College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences

While the role of legislators in parliamentary systems may sometimes seem to involve little more than to support the government of the day, legislators in many parliaments regularly take advantage of their, often limited, opportunities to introduce members’ bills and parliamentary motions. The success of these efforts is typically limited, which raises the question of why legislators bother. We argue that the legislators’ behavior is in part driven by the incentives their parties present them with. Government and opposition MPs behave in a different manner because government and opposition parties value legislative activity and types of legislative activity differently. Government MPs are expected to stay out of the way of the government’s agenda or focus their attention on less salient issues. In contrast, opposition MPs are expected to do the opposite and to present their parties as viable government alternatives. Examining members’ bills and parliamentary motions in Iceland over a thirty-year period, we observe patterns consistent with the importance of parties in shaping legislative behavior, while also finding some evidence of MPs’ career concerns affecting their behavior.

This study deals with South Korea’s foreign aid to African countries. Specifically, we discuss the impact of security concerns in determining official development assistance (ODA) policy focusing on the case of South Korea’s ODA policy in Africa. Based on a case study of South Korea’s ODA to African countries, we challenge the monistic approach in defining a donor’s aid motivation and highlight the diverse nature of a donor country’s motivation for giving aid. Theoretically, this study revisits the close interlink and nature of security and development and emphasizes the importance of bringing “security” back into the discussion of ODA. Based on a historical method, we analyze South Korea’s ODA policy from a security perspective and provide an in-depth discussion of South Korea’s aid for security in Africa. Specifically, we argue that a security goal, specifically, to support the US global strategy and check the expansion of North Korea’s influence in Africa has been one of the key motivations of South Korean ODA to Africa.

Since the end of racial prerequisite cases in 1952, anyone born on US soil has been granted birthright citizenship. But, prominent political figures have recently questioned whether children born to undocumented immigrants should automatically receive citizenship. Despite the importance of this issue, there is limited research on public attitudes towards this policy, its determinants, and its consequences. We address these open questions using the 2020 CMPS, and find that while most support birthright citizenship, a significant minority favors its revocation. Support for a ban is higher among Whites than among minorities. Those with closer ties to the immigrant experience, more liberal attitudes, and lower Trump favorability are less likely to support a ban. Negative attitudes towards undocumented immigrants and racial attitudes are also strongly correlated with banning birthright citizenship. Finally, birthright citizenship attitudes are consequential: across each racial group, they were significantly associated with greater Trump support in 2020.

Many multitier polities have some scheme of territorial-based redistribution, which plays a crucial role in mitigating territorial inequality. This article looks at the public opinion on inter-regional transfers and argues that: (1) perceptions of aggregate electoral support for interpersonal redistribution in the region affect support for inter-regional redistribution independently of perceptions about the region’s economic conditions and (2) perceptions of high electoral support for interpersonal redistribution among the region’s affluent can lead them to favor territorial transfers, because these transfers may work as a mechanism for local redistribution cost displacement. We test our argument using a survey experiment in which we provide information about regional economic conditions and aggregate demand for interpersonal redistribution. Our contribution highlights that the aggregate demand for interpersonal redistribution within regions is not necessarily endogenous to regions material conditions, and that the perception of this aggregate demand by the affluent affects their inter-regional redistributive preferences.

Abstract: The storming of the US Capitol building in January 2021 was a presidential attempt at a self-coup. To make the case, this article reviews elements of the Capitol assault and the events leading up to it, in light of the key conceptual components of a self-coup, and how those compare to attributes of other kinds of attacks on governments. The Trump self-coup will then be compared and contrasted empirically to other self-coups perpetrated by leaders. It is found that what separates successful self-coups from those that fail is whether the military backs the undertaking. Thus, a section is included on US military behaviour in response to Trump's attempts to gain military adherence for his political actions.

The military in Latin America has been extensively involved in pandemic relief operations. This paper analyses the impact of militarization of pandemic relief operations on human rights. It argues that not all militarization is equally harmful to individuals in the region. When troops assume responsibilities regarding medical care and logistical support, human rights violations do not follow. When involved in policing the stay-at-home orders, the extent of human rights violations is explained by the level of operational autonomy the military has in public security operations. The more autonomous the military, more likely abuses are to occur. Additionally, military exposure to judicial prosecution for human rights offenses contributes to the explanation. After gathering original empirical evidence from 14 Latin American democracies on military presence in pandemic relief, we draw our inferences from process tracing on four comparative case studies of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and El Salvador.

Resumo As crises política e econômica que assolaram o Brasil nos últimos anos do governo Dilma resultaram em uma queda substancial nos níveis de confiança no governo central. Estes caíram de 57,10% em 2013, com Dilma Rousseff (PT) como presidente, para 13,35% em 2018. Este artigo investiga o impacto desse fenômeno sobre as atitudes dos eleitores em relação à distribuição de poder entre os níveis de governo no Brasil. Com base em dois surveys inéditos com representatividade nacional, mostramos que a queda de confiança no governo central reduziu o apoio ao aumento do poder da União na federação brasileira, mas, contraintuitivamente, não resultou em crescimento de atitudes descentralistas, em direção distinta da encontrada para o caso norte-americano. A crise de confiança no governo central que se instalou entre esses dois pontos no tempo mudou significativamente a importância da confiança como um fator preditivo de atitudes centralistas. Em conjunto, esses resultados mostram que a opinião pública sobre a federação não se opõe ao nível de centralização existente no Brasil, e também alertam para a importância dos choques de confiança para entendermos como esta última afeta a formação de atitudes centralistas.