislators who confirm judges, and voters who vote on judicial candidates are more apt to support or oppose judges on the basis of partisan affiliation or cues. Second, driven in part by selection mechanisms, polarization may be reflected in the decisions that judges make, especially on issues that divide people politically, such as abortion, guns, or affirmative action. The Supreme Court, for example, often divides along party and ideological lines in the most prominent and highly contested cases. Those ideological lines now overlap with party as we enter a period in which all the Court liberals have been appointed by Democratic presidents and all the Court conservatives have been appointed by Republican presidents. Third, increasingly polarized judicial decisions appear to be causing the public to view judges and judicial decision making (at least on the US Supreme Court) through a more partisan lens. Fourth, polarization may affect the separation of powers, by empowering courts against polarized legislative bodies sometimes paralyzed by gridlock. The review concludes by considering how increased polarization may interact with the judiciary and judicial branch going forward and by suggesting areas for future research.
16. 经济危机的政治回应
题目：Political Responses to Economic Shocks
作者：Yotam Margalit，特拉维夫大学政治学系副教授
摘要：经济危机的经历如何影响人们的政治观点和投票行为？在一定程度上，学界受2008年金融危机及其后果的启发，对这一问题的研究层出不穷。涵盖更为广泛的国家和经济背景的研究结果突显了几个值得注意的作用模式。经济危机（例如失业或收入急剧下降）对政治态度会产生重大的、理论上可以预测的（尽管经常是暂时的）影响。相比之下，其对投票行为的影响更为有限，表现的形式也更加难以阐明。消极的经济冲击有利于增加人们对扩张性社会政策和再分配政策的支持，强化了左翼的吸引力。但这种冲击也往往会降低人们对政治制度的信任，从而有可能促使选民支持激进或民粹主义政党，或对政党和政治制度的支持和参与都有所下降。需要进一步的研究来发现导致这些不同投票结果的条件。
How does the experience of economic shocks affect individuals' political views and voting behavior? Inspired partly by the fallout of the financial crisis of 2008, research on this question has proliferated. Findings from studies covering a broadening range of countries and economic contexts highlight several notable patterns. Economic shocks—e.g., job loss or sharp drop in income—exert a significant and theoretically predictable, if often transient, effect on political attitudes. In contrast, the effect on voting behavior is more limited in magnitude and its manifestations less understood. Negative economic shocks tend to increase support for more expansive social policy and for redistribution, strengthening the appeal of the left. But such shocks also tend to decrease trust in political institutions, thus potentially driving the voters to support radical or populist parties, or demobilizing them altogether. Further research is needed to detect the conditions that lead to these distinct voting outcomes.
17. 大数据和数据科学的挑战
题目：The Challenge of Big Data and Data Science
作者：Henry E. Brady，加州大学伯克利分校，政治学系教授
摘要：大数据和数据科学正在以引发社会科学家关注的方式改变世界，例如互联网对公民和媒体的作用、智能城市的影响、网络战争和网络恐怖主义的可能性、精准医学的疗效以及人工智能和自动化技术的后果。随着社会中发生的这些变化，强大的新兴数据科学方法支持着使用管理、互联网、文本和音/视频传感器数据的研究。通过提供新的方法从数据中抓取概念、进行描述性推理、作出因果推论并进行预测，急速增长的数据和创新的方法有助于回答以前难以解决的社会问题。它们也带来了挑战，因为社会科学家必须掌握由复杂算法产生的概念和预测的含义，权衡预测相对于因果推论的价值，并应对道德挑战，因为它们的方法，如选民动员或确定保释金金额的算法，为政策制定者所采用。
Big data and data science are transforming the world in ways that spawn new concerns for social scientists, such as the impacts of the internet on citizens and the media, the repercussions of smart cities, the possibilities of cyber-warfare and cyber-terrorism, the implications of precision medicine, and the consequences of artificial intelligence and automation. Along with these changes in society, powerful new data science methods support research using administrative, internet, textual, and sensor-audio-video data. Burgeoning data and innovative methods facilitate answering previously hard-to-tackle questions about society by offering new ways to form concepts from data, to do descriptive inference, to make causal inferences, and to generate predictions. They also pose challenges as social scientists must grasp the meaning of concepts and predictions generated by convoluted algorithms, weigh the relative value of prediction versus causal inference, and cope with ethical challenges as their methods, such as algorithms for mobilizing voters or determining bail, are adopted by policy makers.
18. 调查中的党派偏见
题目：Partisan Bias in Surveys
作者：John G. Bullock, 西北大学政治学系副教授；Gabriel Lenz，加州大学伯克利分校政治学系教授
摘要：如果公民认为政客应当为其政治表现负责，那么他们必须对“经济是否正在增长”等相关情况有所了解。在调查中，民主党人和共和党人时常声称其对这些情况有着不同看法，这就引发了规范性的考量。但是，尚不清楚他们对于不同调查的回复是否反应了真实的信念分歧。在这篇综述中，作者得出结论，调查回答中的党派分歧通常不是由于真诚、深思熟虑的由党派分界发展而来的信念差异所致，但也很难确定是由于什么原因造成的。作者检视了一些证据，特别是不真诚的回答以及恰当的推论，以寻求可能的解释。该领域的研究仍处于初步阶段，在我们能够准确回答有关事实问题中的党派分歧原因之前，还需要做更多的工作。
If citizens are to hold politicians accountable for their performance, they probably must have some sense of the relevant facts, such as whether the economy is growing. In surveys, Democrats and Republicans often claim to hold different beliefs about these facts, which raises normative concerns. However, it is not clear that their divergent survey responses reflect actual divergence of beliefs. In this review, we conclude that partisan divergence in survey responses is often not due to sincere, considered differences of belief that fall along party lines—but determining what it is due to is difficult. We review the evidence for possible explanations, especially insincere responding and congenial inference. Research in this area is still nascent, and much more will be required before we can speak with precision about the causes of partisan divergence in responses to factual questions.
19. 气候变化与冲突
题目：Climate Change and Coflict
作者：Vally Koubi, 瑞士联邦理工学院比较与国际研究中心教授、高级研究员
摘要：气候变化与冲突之间的联系在过去的几十年间被学界集中讨论。这篇综述致力于为学界围绕这一关系的最新论述提供一个更加清晰的图式。本文发现，现有研究并未检验气候与冲突之间稳健而普遍的联系。目前达成的共识是，气候变化在一些情况下会通过特定的路径加剧冲突。特别地，现有文献指出，气候条件在依赖农业的地区，在与其他社会经济因素、政治因素——如较低的经济发展程度和政治边缘化——的结合和互动中，极大可能地导致了冲突的发生。今后的研究应该继续探究在给定社会经济、政治和人口因素条件下气候的变化，如何与这些因素相互动而导致冲突，并揭示这两种现象之间相联系的因果机制。
The link between climate change and conflict has been discussed intensively in academic literature during the past decade. This review aims to provide a clearer picture of what the research community currently has to say with regard to this nexus. It finds that the literature has not detected a robust and general effect linking climate to conflict onset. Substantial agreement exists that climatic changes contribute to conflict under some conditions and through certain pathways. In particular, the literature shows that climatic conditions breed conflict in fertile grounds: in regions dependent on agriculture and in combination and interaction with other socioeconomic and political factors such as a low level of economic development and political marginalization. Future research should continue to investigate how climatic changes interact with and/or are conditioned by socioeconomic, political, and demographic settings to cause conflict and uncover the causal mechanisms that link these two phenomena.
编译：康张城、施榕、殷昊、杨端程、赵德昊，吴温泉
编辑：郭静远
你在看政观么