|
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 1. 对话西达·斯考克波 A Conversation with Theda Skocpol 2. 发达民主国家中的中右翼政党 Center-Right Political Parties in Advanced Democracies 3. 美国规章制定的政治分析 The Politics of Rulemaking in the United States 4. 瘾品与战争：它们之间是何种关系？ Drugs and War: What Is the Relationship? 5. 特惠贸易协定的经济与政治分析 The Economics and Politics of Preferential Trade Agreements 6. 言论自由与言论仇恨 Free Speech and Hate Speech 7. 民粹主义的政治学理论 Political Theory of Populism 8. 情感极化在美国的起源与后果 The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States 9. 理解国际制度的设计 Making Sense of the Design of International Institutions 10. 住房政治 The Politics of Housing  一、对话西达·斯考克波 题目：A Conversation with Theda Skocpol 作者：Theda Skocpol，当代著名历史社会学家，哈佛大学政府系和社会学系Victor S. Thomas讲席教授。 摘要：2017年12月斯考克波在哈佛大学接受了采访。斯考克波教授目前是哈佛大学政府系和社会学系的Victor S. Thomas讲席教授，她是政治科学等领域诸多专著和论文的作者，这些代表作有《国家与社会革命》、《保卫士兵与母亲》、《消弭的民主：从美国公民生活的成员到管理》以及与瓦奈萨·威廉姆森（Vanessa Williamson）合作的《茶党与共和党保守主义的重构》等。斯考克波曾先后担任美国政治学会和社会科学历史学会主席。由于其杰出贡献，她被选为美国人文与艺术科学院院士、美国哲学学会会士以及美国科学院院士，并曾斩获约翰·斯凯特奖（Johan Skytte Prize）。加州大学伯克利分校政治学系Jeffrey & Ashley McDermott讲席教授埃里克·施克勒（Eric Schickler）采访了斯考克波本人，本文刊发的是编辑后的文字稿，专访的视频链接地址为https://www./r/theda-skocpol. An interview with Theda Skocpol took place at Harvard University in December 2017. Professor Skocpol is the Victor S. Thomas Professor of Government and Sociology at Harvard University. Skocpol is the author of numerous books and articles well known in political science and beyond, including States and Social Revolutions, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life, and The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism (the latter coauthored with Vanessa Williamson). Skocpol has served as President of the American Political Science Association and the Social Science History Association. Among her honors, she is an elected member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, and the National Academy of Sciences, and she was awarded the Johan Skytte Prize in Political Science. She was interviewed by Eric Schickler, the Jeffrey & Ashley McDermott Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. The following is an edited transcript; a video of the entire interview can be viewed at https://www./r/theda-skocpol. 二、发达民主国家中的中右翼政党 题目：Center-Right Political Parties in Advanced Democracies 作者：Noam Gidron，希伯来大学政治科学系助理教授；Daniel Ziblatt，哈佛大学政府系Eaton讲席教授。 摘要：本文提出了一个关于发达民主国家中右翼政党的比较研究议程，并将美国政治研究与比较政治研究相结合。政治学家近来仔细研究了中左翼政党的衰落和极右翼政党的崛起，但对中右翼政党衰落的研究则寥寥无几。团结的中右翼政党促进了政治稳定和政治妥协，而他们的分裂则赋予了极右翼挑战者以力量。在概述了西方民主国家的右翼政治研究，并权衡了对选举权利的不同界定后，作者讨论了影响中右翼政党凝聚力的两个因素：中右翼政党机构的组织稳健性以及保守派选民在不同政策维度上的同质性与差异性。最后，作者认为一个对极右翼政党崛起的充分解释不能仅关注中左翼政党的策略，还应当兼顾中右翼政党的选择、机遇和约束。 This review proposes a comparative research agenda on center-right parties in advanced democracies, bringing together research in American and comparative politics. Political scientists have recently closely examined the decline of the center-left and the rise of the radical right but have paid less attention to the weakening of center-right parties. Yet cohesive center-right parties have facilitated political stability and compromises, while their disintegration has empowered radical challengers. After presenting an overview of right-wing politics in Western democracies and weighing different definitions of the electoral right, we discuss two factors that shape variations in center-right cohesion: organizational robustness of center-right partisan institutions and the (un)bundling of conservative mass attitudes on different policy dimensions. Last, we argue that a full account of the rise of the radical right cannot focus solely on the strategies of the center-left but must incorporate also the choices, opportunities, and constraints of center-right parties. 三、美国规章制定的政治分析 题目：The Politics of Rulemaking in the United States 作者：Susan Webb Yackee，威斯康星·麦迪逊大学La Follette公共事务学院院长、 Collins-Bascom讲席教授。 摘要：规章制定是美国政府与治理之中的关键部分。本文回顾了现代规章制定中的政治基础。具体来说，本文突出了部门规章制定的过程和影响，以及立法机关，民选行政机关和法院用于监督政策制定过程的关键工具。本文同样检视了是谁参与了规则制定的过程，以及谁影响了规则制定的内容。最后，本文探索了监督政策制定的新发展方向，包括数据收集方面的进步，以及用指导文件来取代传统的发行通知和评论规章。 Rulemaking is a critical part of American government and governance. This article reviews the political underpinnings of modern rulemaking. Specifically, it highlights the process and impact of agency regulations, as well as the key tools used by the legislature, elected executive, and courts to oversee the rulemaking process. The article also reviews who participates in the rulemaking process, as well as who influences regulatory content. Finally, new directions in regulatory policymaking are explored, including data collection advancements, as well as the potential role for guidance documents as replacements for more traditionally issued notice and comment regulations. 四、瘾品与战争：它们之间是何种关系？ 题目：Drugs and War: What Is the Relationship? 作者：Peter Andreas，布朗大学Watston国际与公共事务学院John Hay讲席教授。 摘要：瘾品与战争之间的关系究竟是什么？本文识别并追踪了两者在五个维度上的关系：用瘾品动员的战争；保护瘾品贸易的战争；对瘾品征税引发的战争；禁毒战争；战后的瘾品。本文通过提供不同时间、地理以及瘾品的经验证据，证明了前述维度的重要性。在此之前，政治学家和其他学者无一例外的忽略了瘾品与战争间的关系，或者只聚焦了其中一个维度，其普遍的做法重点强调了诸如可卡因和海洛因等违禁瘾品与历史上诸如烟草和酒等导致武装冲突的合法“瘾品”的历史中心地位。然而，将历史上并分布极广的瘾品（无论是合法的还是违禁的）置于前沿和中心的位置进行分析可以提供一种校正措施，使得人们能充分理解瘾品与战争之间的多重联系。当代观点强调以瘾品为收入的非国家暴力行为者的威胁日益加剧，而本文作为对当代观点的平衡，更强调我们需要从瘾品与战争间的数百年历史关系中发现其他的研究进路：它与治国理政相关，也与国家所追求的战略目标相关。 What is the relationship between psychoactive drugs and war? This review article identifies and traces five key dimensions of this relationship: war while on drugs, war for drugs, war through drugs, war against drugs, and drugs after war. The review provides empirical illustrations across times, places, and drugs to demonstrate the importance of each of these dimensions. Political scientists and other scholars have typically either ignored the drugs–war relationship or focused on only one dimension. The common tendency is to privilege illegal drugs such as cocaine and heroin in the contemporary era over the historical centrality of legal drugs such as tobacco and alcohol in relation to armed conflict. Placing both history and a wider range of drugs (legal and illegal) front and center in the analysis provides a corrective that allows for a fuller and richer understanding of the multiple linkages between psychoactive substances and warfare. It also suggests that as a counterbalance to contemporary accounts stressing the growing threat posed by drug-financed violent nonstate actors, we should recognize the many ways in which the centuries-old nexus between drugs and war has also been about statecraft and the pursuit of the state's strategic objectives. 五、特惠贸易协定的经济与政治分析 题目：The Economics and Politics of Preferential Trade Agreements 作者：Leonardo Baccini，麦吉尔大学政治学系副教授 摘要：在过去20年间，特惠贸易协定的数量飞涨。现代特惠贸易协定不仅削减了边界上有形的贸易障碍，而且削弱了境内由于管制外国直接投资、自由化服务和知识产权保护而形成的障碍。本文回顾了解释特惠贸易协定形成与影响的文献。在特惠贸易协定的形成方面，借助工业部门以及公司层面的数据，现有研究的关注逐渐从对特惠自由化宏观基础转向特惠贸易协定的微观基础。在特惠贸易协定的影响方面，关于特惠贸易协定在与贸易量和外国直接投资方面存在稳健的正向关系，尽管特惠自由化在公共福利上的作用仍然有待研究，但这些都与发展中国家的经济改革有关。本文对推进特惠贸易协定研究提出了一些具体建议。特别是，作者认为对特惠贸易协定感兴趣的学者将受益于正在进行的关于贸易自由化的分配性后果的辩论。这不仅为当前的许多学术和政策研究提供了信息，而且有着民主政体中政治辩论的特征。 The number of preferential trade agreements (PTAs) has skyrocketed over the past 20 years. In addition to reducing barriers at the border, modern PTAs remove many behind-the-border barriers by regulating foreign direct investment (FDI), liberalizing services, and protecting intellectual property rights. This article surveys the literature explaining the formation of PTAs and their consequences. Regarding the formation of PTAs, studies have gradually moved from exploring the macro-foundation of preferential liberalization to focusing on the micro-foundation of PTAs, relying on industry- and firm-level data. Regarding the effect of PTAs, there is robust evidence that PTAs substantively increase trade flows and FDI and are associated with economic reforms in developing countries, though the general welfare effect of preferential liberalization remains largely unexplored. I make some concrete suggestions on avenues toward which to push the research on PTAs. In particular, I argue that scholars interested in PTAs would benefit from engaging in debate about the distributional consequences of trade liberalization, which not only informs much of the current academic and policy research but also features in political debates taking place in democratic polities. 六、言论自由与言论仇恨 题目：Free Speech and Hate Speech 作者：Jeffrey W. Howard，伦敦大学学院公共政策学院助理教授 摘要：发表仇恨言论应该被禁止吗？本文主张关于这一问题的争论必须被拆分成几个独立的分析阶段，以免讨论者们不停地自说自话。第一个阶段关注于言论自由这一道德权利的范围，以及发表仇恨言论是否在这一权利的保护范围内。如果它在这一范围内，那么禁止发表仇恨言论必然是不公正的；如果不属于这一范围，那么就转向第二个分析阶段，即评估发言者是否有道德义务避免发表仇恨言论。本文讨论了由这一义务衍生而来的其他可能义务，包括不进行威胁、骚扰、冒犯、诽谤和煽动的义务。如果存在避免发表仇恨言论的义务，那么就存在一个更深层次的问题，这一义务是否真的应该被执行呢？第三个分析阶段取决于对现实的关怀，包括认知的易错性，国家权力的滥用以及对高压政治的抵制性言论的益处。 Should hate speech be banned? This article contends that the debate on this question must be disaggregated into discrete analytical stages, lest its participants continue to talk past one another. The first concerns the scope of the moral right to freedom of expression, and whether hate speech falls within the right’s protective ambit. If it does, hate speech bans are necessarily unjust. If not, we turn to the second stage, which assesses whether speakers have moral duties to refrain from hate speech. The article canvasses several possible duties from which such a duty could be derived, including duties not to threaten, harass, offend, defame, or incite. If there is a duty to refrain from hate speech, it is yet a further question whether the duty should actually be enforced. This third stage depends on pragmatic concerns involving epistemic fallibility, the abuse of state power, and the benefits of counter-speech over coercion. 七、民粹主义的政治学理论 题目：Political Theory of Populism 作者：Nadia Urbinati，哥伦比亚大学政治学系Kyriakos Tsakopoulos讲席教授。 摘要：民粹主义是一种世界级现象，其定义的不确定性众所周知。因为民粹主义的话语和意涵与其崛起时所处的政治文化环境息息相关，所以它反对民粹主义的普遍化定义，并促使政治学者在比较中理解概念的实质。大量的社会历史分析使我们能够将民粹主义置于全球性的民主现象中加以探讨，因为民粹主义的意识形态内核是由民族和人民两个主要实体滋养的。而正是这两个实体，在民主浪潮时期充实了人民主权的内涵。民粹主义蕴涵着多数民主原则和人民意涵的嬗变，这表现为歌颂人民中的一部分、反对人民中的另一部分，并且通过具现化民粹主义领袖，合法化其拥趸来实现。尽管民粹主义的主要原则根植于民主理论的意涵与话语，但其理论嬗变仍使得民粹主义可能会与宪政民主相冲突。在本文中，作者阐述了民粹主义情境特征，以及其周期性出现如何反映着代议制政府的形式。作者回顾了新近研究中对民粹主义概念的主要解释，并且认为现存对民粹主义的共识集中在民粹主义的修辞学特征以及其在民主社会中获得权力的策略。最后，作者勾勒了民粹主义的主要特征并解释了其如何倾向于改变民主的基本要素：人民与多数原则、选举和代表。 Populism is the name of a global phenomenon whose definitional precariousness is proverbial. It resists generalizations and makes scholars of politics comparativist by necessity, as its language and content are imbued with the political culture of the society in which it arises. A rich body of socio-historical analyses allows us to situate populism within the global phenomenon called democracy, as its ideological core is nourished by the two main entities—the nation and the people—that have fleshed out popular sovereignty in the age of democratization. Populism consists in a transmutation of the democratic principles of the majority and the people in a way that is meant to celebrate one subset of the people as opposed to another, through a leader embodying it and an audience legitimizing it. This may make populism collide with constitutional democracy, even if its main tenets are embedded in the democratic universe of meanings and language. In this article, I illustrate the context-based character of populism and how its cyclical appearances reflect the forms of representative government. I review the main contemporary interpretations of the concept and argue that some basic agreement now exists on populism's rhetorical character and its strategy for achieving power in democratic societies. Finally, I sketch the main characteristics of populism in power and explain how it tends to transform the fundamentals of democracy: the people and the majority, elections, and representation. 八、情感极化在美国的起源与后果 题目：The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States 作者：Shanto Iyengar，斯坦福大学政治学系教授；Yphtach Lelkes，宾夕法尼亚大学Annenberg传播学院助理教授；Matthew Levendusky，宾夕法尼亚大学政治学系教授；Neil Malhotra，斯坦福大学商学院教授；Sean J. Westwood，达特茅斯学院政府系助理教授。 摘要：虽然之前的极化主要是以议题为基础，但是近年来在公共舆论中出现了一种新型的分裂：即美国大众越来越不喜欢和不信任来自另一党派的人。民主党和共和党都声称对方的成员是虚伪的、自私的和固步自封的，他们不愿意与其进行跨党派的交往。这种党派之间的敌意现象便是情感极化。本文将情感极化的起源追溯到作为一种社会认同的党派偏见，并解释加剧党派之间敌意的因素。本文还探讨了情感极化的后果，强调党派情感如何影响了政治领域之外的态度和行为。最后，本文讨论了缓解党派不和的可能策略，并对未来的研究提出了建议。 While previously polarization was primarily seen only in issue-based terms, a new type of division has emerged in the mass public in recent years: Ordinary Americans increasingly dislike and distrust those from the other party. Democrats and Republicans both say that the other party’s members are hypocritical, selfish, and closed-minded, and they are unwilling to socialize across party lines. This phenomenon of animosity between the parties is known as affective polarization. We trace its origins to the power of partisanship as a social identity, and explain the factors that intensify partisan animus. We also explore the consequences of affective polarization, highlighting how partisan affect influences attitudes and behaviors well outside the political sphere. Finally, we discuss strategies that might mitigate partisan discord and conclude with suggestions for future work. 九、理解国际制度的设计 题目：Making Sense of the Design of International Institutions 作者：Erik Voeten，乔治城大学Edmund A. Walsh外事学院及政府系合聘教授。 摘要：对国际制度的设计有许多不同的方式。各制度在灵活性、正式性、独立性、精确性、包容性、集权化程度等方面不尽相同。本文尝试对学界现有的理论进行分类以期能理解各个国际制度之间的相似与不同。首先，一些理论将关注点放在试图构建均衡行为的博弈或契约上，而其它理论则将制度设计视为一个动态的过程。其次，各个理论的分歧还在于是将制度设计理解为对环境的反应，还是将它看作是制度创设者的动机、利益、价值观、倡议和权力的产物。在根据上述两个维度对各理论进行分类的基础上，本文讨论了四种理想的理论路径：理性功能主义、分配理性主义、历史制度主义和结构过程理论。这些理论路径确定了导致制度设计失灵或者未能达到最优效果的不同原因：国内政治、权力政治、路径依赖和文化。最后本文总结并讨论了这些理论如何能帮助我们理解当前制度设计所面临的挑战。 The design of international institutions varies in many ways: Institutions can be more or less formal, flexible, independent, precise, inclusive, centralized, and so on. This article classifies theoretical efforts to make sense of these similarities and differences. First, some theories focus on the bargains or contracts that attempt to construct equilibrium behavior while other theories analyze institutional design as a dynamic process. Second, theories vary in whether they understand institutional design as a response to the environment in which institutions operate or as a function of the incentives, interests, values, initiatives, and power of the actors that created the institutions. The article discusses four ideal-typical theoretical approaches that fit in each quadrant of the resulting 2×2 typology: rational functionalist, distributive rationalist, historical institutionalist, and structural process theories. These approaches identify different causes for suboptimal or even dysfunctional institutional design: domestic politics, power politics, path dependence, and culture. The conclusion discusses how these theories can help us make sense of current challenges to institutions and their design. 十、住房政治 题目：The Politics of Housing 作者：Ben W. Ansell，牛津大学Nuffield学院比较民主制度教授 摘要：购买一套住房是大多数家庭最重要的经济决定。然而，我们对房屋所有权的政治原因和政治后果的理解仍然是相当单薄的。本文认为政治学家需要更严肃地探讨住房问题，尤其是鉴于过去二十年来房价史无前例的暴涨和暴跌。住房市场既是社会分化加剧的一个表现，也是造成这一现象的原因。日益加剧的社会分化塑造了民众对从福利国家的规模到民粹运动的吸引力等一系列政治问题的看法。本文首先重新审视了19世纪关于房地产的经典著作，这些著作仍然指导着我们找寻房地产市场震荡和管控下的赢家和输家。然后，本文转向战后时期那些认为福利国家和财产所有权在某种程度上是相互替代的著作。本文最后考察了住房在形塑当代政治偏好中的角色，指出它既是衡量个人财富和福利的直接指标也是不同地区相对财富的体现。 Owning a house is the most important economic choice most families will ever make. Yet, our understanding of the political causes and consequences of homeownership is rather thin. This review argues that political scientists need to take housing much more seriously, not least because of the unprecedented surges and collapses of house prices over the past two decades. The housing market is both a proxy for and a cause of growing social cleavages that shape how citizens view political issues from the size of the welfare state to the attractiveness of populist campaigns. The articles begins by reexamining classic work on property from the nineteenth century as a still-relevant guide to the winners and losers from property market shocks and regulations. It then turns to the postwar era and work that suggests that the welfare state and property ownership are in some sense substitutes. It concludes by examining the role housing plays in shaping contemporary political preferences, both as a direct measure of individuals’ wealth and welfare and as a proxy for the relative fortunes of different places. 编译/审读：康张城、施榕、杨端程、吴温泉、赵德昊 编辑：郭静远  你在看政观么  |
|
|
