政观快递 | AJPS Vol.64, No.3, 2020
期刊简介：《美国政治学杂志》（American Journal of Political Science, AJPS）致力于在公民身份、治理和政治等知识领域取得重大进展。作为中西部政治科学协会的官方期刊，AJPS发表所有政治学领域的相关研究，包括美国政治、公共政策、国际关系、比较政治学、政治学方法论和政治学理论等。
编者按：政观对英文专业期刊摘要的翻译工作主要由团队中的在读硕士生和博士生自愿组织进行，受学生学识及翻译水平所限，译文可能有诸多不当之处，还望读者们见宥，也欢迎留言讨论。此外，由于版权所限，需要阅读原文的读者请通过所在学校/机构的图书馆数据库或其他途径访问下载。
期刊目录
1. 国外恐怖主义会影响国内对移民的态度吗？
Can Terrorism Abroad Influence Migration Attitudes at Home?
2. 政党分支和美国的政党派系
Party Sub-Brands and American Party Factions
3. 培养代理人：印度贫民窟的声誉、回应能力和种族中立
Cultivating Clients: Reputation, Responsiveness, and Ethnic Indifference in India's Slums
4. 镇压的技术：互联网接入与国家暴力
Repression Technology: Internet Accessibility and State Violence
5. 幸福感与投票：来自欧洲40年选举的证据
Happiness and Voting: Evidence from Four Decades of Elections in Europe
6. 一个在选民中基于选择测量议题重要性的方法
A Choice‐Based Measure of Issue Importance in the Electorate
7. 这需要一个村庄：技术采用中的同侪效应和外部性
It Takes a Village: Peer Effects and Externalities in Technology Adoption
8. 随时间推移发生的政治冲突
Political Conflict over Time
9. 测量美国党派对立的政策基础
The Policy Basis of Measured Partisan Animosity in the United States
10. 美国的政党捐赠者、初选与政治两极化
Donors, Primary Elections, and Polarization in the United States
11. 普世之爱亦或一神信仰？宗教观念在利他主义和歧视方面矛盾影响的实验证据
Universal Love or One True Religion? Experimental Evidence of the Ambivalent Effect of Religious Ideas on Altruism and Discrimination
12. 政策执行关怀的公共伦理
A Public Ethics of Care for Policy Implementation
国外恐怖主义会影响国内对移民的态度吗？
题目：Can Terrorism Abroad Influence Migration Attitudes at Home?
作者：Tobias B¨ohmelt,埃克塞斯大学政府系教授；Vincenzo Bove，华威大学政治学教授；Enzo Nussio，瑞士联邦理工学院安全研究中心高级研究员
摘要：本文论证了国内公众对移民的看法是受到发生在其他国家的恐怖主义的系统性驱动。尽管几乎没有实质性证据表明难民或移民与欧洲最近发生的恐怖袭击有关，但有关恐怖袭击的新闻可能引发更多对移民的负面看法。但是，现有的研究忽视了这一过程的空间动态。本文认为，对迫在眉睫的危险的感觉和对移民威胁的更为明显的感知并不局限于国界。基于空间计量经济学和9/11后欧洲所有恐怖袭击的数据的实证结果支持了上述主张。对公众的移民关切而言，恐怖主义对其的影响在一个国家内非常突出，但也在欧洲各国蔓延。这一发现有助于我们理解公众对移民的看法以及恐怖主义的溢出效应，并为对人口流动的安全影响感兴趣的学者提供了重要经验。
This article demonstrates that public opinion on migration “at home” is systematically driven by terrorism in other countries. Although there is little substantive evidence linking refugees or migrants to most recent terror attacks in Europe, news about terrorist attacks can trigger more negative views of immigrants. However, the spatial dynamics of this process are neglected in existing research. We argue that feelings of imminent danger and a more salient perception of migration threats do not stop at national borders. The empirical results based on spatial econometrics and data on all terrorist attacks in Europe for the post-9/11 period support these claims. The effect of terrorism on migration concern is strongly present within a country but also diffuses across states in Europe. This finding improves our understanding of public opinion on migration, as well as the spillover effects of terror ism, and it highlights crucial lessons for scholars interested in the security implications of population movements.
政党分支和美国的政党派系
题目：Party Sub-Brands and American Party Factions
作者：Andrew J. Clarke，拉斐特学院政府与法律系助理教授
摘要：学者和专家早就注意到美国两党制度的主导地位，但我们对两大政党内部新产生的内生制度却知之甚少。本文认为，意识形态派系促成了政党分支，这使立法者能更精确地界定他们的党派所属并获取特定的派系资源。为了证明这一观点，本文分析了众议院（1995–2018）中九个意识形态派系的新建数据。本文发现（1）派系投票是显著的，这表明政党分支已经形成（2）加入一个派系会视其派系机构的力量而改变候选人捐款基金的意识形态组成。只有当各派系拥有引导协调和控制其所采纳立场的组织特征（如党鞭、政治行动委员会、成员资格限制）时，政党分支才能发挥作用。这些结果表明，即使在高度极化的政党中，美国的政治意识形态也不仅仅是一个二元式选择，且派系面向政治捐款人的小众市场，以此弱化党权的金融工具。
Scholars and pundits have long noted the dominance of the American two‐party system, but we know relatively little about new, endogenous institutions that have emerged within the two major parties. I argue that ideological factions provide party sub‐brands, which allow legislators to more precisely define their partisan type and capture faction‐specific resources. To support this claim, I analyze new data on nine ideological factions in the House of Representatives (1995–2018). I find that (1) faction voting is distinct, suggesting a product ripe for party sub‐branding, and (2) joining a faction changes the ideological composition of a candidate's donor base—conditional on the strength of the faction's institutions. Party sub‐branding is effective only when factions possess organizational features that induce coordinated and disciplined position taking (e.g., whips, PACs, membership restrictions). These results suggest that, even within highly polarized parties, American is more than a dichotomous choice, and factions target niche markets of political donors as a means of blunting financial instruments of party power.
培养代理人：
印度贫民窟的声誉、回应能力和种族中立
题目：Cultivating Clients: Reputation, Responsiveness, and Ethnic Indifference in India's Slums
作者：Adam Michael Auerbach, 美利坚大学国际服务学院助理教授；Tariq Thachil，范德堡大学政治学系副教授
摘要：对侍从主义的研究主要集中在掮客如何在选举中以自上而下的利益来锁定选民。然而，掮客也会收到选民在选举期间提出的帮助请求，从而开始了他们培养代理人的过程。为什么掮客会对一些选民的要求作出回应，而对另一些选民的要求则不作出回应?在评估代理人的诉求时，本文提供了首个关于掮客偏好的研究。强调掮客作为投票监督者的理论预测他们将更喜欢同党派和同种族的人，因为能很好地确认这些人彼此之间是互惠的。强调掮客作为选举动员者的理论认为他们会更喜欢那些将自己的声誉最大化的居民。本文通过与629位印度贫民窟领导人的联合实验、人种学的田野调查和对2199位贫民窟居民的调查来检验这些预期。本文发现，有证据表明，对声誉的考虑塑造了掮客回应选民的能力。而针对掮客作为投票监督者的理论预期则有不同的结论，这主要体现在许多发展中国家缺乏被认为是主导分配性政治的强烈种族偏爱。
Studies of clientelism overwhelmingly focus on how brokers target voters with top‐down benefits during elections. Yet brokers also receive requests from voters for assistance between elections, initiating the processes through which they cultivate clients. Why are brokers responsive to the requests of some voters and not others? We provide the first study of broker preferences when evaluating client appeals. Theories emphasizing brokers as vote monitors anticipate they will prefer co‐partisans and coethnics, whose reciprocity they can best verify. Theories emphasizing brokers as vote mobilizers anticipate they will prefer residents who will maximize their reputations for efficacy. We test these expectations through a conjoint experiment with 629 Indian slum leaders, ethnographic fieldwork, and a survey of 2,199 slum residents. We find evidence of reputational considerations shaping broker responsiveness. We find mixed support for monitoring concerns, highlighted by an absence of the strong ethnic favoritism assumed to dominate distributive politics in many developing countries.
镇压的技术：
互联网接入与国家暴力
题目：Repression Technology: Internet Accessibility and State Violence
作者：Anita R. Gohdes，柏林赫尔梯行政学院国际和网络安全教授
摘要：本文首次提供了次国家层级中政府对互联网接入的动态控制与其使用暴力镇压之间关系的分析。本文指出，在政府提供互联网接入的地区，对数字信息交换的监视能够提供情报，使得更多有针对性的镇压方式成为可能，这在政府未完全控制的地区尤甚。增加对互联网接入的限制可能会抑制反对组织，但也限制了获取目标精确信息的途径，导致无针对性的镇压增加。本文提供了叙利亚冲突中杀戮的新数据，并用有监督的文本分类方法来区分事件的针对性或非针对性。本文发现，互联网接入程度越高，发生的有针对性的镇压就越多；而互联网接入有限的地区则经历了更多的无差别暴力活动。研究结果对政府如何将有选择性的传播技术纳入其压制策略提供了重要启示。
This article offers a first subnational analysis of the relationship between states' dynamic control of Internet access and their use of violent repression. I argue that where governments provide Internet access, surveillance of digital information exchange can provide intelligence that enables the use of more targeted forms of repression, in particular in areas not fully controlled by the regime. Increasing restrictions on Internet accessibility can impede opposition organization, but they limit access to information on precise targets, resulting in an increase in untargeted repression. I present new data on killings in the Syrian conflict that distinguish between targeted and untargeted events, using supervised text classification. I find that higher levels of Internet accessibility are associated with increases in targeted repression, whereas areas with limited access experience more indiscriminate campaigns of violence. The results offer important implications on how governments incorporate the selective access to communication technology into their strategies of coercion.
幸福感与投票：
来自欧洲40年选举的证据
题目：Happiness and Voting: Evidence from Four Decades of Elections in Europe
作者：George Ward，麻省理工学院Sloan管理学院行为与政策科学研究博士生
摘要：决策者对使用主观幸福（“幸福感”）的数据去测量社会进步以及为公共政策提供信息并加以评估越来越感兴趣。尽管基于福利制定的政策数量在快速的上升，但是它们是否是选举所需求的仍不确定。本文选取了欧洲大选的长期面板数据，发现幸福是选举结果强有力的预测指数。与经济的投票研究中典型的标准宏观经济指标相比，国家层面的幸福测量更有解释力。当考虑个人层面的主观幸福感和投票意向时，使用横截面数据与面板数据的分析结果一致。
There is a growing interest among policy makers in the use of subjective well‐being (or “happiness”) data to measure societal progress, as well as to inform and evaluate public policy. Yet despite a sharp rise in the supply of well‐being‐based policymaking, it remains unclear whether there is any electoral demand for it. In this article, I study a long‐run panel of general elections in Europe and find that well‐being is a strong predictor of election results. National measures of subjective well‐being are able to explain more of the variance in governing party vote share than standard macroeconomic indicators typically used in the economic voting literature. Consistent results are found at the individual level when considering subjective well‐being and voting intentions, both in cross‐sectional and panel analyses.
一个在选民中基于选择测量议题重要性的方法
题目：A Choice‐Based Measure of IssueImportance in the Electorate
作者：ChrisHanretty, 伦敦大学皇家霍洛威学院政治学系教授; Benjamin E. Lauderdale, 伦敦大学学院政治学系教授；Nick Vivyan，达拉姆大学政府与国际关系学院教授
摘要：对于政治学者来说，测量选民对于不同政策议题的关心程度是非常重要的，然而现有的测量手段有明显的局限性。本文提供了一个新的基于选择的调查-实验方法来测量选民对不同立场性议题（positional issues）的重视程度，包括并未被政治精英所争论的议题。本文结合了两组信息，一是引出受访者对于不同议题所持立场的直接的问题；二是联合实验，要求受访者在这些议题上对其偏好立场进行权衡。本文应用这一方法研究了英国34个议题的相对重要性，表明了英国选民非常重视死刑这类尚未成为政治辩论主题的议题，并且更重视那些和社会自由-保守相关的议题而不是经济上的左-右分野。
Measuring how much citizenscare about different policy issues is critical for political scientists, yetexisting measurement approaches have significant limitations. We provide a newsurvey‐experimental, choice‐based approach formeasuring the importance voters attach to different positional issues,including issues not currently contested by political elites. We combineinformation from (a) direct questions eliciting respondents' positions ondifferent issues with (b) a conjoint experiment asking respondents to trade offdepartures from their preferred positions on those issues. Applying this methodto study the relative importance of 34 issues in the United Kingdom, we showthat British voters attach significant importance to issues like the deathpenalty that are not presently the subject of political debate and attach moreimportance to those issues associated with social liberal–conservative rather than economic left–right divisions.
这需要一个村庄：
技术采用中的同侪效应和外部性
题目：It Takes a Village: Peer Effects and Externalities in Technology Adoption
作者：Romain Ferrali，纽约大学阿布扎比分校社会学系博士后；Guy Grossman，宾夕法尼亚大学政治学系教授；Melina R. Platas，纽约大学阿布扎比分校政治学系助理教授；Jonathan Rodden，斯坦福大学政治学系教授
摘要：社会网络对新型政治参与重要吗？本文建立了一个形式模型，以表明当新型政治参与的收益不确定，且存在与之联系的外部积极因素时，社会网络中的交流质量是理解一个社区是否会采取新型政治参与的核心。早期的推动者可能会夸大收益，导致其他人对技术价值的信息了解大打折扣。因此，只有当非正式制度支持真实的交流时，同侪效应才会出现。本文收集了16个乌干达村庄的社会网络数据，这些村庄创新性地引进了的基于手机地报告平台。与模型一致，作者发现在技术引进过程中，同侪效应的程度在不同村庄之间存在差异，同时也发现了支持其他可观测影响的证据。社会扩散的障碍可能有助于解释为何世界各地对新的、日趋普及的政治通讯技术有着不同的看法。
Do social networks matter for the adoption of new forms of political participation? We develop a formal model showing that the quality of communication that takes place in social networks is central to understanding whether a community will adopt forms of political participation where benefits are uncertain and where there are positive externalities associated with participation. Early adopters may exaggerate benefits, leading others to discount information about the technology's value. Thus, peer effects are likely to emerge only when informal institutions support truthful communication. We collect social network data for 16 Ugandan villages where an innovative mobile‐based reporting platform was introduced. Consistent with our model, we find variation across villages in the extent of peer effects on technology adoption, as well as evidence supporting additional observable implications. Impediments to social diffusion may help explain the varied uptake of new and increasingly common political communication technologies around the world.
随时间推移发生的政治冲突
题目：Political Conflict over Time
作者：William Howell，芝加哥大学政治学系教授；Stefan Krasa，伊利诺伊大学厄巴纳-香槟分校经济学系教授；Mattias Polborn，范德堡大学经济学系教授
摘要：本文研究了政客决定是否开始提供某种公共物品以及供给多少这类公共物品的选举竞争模型。这一模型阐明了项目实施如何影响选举以及，选举考量如何反过来影响实施的决定。在明确给定的条件下，政客可能会推进他们不喜欢的项目或者推迟缺乏支持的项目。该模型进一步揭示了担任公职所带来的利益如何阻碍公共产品的提供，对此人们已经达成了广泛共识。在项目结构和选举前景的基础上，政策的实施能缓和或者加剧政治冲突。
We study a model of electoral competition in which politicians must decide whether to initiate the provision of some public good and, afterward, how much of the public good to supply. The model illuminates how a project's implementation affects elections and, conversely, how electoral considerations influence decisions about implementation. Under well‐defined conditions, politicians will either implement projects that they do not like or delay projects that, absent electoral concerns, they would support. The model further reveals how the perceived benefits of holding office can impede the production of public goods about which there is broad consensus. And depending on facts about the program's structure and the electoral landscape, a policy's implementation can either mitigate or exacerbate political conflict.
测量美国党派对立的政策基础
题目：The Policy Basis of Measured Partisan Animosity in the United States
作者：Lilla V. Orr，耶鲁大学政治学系博士候选人；Gregory A. Huber，耶鲁大学政治学讲席教授
摘要：理解和解决党派对立的后果需要了解它的基础。党派团体之间的对立多大程度上是由对党派外团体本身的厌恶、政策分歧或其他社会团体矛盾引起？在许多情况下，包括现有的实验研究，这些变量在观测时都是等价的。在一系列情景评估实验中，作者在附加信息存在和不存在的情况下，评估了共享党派偏好的效应，并将这些效应与共同政策偏好的效应进行基准比较。当各党派分开呈现时，党派偏好效应约为共同政策偏好效应的71%。当单独随机的政党和政治立场同时出现时，党派效应显著下降，下降了近52%；而政策效应仍然显著，仅下降约10%。这些结果表明，相较于基于社会身份的党派对立，用于测量党派对立的一般性方法更能检测到程序性冲突。
Understanding and addressing the consequences of partisan animosity requires knowledge of its foundations. To what extent is animosity between partisan groups motivated by dislike for partisan outgroups per se, policy disagreement, or other social group conflicts? In many circumstances, including extant experimental research, these patterns are observationally equivalent. In a series of vignette evaluation experiments, we estimate effects of shared partisanship when additional information is or is not present, and we benchmark these effects against shared policy preference effects. Partisanship effects are about 71% as large as shared policy preference effects when each is presented in isolation. When an independently randomized party and policy position are presented together, partisanship effects decrease substantially, by about 52%, whereas policy effects remain large, decreasing by about 10%. These results suggest that common measures of partisan animosity may capture programmatic conflict more so than social identity–based partisan hostility.
美国的政党捐赠者、初选与政治两极化
题目：Donors, Primary Elections, and Polarization in the United States
作者：Jordan Kujala，加州大学萨克拉门托中心政治学客座助理教授
摘要：作者考察了政党捐赠者对美国国会候选人在地区层面的意识形态极化的影响。作者使用了2002年到2019年美国众议院选举的数据，这些数据将主要政党的初选获胜者在初选、大选和党派捐赠者的选区竞选时表现出来的意识形态偏好置于同一维度中考察。作者使用这个独特的数据集发现了有力的证据，表明捐赠者在政党提名竞争中的影响是美国两级分化的来源之一。众议院被提名人对捐赠者选民比对其初选选民或大选选民的回应都更加积极。作者也发现大选缺少竞争影响了被提名人的极端性。在更安全的地区，民主党在任者似乎对捐赠者的回应更强。但是，无论地区竞争程度如何，共和党捐赠者的要求似乎更加相近。总之，无论在何种缓和效应中，捐赠者选民的极化影响都占据了主导。这种影响使得政党提名人的意识形态极化，最终影响到了国会议员。
I examine the influence of partisan donors on the district‐level ideological polarization of congressional candidates in the United States. I use data from 2002–10 U.S. House elections, which provide for the placement of major party primary winners on the same ideological dimension as their primary, general election, and partisan donor constituencies. Using this unique data set, I find strong evidence that the influence of donors in nominating contests is a source of polarization in the United States. House nominees are more responsive to their donor constituencies than either their primary or general electorates. I also find some evidence that the lack of general election competition affects nominee extremity. In safer districts, Democratic incumbents appear more responsive to donors. However, Republican donors seem to demand proximity regardless of district competitiveness. Overall, the polarizing effects of donor constituencies dominate any moderating effects, resulting in ideologically extreme nominees and, ultimately, members of Congress.
普世之爱亦或一神信仰？
宗教观念在利他主义和歧视方面矛盾影响的实验证据
题目：Universal Love or One True Religion? Experimental Evidence of the Ambivalent Effect of Religious Ideas on Altruism and Discrimination
作者：Lisa Hoffmann，德国全球与区域研究院非洲事务研究所博士生；Matthias Basedau，德国全球与区域研究院非洲事务研究所教授；Simone Gobien，德国全球与区域研究院非洲事务研究所研究员；Sebastian Prediger，德国全球与区域研究院非洲事务研究所研究员
摘要：与世俗化理论的预期相反，宗教仍具有社会意义上的重要性，并通过多种途径影响政治，特别是在有关不同宗教社群之间的冲突方面。理论上，宗教可以加强利他主义，但是个人信仰方面的优越性信念可能会加强群体间的歧视和冲突。但是，由于具体的宗教观念几乎没有经过测试，先前的研究仍有不确定性。在本文中，作者认为宗教观念的内容对群体间歧视具有因果影响。因此，作者测试了“普世之爱”（universal love）和“一神信仰”（one true religion）两种对立的宗教观念对歧视和利他主义影响。通过对加纳和坦桑尼亚的穆斯林、基督徒的独裁者博弈，作者发现了因果关系：一神信仰的宗教观念增加了群体间歧视，而普世之爱则促进了平等对待。这其中的政策含义显而易见——提倡宽容的宗教观念似乎对避免冲突至关重要。
Contrary to the expectations of secularization theory, religion remains socially important and affects politics in multiple ways—especially regarding conflict between religious communities. Theoretically, religion can increase altruism, but belief in the superiority of one's faith may facilitate intergroup discrimination and related conflict. Previous findings remain inconclusive, however, as specific religious ideas have hardly been tested. In this article, we argue that the content of religious ideas has causal effects on intergroup discrimination. We hence test the impact of two opposing, prominent religious ideas on altruism and discrimination: universal love and the notion of one true religion. Conducting dictator games with Christians and Muslims in Ghana and Tanzania, we find causal effects: Whereas the idea of one true religion increases intergroup discrimination, that of universal love fosters equal treatment. The policy implications hereof are obvious—promoting tolerant religious ideas seems crucial to avoiding conflict.
政策执行关怀的公共伦理
题目：A Public Ethics of Care for Policy Implementation
作者：Daniel Engster，休斯敦大学公共事务学院教授
摘要：自由主义和共和主义的政治理论家对于公共行政或政策执行理论的关注不多。在某种程度上，他们倾向于支持理想型的韦伯式官僚主义模式和非人格化的道德规范来限制街头官僚的自由裁量权。本文认为，韦伯式的官僚伦理与在街头官僚中事实上占据主导地位的自由主义、共和主义的核心价值并不一致。为了使法律和政策以和自由主义、共和主义原则相一致的方式执行，本文提出了一种替代性的公共伦理——关怀的公共伦理。在早期研究的基础上，本文认为，由于能以有限、回应性和非主导的方式在街头执行法律和政策，关怀的公共伦理是自由主义和共和主义理念的重要补充，也是韦伯式官僚管理的更好的替代品。
Liberal and republican political theorists have not paid much attention to a theory of public administration or policy implementation. To the extent that they have, they have tended to endorse an ideal‐typical Weberian model of bureaucracy and impersonal ethics of rules to limit street‐level discretion. This article argues that the Weberian bureaucratic ethics is inconsistent with core liberal and republican values and, in fact, dominating at the street level. In order for laws and policies to be implemented in a manner consistent with liberal and republican principles, an alternative public ethics is proposed—a public ethics of care. Building on earlier research, this article argues that a public ethics of care represents an important supplement to liberal and republican ideals, as well as a better alternative to Weberian bureaucratic ethics, for implementing laws and policies at the street level in limited and responsive, nondominating ways.
编译/审校：康张城、施榕、吴温泉、杨端程、殷昊、赵德昊
编辑：郭静远
【政文观止Poliview】系头条号签约作者
你在看政观么