政文观止 / 待分类 / 政观快递 | AJPS Early View(December, 2...

分享

   

政观快递 | AJPS Early View(December, 2021)

2021-12-21  政文观止

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. 使用时间序列横截面数据进行因果推断的匹配方法

Matching Methods for Causal Inference with Time-Series Cross-Sectional Data

2. 众议院初选中的政党精英参与和协调:对政党理论的检验

Party Elite Engagement and Coordination in House Primary Elections: A Test of Theories of Parties

3. 谁为政府负责?官僚,部长和责任方

Who Answers for the Government? Bureaucrats, Ministers, and Responsible Parties

4.  将刑讯定义为犯罪是否阻止了警察刑讯?

Does Criminalizing Torture Deter Police Torture?

5.  卡尔·施密特对汉娜·阿伦特著作《艾希曼在耶路撒冷》的解读:文献视角下的趋同与分歧

Carl Schmitt Reads Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem: Archival Perspectives on Convergences and Divergences

使用时间序列横截面数据进行因果推断的匹配方法

题 目:Matching Methods for Causal Inference with Time-Series Cross-Sectional Data

作  者:今井耕介(Kosuke Imai),哈佛大学政府系教授;In Song Kim,麻省理工学院政治科学系副教授;王海骁(Wang, Erik H),澳大利亚国立大学政治与社会变革系(PSC)助理教授。

摘  要:匹配方法通过减少模型依赖性以及提供直观的诊断来提高因果推断的有效性。虽然匹配方法已经成为一种跨学科的必备方法,但在分析时间序列横截面数据时,研究者很少使用这种方法。我们填补了这个方法上的空白。在这种方法中,我们首先将每个处理组观测单位与同时期的控制组观测单位进行匹配,这个时期指的是处理组观测单位尚未接受处理、同时控制组观测单位也未接受处理的指定滞后时期(比如,假设一个处理组观测单位直到1992年才接受处理,此时我们指定滞后数为4,那么与其匹配的就是1988-1991年这个时期也未接受处理的控制组观测单位,当然这个控制组观测单位在1992年也应该是未接受处理的)。我们使用了标准的匹配方法与权重方法进一步改进该匹配后的数据集,使得处理组和控制组观测单位具有相似的协变量值。通过检查协变量是否平衡,来评估匹配的效果。最后,我们使用双重差分估计法来估计一段时期内的长期和短期平均处理效果。我们通过模拟和实证方法阐明了提出的方法。匹配方法可通过开源软件包实现,该R包地址为https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/PanelMatch/index.html。

Matching methods improve the validity of causal inference by reducing model dependence and offering intuitive diagnostics. Although they have become a part of the standard tool kit across disciplines, matching methods are rarely used when analysing time-series cross-sectional data. We fill this methodological gap. In the proposed approach, we first match each treated observation with control observations from other units in the same time period that have an identical treatment history up to the prespecified number of lags. We use standard matching and weighting methods to further refine this matched set so that the treated and matched control observations have similar covariate values. Assessing the quality of matches is done by examining covariate balance. Finally, we estimate both short-term and long-term average treatment effects using the difference-in-differences estimator, accounting for a time trend. We illustrate the proposed methodology through simulation and empirical studies. An open-source software package is available for implementing the proposed methods.

众议院初选中的政党精英参与和协调:

对政党理论的检验

题 目:Party Elite Engagement and Coordination in House Primary Elections: A Test of Theories of Parties

作   者:Hans J.G.  Hassell   佛罗里达州立大学政治学系副教授

摘   要:党内精英在初选中的支持对谁参加初选以及他们的表现有很大影响。然而,政党精英们并不总是参与或协调他们的努力。此外,政党理论对于政党精英是否应该参与初选以及在哪里参与和协调也有分歧,这取决于他们对选举和政策目标的相对重要性的看法。本文研究了2004年至2018年期间党派精英在美国众议院初选中的参与和协调。与政党作为政策需求者网络的理论相一致,政党精英们在竞争激烈和较有把握选区都参与了初选。但尽管政党精英们在竞争激烈的地区协调他们的努力,但他们在较有把握的选区不太可能协调。他们不同的协调努力反映了这些地区在选举中的优先程度差异。

The support of party elites in the primary has a strong influence on who runs in a primary and how well they do. Yet party elites do not always engage or coordinate their efforts. Moreover, theories of parties disagree about whether and where party elites should engage and coordinate in primaries, depending on their view of the relative importance of electoral and policy goals. This article examines party elites’ engagement and coordination in primary elections in the U.S. House between 2004 and 2018. Consistent with theories of parties as networks of policy demanders, party elites are engaged in primaries in both competitive and safe districts. But, while party elites coordinate their efforts in competitive districts, they are less likely to coordinate in safe districts. Their disparate coordination efforts reflect different electoral priorities in these districts.

谁为政府负责?官僚,部长和责任方 

题  目:Who Answers for the Government? Bureaucrats, Ministers, and Responsible Parties

作  者:Max Goplerud,匹兹堡大学政治学系助理教授;Daniel M. Smith,哥伦比亚大学国际与公共事务学院政治学系Gerald L. Curtis现代日本政治和外交政策客座副教授

摘    要:议会民主制的一个重要特征是政府对立法机构的责任,但谁为政府代言--内阁部长还是非民选官僚,以及这种行为的制度基础--这一重要问题在现有文献中很少得到关注。作者以日本为例研究了这一问题,并收集了400多万份跨越不同选举和立法机构环境的委员会发言数据。作者记录了1994年强化政党的选举制度改革是如何促进政府对议会委员会的责任性质发生巨大变化的:部长发言增加,官僚发言减少,部长和反对派立法者之间的话语问责增加。随后的立法改革扩大了低级别部长的作用,并对官僚的参与进行了明确的限制,进一步加强了这种影响。这些发现为研究责任党政府的制度基础以及其在日本的逐步发展提供了新的启示。

A key feature of parliamentary democracy is government accountability vis-à-vis the legislature, but the important question of who speaks for the government—cabinet ministers or unelected bureaucrats, and the institutional underpinnings of this behavior—receives scant attention in the existing literature. We investigate this question using the case of Japan, and data on more than four million committee speeches spanning distinct electoral and legislative institutional environments. We document how a party-strengthening electoral system reform in 1994 facilitated a dramatic shift in the nature of government accountability to parliamentary committees: speeches by ministers increased, speeches by bureaucrats decreased, and discursive accountability between ministers and opposition legislators increased. Subsequent legislative reforms expanding junior ministerial roles and placing explicit limits on bureaucratic participation further reinforced the effects. These findings shed new light on the institutional foundations of responsible party government in general as well as its progressive development in Japan.

将刑讯定义为犯罪是否阻止了警察刑讯?

题 目:Does Criminalizing Torture Deter Police Torture?

作 者:Mark S. Berlin,马凯特大学政治学系助理教授

摘 要:许多研究都对法律规范在改善尊重人权方面的效力提出质疑,但是这些研究大多聚焦于条约审批或宪法条款。相较而言,本文关注国家刑法。作者认为,与其他形式的法律禁令相比,将刑讯定义为犯罪更有可能阻止警察刑讯,因为这能更有效地增加实质性威胁和刑讯逼供的社会成本,同时也有助于促进动员以强化这些威慑效应。利用一个全球各国禁止刑讯的刑法原始数据集,作者发现将刑讯定义为犯罪并按照《联合国反酷刑公约》制定的标准对其进行界定的国家,警察刑讯有所减少。这些发现突出了一个在法律和人权保护之间的关系中基本未经探索的角度,并强调了法律本土化对国际法效力的普遍重要性。

Much research casts doubt on the effectiveness of legal norms for improving respect for human rights. But such studies have mostly focused on treaty ratifications or constitutional provisions. In contrast, I focus on national criminal law. I argue that criminalization of torture is more likely to deter police torture than these other forms of legal prohibition, because criminalization more credibly increases the threat of material and social costs of torture, while also helping to catalyze mobilization that amplifies these deterrent effects. Using an original, global dataset on national criminal laws against torture, I find that states that criminalize torture and define it in line with the standards codified in the UN Convention against Torture experience reductions in police torture. These findings highlight a largely unexplored angle on the relationship between law and human rights protection and underscore the general importance of domestic legal internalization for the effectiveness of international law.

卡尔·施密特对汉娜·阿伦特著作《艾希曼在耶路撒冷》的解读:

文献视角下的趋同与分歧

题目:Carl Schmitt Reads Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem: Archival Perspectives on Convergences and Divergences

作  者:Sinja Graf, 伦敦政治经济学院国际关系学系助理教授

摘  要:学术界已经对卡尔·施密特与汉娜·阿伦特之间的理论争锋和理论共鸣以及阿伦特对施密特的继承进行了分析。然而,围绕施密特与阿伦特的合作的研究却仍有不足。基于来自卡尔·施密特文献的新证据,本文第一时间分析了施密特对阿伦特的作品《艾希曼在耶路撒冷》的解读。文章指出,施密特对其与阿伦特政治思想趋同与分歧的认识,解释了两个关于法律与政治的关系的重要问题:运用法律去规范政治暴力的能力,以及共同体作为法律和管辖权来源的特性。这一分析特别突出了施密特对阿伦特关于领土和人性的理论化的关注——这两个概念是施密特政治哲学的关键概念,但阿伦特对其运用却截然不同。总之,本文表明了施密特对《艾希曼在耶路撒冷》的解读为这本书提供了独特的理论地图,这是仅凭研究两位学者的已出版著作所无法做到的。

Scholarly interpretations have analyzed theoretical tensions and overlaps between Carl Schmitt and Hannah Arendt and Arendt's reception of Schmitt. Schmitt's engagement with Arendt, however, is left understudied. Based on new evidence from the Carl Schmitt archive, this essay provides a first-time analysis of Schmitt's reading of Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem. The article argues that Schmitt's recognition of convergences and divergences between his and Arendt's political thought illuminates two important questions concerning the relationship between law and politics: the capacity of law to capture political violence, and the character of community as a source of law and jurisdiction. The analysis specifically foregrounds Schmitt's attention to Arendt's theorization of territory and humanity, two concepts key to his own political philosophy that Arendt deployed radically differently. Overall, the article demonstrates that Schmitt's reading of Eichmann invests the book with a unique theoretical topography that remains inaccessible to studies of their published works alone.

编译/审校:吴温泉、韩丽嵘、康张城、殷昊、邓嘉宁

   整理:施榕

    编辑:高小茜



    0条评论

    发表

    请遵守用户 评论公约

    类似文章 更多