政观快递 | American Political Science Review No.1, 2020（中）

期刊简介：《美国政治学评论》（American Political Science Review）是美国政治学会（American Political Science Association）旗下最知名的季刊。自1906年创刊并由剑桥大学出版社出版以来，逐步成为政治学最具权威性的期刊之一。内容涉及政治学理论、美国政治、公共政策、公共管理、比较政治、国际关系等。根据Journal Citation Reports显示，其2018年的影响因子为3.895，在176种政治科学类期刊中位列第7位（7/176）。

编者按：摘要编译主要由各高校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

7. 重构移民政治：瓦尔特·本雅明、暴力和劳工

8. 沙特的镇压为何没能平息网上的反对声音？

9. 经济援助能在战时形塑民众对战斗的支持吗？来自阿富汗的实验证据

10. 对于司法权力的公众支持与谁掌握政治权力有关吗？对非洲党派联盟理论

11. 以地区为基础的民主政权内部党派公平性的理论基础和实证检验

重构移民政治：

瓦尔特·本雅明、暴力和劳工

题目：Reconceiving Immigration Politics: Walter Benjamin, Violence, and Labor

作者简介：Inés Valdez，俄亥俄州立大学政治学系副教授

摘要： 本文将在移民和劳工中的暴力循环理论化。通过对瓦尔特·本雅明的分析，作者将种族暴力和法律之间的关系概念化，并且指出尽管暴力能够支撑法律的权威，但是过度暴力会使法律变得易于腐朽。人道主义缓解了权威和过度暴力之间的这种张力。作者在本雅明提出的“例外状态”和“总罢工”两个概念中找到了打破这种循环的线索。这两个概念提出的间隔达二十年，都被用于研究劳工和其他边缘群体如何威胁由暴力支持的法律的稳定性。这种重构与对当代美国移民执法制度的研究同时进行，该制度将拘留和驱逐出境中的过度暴力与微弱的人道主义调整结合，这一调整使暴力最终合法化。在破坏性方面，对伊莫卡利工人联盟的劳工运动的本雅明式解读提供了解放政治的三个维度：（1）拒绝（参与关于移民问题的辩论）的行动，（2）构建（法律中有关劳工种族管制的）历史事件，（3）“上帝的暴力”（通过揭露食品生产链中的合法暴力）。

This article theorizes the circulation of violence in the realms of immigration and labor. Through Walter Benjamin, I conceptualize the relationship between racial violence and law, and note that although violence can support the authority of law, excessive violence makes law vulnerable to decay. This tension between authority and excess is eased by humanitarianism. I find clues for disrupting this circulation in Benjamin’s twin notions of the real state of exception and the general strike, introduced two decades apart and invested in theorizing how labor and other marginalized groups threaten the stability of law supported by violence. This reconstruction proceeds alongside an examination of the contemporary US regime of immigration enforcement, which combines the excessive violence of detention and deportation with marginal humanitarian adjustments, which ultimately legitimate violence. On the disruptive side, a Benjaminian reading of labor activism by the Coalition of Immokalee Workers offers three dimensions of emancipatory politics: (a) practices of refusal (to engage on the terms of the immigration debate), (b) the establishment of historical constellations (of racial regulation of labor constitutive of law), and (c) divine violence (through exposure of lawful violence in the food production chain).

沙特的镇压为何没能平息网上的反对声音？

题目：How Saudi Crackdowns Fail to Silence Online Dissent

作者：Jennifer Pan（潘婕），斯坦福大学传播学系助理教授；Alexandra A. Siegel，斯坦福大学移民政策实验室博士后研究员

摘要：沙特阿拉伯拘捕并拷打了在网上发出反对声音的社会活动家、宗教领袖和记者。这反映了世界范围内越来越多地使用物理手段镇压并监控网络言论的趋势。通过对2010~2017年间超过3亿条推文和谷歌搜索数据的自动文本分析和外包人工评估，本文系统性检验了拘捕知名沙特网络反对者的后果。本文发现，尽管这一镇压使得被拘捕者不再发声，但未完全平息网上的反对声音。被拘捕者在推特上的支持者反而表达了更多反对声音，包括批评统治家族、呼吁体制改革。镇压行为还带动了公众对被逮捕沙特人士及其被捕缘由的关注，沙特阿拉伯的其他知名人士也没有因同行被镇压而吓倒，反而继续在网上发表反对意见。

Saudi Arabia has imprisoned and tortured activists, religious leaders, and journalists for voicing dissent online. This reflects a growing worldwide trend in the use of physical repression to censor online speech. In this paper, we systematically examine the consequences of imprisoning well-known Saudis for online dissent by analyzing over 300 million tweets as well as detailed Google search data from 2010 to 2017 using automated text analysis and crowd-sourced human evaluation of content. We find that repression deterred imprisoned Saudis from continuing to dissent online. However, it did not suppress dissent overall. Twitter followers of the imprisoned Saudis engaged in more online dissent, including criticizing the ruling family and calling for regime change. Repression drew public attention to arrested Saudis and their causes, and other prominent figures in Saudi Arabia were not deterred by the repression of their peers and continued to dissent online.

经济援助能在战时形塑民众对战斗的支持吗？

来自阿富汗的实验证据

题目：Can Economic Assistance Shape Combatant Support in Wartime? Experimental Evidence from Afghanistan

作者：Jason Lyall, 达特茅斯学院政府系副教授；Yang-Yang Zhou，英属哥伦比亚大学政治学系助理教授；Kosuke Imai（今井耕介），哈佛大学政府系和统计系教授

摘要：在战时，政府、军队和援助组织都依赖经济干预来形塑民众对战争的态度。然而，我们在研究这些关乎“内心与意识”的项目如何影响战时支持时仍然缺乏个体层面的证据。本文通过对两项常见的干预措施——职业培训和现金转移支付进行析因随机对照实验，研究了阿富汗坎大哈2597名处于危险中的青年对战斗人员的支持态度。本文发现，培训只是缓慢地改善了民众的经济生活，并且几乎没有影响民众对战斗人员的支持。同时，现金转移支付也无法提高民众的收入，它导致了繁荣和萧条之间的波动。具而言之，民众亲政府的情绪一开始上升，然后迅速下降，最后反而增加了民众对塔利班的支持。在控制培训的条件时，现金支付虽然无法改善受益者的生计但是提高了他们在至少八个月内对阿富汗政府的支持。这些研究表明援助通过提供政府决心和能力的信息而非改善经济生活来影响民众的态度。

Governments, militaries, and aid organizations all rely on economic interventions to shape civilian attitudes toward combatants during wartime. We have, however, little individual-level evidence that these “hearts and minds” programs actually influence combatant support. We address this problem by conducting a factorial randomized control trial of two common interventions—vocational training and cash transfers—on combatant support among 2,597 at-risk youth in Kandahar, Afghanistan. We find that training only improved economic livelihoods modestly and had little effect on combatant support. Cash failed to lift incomes, producing a boom-and-bust dynamic in which pro-government sentiment initially spiked and then quickly reversed itself, leaving a residue of increased Taliban support. Conditional on training, cash failed to improve beneficiaries’ livelihoods but did increase support for the Afghan government for at least eight months after the intervention. These findings suggest that aid affects attitudes by providing information about government resolve and competence rather than by improving economic livelihoods.

对于司法权力的公众支持与谁掌握政治权力有关吗？

对非洲党派联盟理论的检验

题目：Does Public Support for Judicial Power Depend on Who is in Political Power? Testing a Theory of Partisan Alignment in Africa

作者：Brandon L. Bartels, 乔治华盛顿大学政治学系副教授；Eric Kramon，乔治华盛顿大学政治学系助理教授

摘要：对于法治和民主巩固而言，司法权力至关重要。公众支持则对建立和维护司法权力至关重要。传统智慧认为这种支持根植于非政治因素且不依赖于谁在掌握政治权力。相反，本文认为公众支持可能是被党派的工具性动机所驱动的，因此公众支持与党派和行政部门对联合有关。本文通过对34个非洲国家的调研材料验证了这个观点。为了提供因果关系的证据，我们利用加纳自2000年以来的三次总统换届的数据进行了双重差分分析。在整个非洲，对司法权的支持很高，而对法院的信任则较低。但是，与总统相同党派的人对针对总统的横向司法权的支持较少，而对针对人民的纵向权力的支持较高。本文证明了党派与行政机关的联盟在塑造司法权力支持上的重要性，这一结论对司法行为与合法性具有重要意义。

Judicial power is central to democratic consolidation and the rule of law. Public support is critical for establishing and protecting it. Conventional wisdom holds that this support is rooted in apolitical factors and not dependent on who is in political power. By contrast, we argue that support may be driven by instrumental partisan motivations and therefore linked to partisan alignment with the executive. We test the argument with survey evidence from 34 African countries. To provide causal evidence, we conduct difference-in-differences analyses leveraging Ghana’s three presidential transitions since 2000. Across Africa, support for judicial power is high, while trust in courts is lower. However, presidential co-partisans are less supportive of horizontal judicial power over the president and more supportive of vertical power over the people. The article demonstrates the importance of partisan alignment with the executive in shaping support for judicial power, with implications for judicial behavior and legitimacy.

以地区为基础的民主政权内部党派公平性的理论基础和实证检验

题目：Theoretical Foundations and Empirical Evaluations of Partisan Fairness in District-Based Democracies

作者：Jonathan N. Katz，加州理工大学社会科学和统计教授；Gary King，哈佛大学政府系教授，哈佛大学量化社会科学中心主任；Elizabeth Rosenblatt，哈佛大学量化社会科学中心研究人员

摘要：本文澄清了以地区为基础的民主选举制度中党派公平性的理论基础，包括必要的推测和先前没有被识别、形式化或者甚至在某些情况下没有被讨论过的案例。本文也为具有明显意义的假定提供了广泛的经验证据。本文覆盖了党派的对称性这一普遍被接受的公平性标准以及其他观点。自始至终，本文遵循了一个统计推断中经常被忽略的基本原则——根据（党派）利益的数量分别定义，这种测量方法可以被证伪、评估和改进。这确保了本文能证明哪些新提出的关于公平性的测量在统计上是合适的，哪些又是有偏误的、有局限的，或者根本无法测量他们想要的理论。此外，因为现实世界中（不公平的）选区重划牵涉到众多的参与者和彼此冲突的目标等一系列复杂的政治，因此对党派公平性的测量偏误依然能为选举制度的其他方面提供有用的描述。

We clarify the theoretical foundations of partisan fairness standards for district-based democratic electoral systems, including essential assumptions and definitions not previously recognized, formalized, or in some cases even discussed. We also offer extensive empirical evidence for assumptions with observable implications. We cover partisan symmetry, the most commonly accepted fairness standard, and other perspectives. Throughout, we follow a fundamental principle of statistical inference too often ignored in this literature—defining the quantity of interest separately so its measures can be proven wrong, evaluated, and improved. This enables us to prove which of the many newly proposed fairness measures are statistically appropriate and which are biased, limited, or not measures of the theoretical quantity they seek to estimate at all. Because real-world redistricting and gerrymandering involve complicated politics with numerous participants and conflicting goals, measures biased for partisan fairness sometimes still provide useful descriptions of other aspects of electoral systems.

编译/校对：施榕、杨端程、康张城、殷昊、赵德昊、吴温泉

编辑：郭静远

【政文观止Poliview】系头条号签约作者

你在看政观么