In This Issue

“Is Democratic Leadership Possible?” This is the simple yet complex question Eric Beerbohm asks in his essay of that title. If leaders are simply to follow the preferences of the people, even if only the “ideal” preferences, what room remains for leadership? Beerbohm proposes a new model of leadership that can accommodate robust leaders, without betraying basic democratic principles. The theory rests on the notion of shared intentions. Leaders may tap into, and help shape, underlying intentions or commitments held by the people. Thus, they follow underlying public beliefs but may express and implement them in creative ways, leaving broad scope for democratic leadership. Beerbohm notes that such leadership may take undesirable or even immoral forms but maintains that even such forms have to be designated “leadership.” His essay represents a novel and important contribution to democratic theory, and to leadership studies.

In “Mixing Methods: A Bayesian Approach,” Macartan Humphreys and Alan Jacobs provide a method by which quantitative and qualitative approaches to causal inference can be unified via a method they refer to as the Bayesian Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative data (BIQQ). This technique allows researchers to draw causal inferences from combinations of within- and cross-case observations given prior beliefs about causal effects, assignment propensities, and characteristics of different types of within-case observations. They illustrate the use of this innovative framework by examining two longtime theoretical questions in political science—the origins of electoral systems and the causes of civil war. They demonstrate how the use of this framework yields greater insight on causal processes, and produces inferences that are somewhat different from those that were accessible before.

In the provocatively titled “Feminisms, Women's Rights, and the UN: Would Achieving Gender Equality Empower Women?,” Zehra F. Kabasakal Arat questions the assumptions underlying measures of gender equality that are commonly used within the United Nations (UN) system. She surveys the influence of different feminisms in shaping the debates within the UN and shows that liberal feminism has emerged as a dominant voice, shaping the measures used to evaluate progress toward gender equality. She asks whether these gender equality measures, such as the proportion of women in parliament, simply redistribute power resources differently between women and men, but do not alter social stratification more broadly. Hence, she concludes that gender equality as operationalized by these measures may provide some women access to power, but not empower women generally.

While many scholars think of Frederick Douglass as an abolitionist and civil rights activist whose thought and actions focused exclusively on the United States, in “‘A Black Sister to Massachusetts’: Latin America and the Fugitive Democratic Ethos of Frederick Douglass,” Juliet Hooker highlights the transnational dimension of Douglass’ words and deeds while arguing that Latin America played an important role in shaping his political thought, especially as it relates to his conception of a multiracial democracy. Drawing upon previously underutilized writings and speeches of Douglass, she portrays him as a radically democratic thinker whose ideas regarding multiracial democracy contain important resources for ongoing debates about racial justice, cultural diversity, and U.S. democracy.

Rafaela M. Dancygier, Karl-Oskar Lindgren, Sven Oskarsonn, and Kåre Vernby present a compelling argument about the reasons why immigrants are underrepresented in politics in “Why Are Immigrants Underrepresented in Politics? Evidence from Sweden.” The authors use new data to investigate the factors that explain the differences in attainment of political office between immigrants and native-born candidates for office. They conclude that the evidence is consistent with discrimination. They note that immigrant candidates are often placed in lower positions on the ballot, which suggests that party gatekeepers influence the likelihood that immigrant candidates get elected. Although the data are derived from a single-country case, the paper has implications for other contexts as well.

In “Rights to the Realm: Reconsidering Western Political Development,” Alexander William Salter reviews the rise of liberal constitutional governance from the perspective of political economy. First he examines “pure” autocracy and democracy models of government for the purpose of demonstrating how political-economic property rights influence the incentives of political decision-makers and highlighting the vulnerability of polities that approach these ideal types. Next, Salter investigates how bargaining over political-economic property rights may, or may not, improve welfare for other members of the polity and also discusses how political-economic property rights in the “corporate polity” influence political-economic outcomes. Finally he argues that neither political property rights nor constitutional separation of powers is sufficient to achieve nondiscriminatory governance. A combination of “old world” and “new world” institutions is needed to incentivize stewardship of the polity's wealth and check possible predatory behavior of political elites.

What duties do people have to aid victims of natural disasters and other misfortunes? In “Social Samaritan Justice: When and Why Needy Fellow Citizens Have a Right to Assistance,” Laura Valentini argues that it is more extensive than many believe, though not limitless. Her essay seeks the foundation of the duty to be a “Samaritan” and weighs several alternatives. The duty could be an individual duty held by all of us; but then how does any one of us get singled out as the one to perform the duty? It could be a duty held collectively by mankind at large; but Professor Valentini argues that mankind cannot collectively be the bearer of such duties. She opts instead for a third way, “Social Samaritanism,” whereby a society bears this duty toward its members, a duty that occasionally falls on individual bystanders. This is a duty to fellow-citizens, but not to others. Where appropriate, these Samaritans should then be compensated for their service by society at large. This argument is illustrated with the case study of Hurricane Sandy, which hit the Eastern United States in 2012. This provocative argument will spark further debate in the field of humanitarian justice.

In “Rationalism in Politics,” Peter J. Steinberger raises the question, current in contemporary political theory, whether politics, or the study of politics, can ever be a rational undertaking. He reviews three prominent “anti-rationalist” strains of contemporary political theory—emphasizing, respectively, the rhetorical in politics, the agonistic, and the realist—and finds their critiques of rationalism deficient. He argues that all these theoretical strains surreptitiously make use of rationalism in their portrayal of politics. Then, he turns to what he calls a “post-Kantian convergence” of rationalist schools outside of mainstream political theory, one he urges political theorists to make use of. This convergence differs from the dogmatic rationalism of older philosophy, which was based on a false “God’s-eye point of view.” Adopting this more anthropocentric, flexible perspective, Steinberger urges, would result in a better, richer understanding of what form rationalism takes in politics and political theory.

In “Transparency, Protest, and Autocratic Instability,” James R. Hollyer, B. Peter Rosendorff, and James Raymond Vreeland argue that the willingness of an individual to engage in strikes and protests is dependent on whether he or she believes that others will also participate. In this paper they contend that this willingness is affected by the amount of information provided to citizens, providing them with issues around which to mobilize. Thus they theorize that under autocratic rule, transparency increases the frequency of protests, and increases the extent to which protest is correlated with incumbent performance. In particular they examine the effect of a specific form of transparency—the disclosure of economic data by the government—on citizen belief-formation, and consequently on collective mobilization. They find strong empirical support for the claim that transparency destabilizes autocracies via mass protest

David Doyle in “Remittance and Social Spending” argues that remittances, due to their compensation and insurance functions, will increase the general income level and economic security of recipients and, as a result, reduce perceived income risk. This will result in the dampening of demand from recipients for government taxation and social insurance and hence result in reduced levels of social welfare transfers at the macro-level. This explains the rather curious lack of demand for social security transfers even in countries with high levels of inequality and economic insecurity. He tests this argument using data from 18 Latin American states, over the period 1990 to 2009. The results strongly support the argument regarding the effects of remittances on demand for social spending.

In “‘A Trust That Cannot Be Delegated’: The Invention of Ratification Referenda,” Jeffrey A. Lenowitz, looking at some of the debates surrounding the ratification of constitutions in the early United States, uncovers the roots of our notion that constitutions must be ratified by direct or indirect popular vote. He turns to the “Berkshire Constitutionalists” for the most complete set of arguments—perhaps the only complete set of arguments—maintaining that popular ratification is the only legitimate way to adopt a constitution. Lenowitz argues that examining their writings, which advocated popular ratification of the Massachusetts constitution of 1780, allows us to reopen the question of whether popular ratification is the only legitimate avenue, indeed whether it is the most advisable one. His essay concludes with some reflections on the place of popular ratification in constitution-making today. Problems with unfettered majoritarianism, manipulation by elites, perhaps even the impossibility of getting informed public consent on such an issue, Lenowitz argues, might give us pause today. His essay should inform future exercises of constitution-writing, as well as future studies of constitutionalism and American thought and history.

Mark Peffley, Marc L. Hutchison, and Michal Shamir in “The Impact of Persistent Terrorism on Political Tolerance: Israel, 1980 to 2011” examine the question of how persistent terrorism affects the level of political tolerance. Although there have been many studies that examine the impact of discrete events such as the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, these studies are less useful in evaluating the effects of persistent terrorism. Using the case of Israel, the authors find that the corrosive influence of terrorism on political tolerance is much more powerful among Israelis who identify with the Right, who have also become much more sensitive to terrorism over time. They conclude by discussing the implications of their findings for other countries throughout the world.

INSTRUCTIONS TO CONTRIBUTORS

The American Political Science Review (APSR) publishes scholarly research of exceptional merit, focusing on important issues and demonstrating the highest standards of excellence in conceptualization, exposition, methodology, and craftsmanship. A significant advance in understanding of politics—whether empirical, interpretive, or theoretical—is the criterion for publication in the Review. Because the APSR reaches a diverse audience, authors must demonstrate how their analysis illuminates or answers an important research question of general interest in political science. For the same reason, authors must strive to be understandable to as many scholars as possible, consistent with the nature of their material.

The APSR publishes original work. Submissions should not include tables, figures, or substantial amounts of text that already have been published or are forthcoming in other places. In many cases, republication of such material would violate the copyright of the other publisher. Neither does the APSR consider submissions that are currently under review at other journals or that duplicate or overlap with parts of larger manuscripts submitted to other publishers (whether of books, printed periodicals, or online journals). If you have any questions about whether these policies apply in your case, you should address the issues in a cover letter to the editors or as part of the author comments section during online submission. You should also notify the editors of any related submissions to other publishers, whether for book or periodical publication, during the pendency of your submission's review at the APSR—regardless of whether they have yet been accepted. The editors may request copies of related publications.

The APSR uses a double-blind review process. You should follow the guidelines for preparing an anonymous submission in the “Specific Procedures” section that follows.

If your manuscript contains quantitative evidence and analysis, you should describe your procedures in sufficient detail to permit reviewers to understand and evaluate what has been done and—in the event the article is accepted for publication—to permit other scholars to replicate your results and to carry out similar analyses on other data sets. With surveys, for example, provide sampling procedures, response rates, and question wordings; calculate response rates according to one of the standard formulas given by the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys (Lenexa, KS: AAPOR, 2006).Footnote ¹ For experiments, provide full descriptions of experimental protocols, methods of subject recruitment and selection, payments to subjects, debriefing procedures, and so on. In any case involving human subjects, the editors may require certification of appropriate institutional review and/or conformity with generally accepted norms.Footnote ²

The strength of evidence necessary for publication of quantitative empirical findings cannot be captured by any single criterion, such as the conventional .05 level of statistical significance. The journal's coeditors— following the evolving disciplinary standard among reviewers—will evaluate the strength of findings on a range of criteria beyond statistical significance, including substantive significance, theoretical aptness, the importance of the problem under study, and the feasibility of obtaining additional evidence.

In addition, authors of quantitative or experimental articles are expected to address the issue of data availability. You must normally indicate both where (online) you will deposit the information that is necessary to reproduce the numerical results and when that information will be posted (such as “on publication” or “by [definite date]”). You should be prepared, when posting, to provide not only the data used in the analysis but also the syntax files, specialized software, and any other information necessary to reproduce the numerical results in the manuscript. Where an exception is claimed, you should clearly explain why the data or other critical materials used in the manuscript cannot be shared, or why they must be embargoed for a limited period beyond publication.

Similarly, authors of qualitative, observational, or textual articles, or of articles that combine such methods with quantitative analysis, should indicate their sources fully and clearly enough to permit ready verification by other scholars—including precise page references to any published material cited and clear specification (e.g., file number) of any archival sources. Wherever possible, use of interactive citations is encouraged. Where field or observational research is involved, anonymity of participants will always be respected; but the texts of interviews, group discussions, observers’ notes, etc., should be made available on the same basis (and subject to the same exceptions) as with quantitative data.

For articles that include candidate gene or candidate gene-by-environment studies, APSR uses the same policy as the journal Behavior Genetics.Footnote ³ In relevant part, that policy states that an article will normally be considered for publication only if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

• • It was an exploratory study or test of a novel hypothesis, but with an adequately powered, direct replication study reported in the same paper.

• • It was an exploratory analysis or test of a novel hypothesis in the context of an adequately powered study, and the finding meets the statistical criteria for genome wide significance—taking into account all sources of multiple testing (e.g. phenotypes, genotypes, environments, covariates, subgroups).

• • It is a rigorously conducted, adequately powered, direct replication study of a previously reported result.

Articles should be self-contained; you should not simply refer readers to other publications for descriptions of these basic research procedures.

Please indicate variables included in statistical analyses by italicizing the entire name of the variable—the first time it is mentioned in the text—and by capitalizing its first letter in all uses. You should also use the same names for variables in text, tables, and figures. Do not use acronyms or computational abbreviations when discussing variables in the text. All variables that appear in tables or figures should have been mentioned in the text, standard summary statistics (n, mean, median, standard deviation, range, etc.) provided, and the reason for their inclusion discussed. However, tables and figures should also be comprehensible without reference to the text (e.g., in any figures, axes should be clearly labeled). Please bear in mind also that neither the published or online versions of the Review normally can provide figures in color; be sure that a grayscale version will be comprehensible to referees and readers.

You may be asked to submit additional documentation if procedures are not sufficiently clear. If you advise readers that additional information is available on request, you should submit equally anonymous copies of that information with your manuscript as “supplemental materials.” If this additional information is extensive, please inquire about alternate procedures.

Manuscripts that, in the judgment of the co-editors, are largely or entirely critiques of, or commentaries on, articles previously published in the Review will be reviewed for possible inclusion in a forum section, using the same general procedures as for other manuscripts. Well before any publication, however, such manuscripts will also be sent to the scholar(s) whose work is being addressed. The author(s) of the previously published article will be invited to comment to the editors and to submit a rejoinder, which also will be peer-reviewed. While the Review does publish forums these are published very rarely. We do not publish rejoinders to rejoinders.

The APSR accepts only electronic submissions (at www.editorialmanager.com/apsr). The website provides detailed information about how to submit, what formatting is required, and what type of digital files may be uploaded. Please direct any questions regarding new submissions to the journal's editorial offices at apsr@unt.edu.

ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO THE APSR

Back issues of the APSR are available in several electronic formats and through several vendors. Except for the last three years (as an annually “moving wall”), back issues of the APSR beginning with Volume 1, Number 1 (November 1906), are available online through JSTOR (http://www.jstor.org/). At present, JSTOR's complete journal collection is available only via institutional subscription, e.g., through many college and university libraries. For APSA members who do not have access to an institutional subscription to JSTOR, individual subscriptions to its APSR content are available. Please contact Member Services at APSA for further information, including annual subscription fees.

Individual members of the American Political Science Association can access recent issues of the APSR, Perspectives, and PS through the APSA website (www.apsanet.org) with their username and password. Individual nonmember access to the online edition will also be available, but only through institutions that hold either a print-plus-electronic subscription or an electronic-only subscription, provided the institution has registered and activated its online subscription.

Full text access to current issues of the APSR, Perspectives, and PS is also available on-line by library subscription from a number of database vendors. Currently, these include University Microfilms Inc. (UMI) (via its CD-ROMs General Periodicals Online and Social Science Index and the on-line database ProQuest Direct), Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) (through its on-line database First Search as well as on CD-ROMs and magnetic tape), and the Information Access Company (IAC) (through its products Expanded Academic Index, InfoTrac, and several on-line services [see below]). Others may be added from time to time.

The APSR is also available on databases through six online services: Datastar (Datastar), Business Library (Dow Jones), Cognito (IAC), Encarta Online Library (IAC), IAC Business (Dialog), and Newsearch (Dialog).

The editorial office of the APSR is not involved in the subscription process to either JSTOR for back issues or the other vendors for current issues. Please contact APSA, your reference librarian, or the database vendor for further information about availability.

OTHER CORRESPONDENCE

The American Political Science Association's address, telephone, and fax are 1527 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 483–2512 (voice), and (202) 483–2657 (fax). E-mail: apsa@apsanet.org. Please direct correspondence as follows.

• Information, including news and notes, for PS:

• Phillip Ardoin, Appalachian State University

• Paul Gronke, Reed College

• Editors, PS

• E-mail: ps@apsanet.org

Circulation and subscription correspondence (domestic claims for non receipt of issues must be made within four months of the month of publication; overseas claims, within eight months):

• Director of Member Services

• E-mail: membership@apsanet.org

• Reprint permissions:

• E-mail: Rights@cambridge.org

• Advertising information and rates:

• Advertising Coordinator,

• Cambridge University Press

• E-mail: journalsadvertising@cambridge.org

EXPEDITING REQUESTS FOR COPYING APSR, PERSPECTIVES, AND PS ARTICLES FOR CLASS USE AND OTHER PURPOSES

INDEXING

Articles appearing in the APSR before June 1953 were indexed in The Reader's Guide to PeriodicalLiterature. Current issues are indexed in ABC Pol Sci; America, History and Life 1954–; Book Review Index; Current Contents: Social and Behavioral Sciences; EconLit; Energy Information Abstracts; Environmental Abstracts; Historical Abstracts; Index of Economic Articles; Information Service Bulletin; International Bibliography of Book Reviews of Scholarly Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences; International Bibliography of Periodical Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences; International Index; International Political Science Abstracts; the Journal of Economic Literature; Periodical Abstracts; Public Affairs; Public Affairs Information Service International Recently Published Articles; Reference Sources; Social Sciences and Humanities Index; Social Sciences Index; Social Work Research and Abstracts; and Writings on American History. Some of these sources may be available in electronic form through local public or educational libraries. Microfilm of the APSR, beginning with Volume 1, and the index of the APSR through 1969 are available through University Microfilms Inc., 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 (www.umi.com). The Cumulative Index to the American Political Science Review, Volumes 63 to 89: 1969–95, is available through the APSA.