Do Natural Resources Really Cause Civil Conflict?

“Do Natural Resources Really Cause Civil Conflict? Evidence from the New Global Resources Dataset,” by Michael  Denly, Michael Findley, Joelean Hall, Andrew Stravers, and James Walsh, has been accepted at Journal of Conflict Resolution.

Abstract: Scholars have long examined the relationship between natural resources and conflict at the country level. More recently, researchers have turned to subnational analyses, using either individual countries or subnational data for a small number of resources in sub-Saharan Africa. We introduce a new sub-national dataset of 197 resources that adds many resource types, locations, and countries from Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Latin America, and Europe. To demonstrate the value of the new dataset, we examine how conflict incidence varies with the value of the collective set of resources in a given location using world prices. We then introduce new country-specific price data, which are more relevant for conflict dynamics. Since country-specific prices can be endogenous to conflict, we instrument country-specific prices using U.S. and world prices. We find that subnational resource wealth is associated with higher levels of conflict using some specifications, though the results vary widely by data source and world region. Using the instrumental variables strategy lends the strongest support to this positive relationship, but only for African countries.

External Validity: Forthcoming Paper at Annual Review of Political Science

Michael Findley’s, Kyosuke Kikuta’s and Michael Denly’s paper, “External Validity,” has been accepted at Annual Review of Political Science.

Abstract: External validity captures the extent to which inferences drawn from a given study’s sample apply to a broader population or other target populations. Social scientists frequently invoke external validity as an ideal, but they rarely attempt to make rigorous, credible external validity inferences. In recent years, methodologically-oriented scholars have advanced a flurry of work on various components of external validity, and this article reviews and systematizes many of those insights. We first clarify the core conceptual dimensions of external validity and introduce a simple formalization that demonstrates why external validity matters so critically. We then organize disparate arguments about how to address external validity by advancing three evaluative criteria: Model Utility, Scope Plausibility, and Specification Credibility. We conclude with a practical aspiration that scholars supplement existing reporting standards to include routine discussion of external validity. It is our hope that these evaluation and reporting standards help re-balance scientific inquiry, such that the current obsession with causal inference is complemented with an equal interest in generalized knowledge.

Collective Deterrence in the Shadow of Shifting Power

Julianne Phillips and Scott Wolford published, “Collective Deterrence in the Shadow of Shifting Power,” in International Studies Quarterly.

Abstract: Twelve of twenty-six war-winning coalitions since 1815 have seen at least two members go to war against one another after victory. What separates durable and fragile war-winning coalitions? To answer this question, we analyze a game-theoretic model of shifting intra-coalition power and collective deterrence. We show that (1) shifting power within war-winning coalitions can undermine commitments to the postwar settlement, but (2) revisionist threats from a powerful defeated side can enhance the credibility of commitments within the winning coalition, securing peace when intra-coalition war would otherwise be inevitable. We also recover these patterns in empirical models of the outbreak of war between former coalition partners: shifting power within a coalition is associated with increased probabilities of intra-coalition war, but only when the defeated side is not too powerful. A common enemy can thus preserve peace between former partners who would otherwise go to war over the terms of shared victory.

Philip Moniz: JEPS Article on COVID

Philip Moniz has published “How Bad Is It? Elite Influence and the Perceived Seriousness of the Coronavirus Pandemic” in the Journal of Experimental Political Science.

Abstract: In spite of its immense global impact, Republicans and Democrats disagree on how serious a problem the coronavirus pandemic is. One likely reason is the political elites to whom partisans listen. As a means of shoring up support, President Trump has largely downplayed and but sometimes hyped the severity of the virus’s toll on American lives. Do these messages influence the perceived seriousness of the virus, how the president is evaluated as well as support for and compliance with social distancing guidelines? Results suggest that Republican identifiers had already crystallized their views on the virus’s seriousness, the president’s performance, and social distancing policies and behaviors. Unexpectedly, information critical of President Trump’s policy decisions produced a backlash causing people to show less concern about the virus’s death toll and rate the president’s performance even more highly.

Evaluating the Evaluator: Has the ABA Rated President Trump’s Judicial Nominees Fairly?

Austin Nelson published a student note in the Texas Law Review entitled “Evaluating the Evaluator: Has the ABA Rated President Trump’s Judicial Nominees Fairly?
Abstract: Since 1953, the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has evaluated presidential nominees for federal judgeships, rating them as Well Qualified, Qualified, or Not Qualified. The ABA insists that these ratings are “independent” and “nonpartisan,” but high-ranking Republicans, dating back to President George W. Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, have challenged this assertion. To date, research published in journals of law, political science, and economics has largely supported Republican suspicions, finding a pro-Democratic and anti-Republican bias in the ABA’s judicial ratings. Senators from both major parties have recently questioned the credibility of the ABA and have called for a federal investigation into the ABA’s judicial evaluation process. In the words of Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal, “the ABA has to assess whether its ratings are going to continue to have the kind of credibility they had merited and deserved in the past.”This Note takes up the question of the ABA judicial committee’s nonpartisanship. It evaluates the ABA ratings assigned to nominees for the U.S. courts of appeals, made during the administrations of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump. This Note employs an ordered logistic regression model, it controls for relevant nonpolitical qualifications, and it finds no statistically significant difference in the way the ABA treated the appellate nominees of Presidents Bush, Obama, and Trump. Whatever was true in the past, today’s ABA ratings do not exhibit a clear partisan bias in either direction. The ABA’s judicial ratings favor appellate nominees who are legally experienced, regardless of the nominating president.

Separation of Powers: Legitimacy, not Liberty

Tara Ginnane published “Separation of Powers: Legitimacy, not Liberty” in Polity.

Abstract: The normative justification for separation of powers is canonically articulated in terms of liberty. However, critics of this justification claim that separation of powers either does not or is not necessary to protect liberty and therefore is obsolete. This article argues that separation of powers still has a valuable role to play in American politics, but not one articulable in terms of liberty. Instead, its value hinges on its potential to contribute to normative political legitimacy. I present the legitimacy model of separation of powers as an ideal to evaluate practice and assess proposed reforms. I build from political science work on conflictual constitutionalism to argue that the American separation of powers’ structure makes the branches differentially competent at identifying and considering certain types of reasons for actions. This makes it more likely that government decisions will be based on relevant reasons considered through appropriate procedures, which is a way to institutionalize a legitimacy-enhancing requirement that government treat those subject to its decisions according to an attitude that respects their autonomous capacities. The legitimacy model offers good theoretical reasons to affirm separation of powers’ potential value to contemporary political life.

Albertson, Guiler: Conspiracy theories, election rigging, and support for democratic norms

Bethany Albertson and Kim Guiler published, “Conspiracy theories, election rigging, and support for democratic norms,” in Research and Politics.

Abstract: Under what conditions does conspiratorial rhetoric about election rigging change attitudes? We investigated this question using a survey experiment the day before and the morning of the 2016 US presidential election. We hypothesized that exposure to conspiratorial rhetoric about election interference would significantly heighten negative emotions (anxiety, anger) and undermine support for democratic institutions. Specifically, we expected that Democrats who read conspiratorial information about interference by the Russians in US elections, and that Republicans who read conspiratorial information about interference by the Democratic Party in US elections would express less support for key democratic norms. Our evidence largely supported our hypotheses. Americans exposed to a story claiming the election would be tampered with expressed less confidence in democratic institutions, and these effects were moderated by prior partisan beliefs about the actors most likely responsible for election meddling.

Jay Kao: Family Matters: Education and the (Conditional) Effect of State Indoctrination in China

Jay Kao’s paper, “Family Matters: Education and the (Conditional) Effect of State Indoctrination in China,” has been accepted for publication in Public Opinion Quarterly.

Abstract: When and how does state indoctrination work? Building upon research on motivated reasoning and family socialization, I argue that only those individuals whose parents have connections to political patronage are subject to state indoctrination because their pro-regime biases transmitted from parents induce higher receptivity ex ante to government messages. Focusing on political education in China, I conduct a quasi-experimental analysis exploiting the sharp variation in textbook content generated by China’s most recent curriculum reform. Results based on a national survey show that the new politics textbooks successfully affected only those individuals whose parents had worked for the government. The finding survives extensive robustness checks and falsification tests. I also consider several alternative explanations of the effects: preference falsification, selective attention, parental indoctrination, and educational quality. This paper not only highlights the role of intergenerational transmission in moderating the effectiveness of state indoctrination but also casts doubt on the actual degree to which regimes can change minds by changing educational content.

Allen Sumrall: Incongruous Ideas of Impeachment

Allen Sumrall has published “Incongruous Ideas of Impeachment: ‘Impeachable Offenses’ and the Constitutional Order,” in Presidential Studies Quarterly.


Despite a wealth of historical evidence and constitutional, political, and legal theory, impeachment in the United States remains hotly contested and poorly understood. This article argues there is a historical explanation for the confusion. In particular, the confusion stems from two competing ideas about impeachment, one layered atop the other. Constitutionally, impeachment is an important aspect of the separation‐of‐powers system, and a tool Congress can use to remove officials who are shirking their constitutional duties or damaging the polity itself. Soon after the founding, however, a new, competing idea of impeachment began to develop—that of impeachment as a legal device to remove officials who had committed an indictable offense. This idea had roots in civic republican traditions about political opposition being illegitimate. The interplay and tension between these competing ideas can help explain why impeachment politics today is both so fraught with tension and poorly understood.

Gibson and Shaw: Politics as Unusual

Nadine Ginbson and Daron Shaw and I published an article in Social Science Quarterly, “Politics as Unusual? Exploring Issues and the 2016 Presidential Vote” (

Conclusion: Relative to other Republican presidential candidates, Trump was more effective in tapping into anti‐political feelings prior to the Republican Convention. By the general election, issue perceptions of Trump were similar to those we see for most Republican presidential candidates. Feelings toward third‐party candidates, however, were more strongly structured by an anti‐politics dimension.

Joe Tafoya: Recent Publications

Joe Tafoya has two recent publications:

“I feel like I was born here: Social identity, political socialization, and deAmericanization,” in Latino Studies;

“Partisan Learning or Racial Learning: Opinion Change on Sanctuary City Policy Preferences in California and Texas,” in The Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics.

Charles Zug: “The Republican Theories of Rousseau and the American Anti-Federalists”

Abstract: For almost four decades preceding the 1787-88 ratification debates—during which American Federalists drew severe criticism from the Anti-Federalists—Enlightenment politics in Europe had been undergoing equally severe criticism from Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Though largely unaware of each other, both of these critics advanced distinctive republican theories based on civic virtue and individual liberty. Rousseau argued for a republic which would require the near-total alienation of retained natural rights, abstention from bourgeois commerce, and complete conformity to the general will. The Anti-Federalists, by contrast, envisioned a republic based on retained natural rights, one that would reconcile the communitarian spirit of antiquity with the commercial values and individual rights of modernity. By comparing and contrasting the most salient features of these contending visions, whose theoretical trajectories are—I argue—crucially opposed, we can glimpse the inherent conflicting requisites of republican government and therewith some of the enduring dilemmas of republican theory.

“The Republican Theories of Rousseau and the American Anti-Federalists,” has been accepted for publication at the Australian Journal of Politics and History.

Charles Zug: 2 new publications

“The Rhetorical Presidency Made Flesh: A Political Science Classic in the Age of Donald Trump,” has been accepted at Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society and will be published in volume 30, issues 3-4 (double issue) of that journal.

Also, “Demagoguery as Pathology: Interpreting European Politics Today,” has been accepted at Perspectives on Political Science.

Christina Bambrick: Horizontal Rights

Crhistina Bambrick’s article, “Horizontal Rights: A Republican Vein in Liberal Constitutionalism,” is forthcoming in Polity.

Abstract: While liberal constitutional theory typically understands constitutions as establishing vertical arrangements in which governments protect individual rights, some courts have introduced doctrines of horizontal effect, holding private bodies responsible for the rights of others, as well. This article argues that we can understand such horizontal rights as a republican vein in the tradition of liberal constitutionalism. While the conventional liberal narrative emphasizes the rights of individuals, horizontal effect builds a catalogue of individual duties as well, corresponding to the commitments and aspirations of a given constitutional order. This article draws on classical and contemporary republican political theory, as well as cases from Germany, India, and South Africa, to demonstrate how the structure of and arguments for horizontal rights reflect proclivities and track commitments associated with republicanism. Though the fact of a republican streak in these rights need not make them antithetical to existing understandings of constitutionalism, it does admit the distinctive potential of horizontal rights to alter elements of the conventional narratives, about the nature, purpose, and limits of constitutionalism.

Christina Bambrick Publication in Publius: The Journal of Federalism

“Neither Precisely National nor Precisely Federal”: Governmental and Administrative Authority in Tocqueville’s Democracy in America


Tocqueville’s insights on local politics in Democracy in America have led some scholars to ask where he fits into longstanding debates about the balance of power between the national government and state governments in American constitutionalism. Although Tocqueville’s observations speak to these questions, he also transcends them by developing the concepts of governmental and administrative (de)centralization. In differentiating governmental and administrative capacities, Tocqueville offers language by which to understand and evaluate the federal system in terms of the nature of the authority each level of government exercises, rather than simply by the objects of national, state, and municipal powers. The purpose of this article is to clarify Tocqueville’s understanding of governmental and administrative (de)centralization and thereby contribute to a better understanding of political authority in the American federal system.


Charles Zug: Can Political Science Become Diagnostic? Restoring a Forgotten Method

Charles Zug’s article “Can Political Science Become Diagnostic? Restoring a Forgotten Method” has been accepted for publication in Perspectives on Political Science.

Abstract: Political philosophers and their commentators frequently analogize human bodies and bodies politic, evaluating individual cities and empires in terms of health and sickness much the way a doctor would evaluate a patient. Today, however, the field of political science has all but renounced the task of which its ancient counterpart held itself worthy. Accordingly, many scholars have explained why political science, once prescriptive, gradually turned descriptive, concentrating above all on the turn to “value-free” social science. By contrast, the following paper examines the possibility of, and tries to sketch out, a diagnostic approach to politics, one that would restore to the study of politics its pre “value free” practical task: advising particular regimes on the basis of their particular political needs.

Calla Hummel: State Intervention in Collective Action

Calla Hummel’s “Disobedient Markets: Street Vendors, Enforcement, and State Intervention in Collective Action,” is forthcoming in Comparative Political Studies.

Abstract: At 50% of the global workforce, informal workers constitute a large, diffuse, and resource-poor group with high barriers to collective action. Contrary to scholars’ expectations, informal workers organize to varying degrees in most countries, and states often encourage them to do so. Why do some informal workers organize while others do not? I argue that states can intervene in informal workers’ collective action decisions: As enforcement costs increase, states may pay informal workers to organize, and then bargain with the resulting organization over self-regulation. I present a game theoretic model of state intervention in collective action and illustrate it with original ethnographic, survey, and interview evidence from street markets in La Paz, Bolivia. I suggest that informal workers interact strategically with states and conclude with implications for formalization policies.

Anthony Ives: Article Accepted at JOP

Anthony Ives’ article has been accepted for publication at Journal of Politics.

Title: Frederick Douglass’s Reform Textualism: An Alternative Jurisprudence Consistent with the Fundamental Purpose of Law

Abstract: Frederick Douglass famously argued that the Constitution was “a glorious liberty document.” More than this, Douglass denied that the document possessed even one proslavery provision. Most contemporary scholars, although arriving at this conclusion from quite varied premises, have suggested that such a position advocates an overly naïve approach to the text. Responding to these critics, I demonstrate that Douglass’s jurisprudence, which I classify as “reform textualism,” is both legally plausible and normatively attractive.  This is because Douglass succeeds in grounding his constitutional interpretation in both the text of the Constitution and a defensible philosophy of law.  By taking the words of the Preamble seriously and generating a compelling account of the purpose and nature of law, Frederick Douglass presents a textually-grounded, “moral reading” of the Constitution, without recourse to either originalism or the concept of the living constitution.

Kristie Kelly: Election Law Journal

Kristie Kelly has published an article in Election Law Journal

Title: Political Quid Pro Quo and the Impact of Perceptions of Corruption on Democratic Behavior

Abstract: Since its 1976 ruling in Buckley v. Valeo, the U.S. Supreme Court has voiced concern with corruption and the appearance of corruption stemming from political quid pro quo arrangements—particularly the deleterious consequences either could have on citizens’ democratic behavior. Given the vagueness in the Court’s definition of the “appearance of corruption,” campaign finance cases since Buckley have relied on survey data to measure perceptions of corruption. These data indicate high levels of perceived governmental corruption among the public but are silent on the question of whether these perceptions influence behavior. This study investigates the actual impact that perceptions of corruption have on individuals’ levels of political participation. Adapting the socioeconomic status model developed most fully by Verba and Nie (1972), I estimate extended beta-binomial regressions using maximum likelihood techniques on data from the 2009 University of Texas Money in Politics survey and the 2012 American National Election Studies Time Series survey. The results indicate that individuals who perceive higher levels of corruption participate more in politics, on average, than those who perceive lower levels of corruption. This suggests that at least a few of the assumptions underlying the Court’s rationale for upholding contribution limits in Buckley should be revisited, and that the Supreme Court’s decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission may not negatively impact participation as suggested by critics.

Clare Brock: Framing Child Nutrition

Clare Brock published an article in Social Science Quarterly.

Title: Framing Child Nutrition Programs: The Impact of Party and District Characteristics on Elite Framing

Abstract: The objective of this article is to determine whether district characteristics impact the framing choices made by members of Congress. Certain frameworks may be more effective for creating policy change, and given that framing shapes the way humans conceptualize a problem space, framing should be a deliberate tool used in order to constrain the debate around certain problems. However, the actual details of debate shifts and issue framing often become a “black box” in theories of policy change. The study uses content analysis of floor statements made over a 16-year period regarding the National School Lunch Program, the results of which are analyzed using a multinomial logistic regression. The results indicate that policy framing is highly dependent on district characteristics, but that language use itself does not appear to have changed significantly in the time period studied. The evidence presented here indicates that legislators are, at least through floor statements, engaging in delegate representation of their district interests.

Legislative Error and the “Politics of Haste”

Jonathan Lewallen has published an article in PS: Political Science & Politics.

Title: Legislative Error and the “Politics of Haste”

Abstract: Legislative error is an important and understudied element of the policy process. Even simple clerical mistakes—if unnoticed before enactment—can lead to ambiguity about a law’s meaning, spark political battles concerning rulemaking and implementation, and involve the courts in statutory interpretation. Understanding how and why error occurs can help us better understand how political institutions are intertwined in the design, enactment, and implementation of public policy. This article analyzes the sources of legislative error using data on corrected legislation in the US Senate from 1981 to 2012. The author finds that Senate drafting error is related to unified control of Congress and new majority parties, inexperienced committee members, and committee workload. In addition to bringing in different perspectives and preferences, elections can affect a legislature’s ability to draft clear, error-free statutes.

Campaign shocks and party support: evidence from Brazil’s 2014 presidential election

Brendan Apfeld and Alex Branham have published an article in the Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties.

Title: Campaign shocks and party support: evidence from Brazil’s 2014 presidential election
Abstract: This article investigates the effect of exogenous shocks during an election cycle on electoral outcomes. Specifically, we examine the impact of the unexpected death of a prominent candidate, Eduardo Campos, in the 2014 Brazilian presidential election on support levels for the three main parties. Did the effects die out relatively quickly, providing only a temporary “bounce” or dip in support levels? Or did they alter the fundamentals of the campaign environment and produce a lasting change or “bump” in support levels that lasted until the election? Our results show that while the shock did have short-term effects on all parties’ support, it was only the party that lost its leading candidate where any longer lasting shift in support is detected; we estimate that the party received around 11 percentage points more support than they would otherwise have garnered, had Campos not died. While this was not enough to secure victory, it shows that individual candidates should be understood as a “fundamental” feature of the campaign environment, any change in which is likely to have a lasting effect on voter behavior.

Lewis Fallis: Xenophon Article in APSR

Lewis Fallis has published an article in the American Political Science Review.

Title: Six Portraits of Political Ambition in Xenophon’s Memorabilia

Abstract: In this article I claim that the Greek philosopher Xenophon, in the third book of his Memorabilia, catalogues six—and perhaps the six—essential and enduring forms of human ambition. Most treatments of ambition depict the phenomenon as monolithic; or, at best, as dichotomous. That is, ambition is understood as a single trait or passion shared by all ambitious people, its manifestations differing only according to circumstance; or, alternatively, as a trait or passion with one good (or high) form and one bad (or base) form. Little attention is paid to an enterprise of cataloguing various types of human beings as embodying distinct forms of ambition, forms which a political community must tolerate or encourage, channel or confront, in different ways. This enterprise is best carried out through the dialectical approach, in which the personality of a particular interlocutor emerges in light of, and in response to, Socratic scrutiny.

Multilateral War Bargaining

Colin Krainin: “Multilateral War Bagaining.”  Quaterly Journal of Political Science (9, 4: 407-39).

Abstract: I build a static, complete information, three-player bargaining model of war. Without dynamics or incomplete information, war is always avoided. However, the threat of war determines the nature of alliances. The model uses a notion of cooperative stability to predict balancing and bandwagoning behavior in alliance formation. Given the assumptions of the model, a stable state always exists. Stronger allies increase the potential for war threats against a non-allied player. However, stronger allies also demand larger shares of an alliance’s total payoff. Balancing (bandwagoning) alliances form when the within alliance utility of a player is uniformly decreasing (increasing) in the resources of an alliance partner.

Colin Krainin received his Ph.D. in Economics, but Government professors Pat McDonald and Terry Chapman served on his dissertation committee and helped him land his current post-doc at the University of Mannheim.

Ashley Moran: Climate Change, Security, Africa

Ashley Moran’s new paper, “Climate Change and Security in Africa: Clear Risks, Nuanced Impacts,” written with Yacob Mulugetta and Clionadh Raleigh, highlights an array of vulnerabilities climate change creates for African countries, and particularly that climate change may trigger or accelerate conflict.

Violence is also more likely in excessively wet and excessively dry climates, and these conditions affect the kinds of violence governments will be faced with, as dry periods are associated with rebel forces and wetter periods associated with communal militias.

The paper makes policy recommendations and identifies future research needs.

You can read the Strauss Center Post and the paper.

Peter Harris: Asian Security Article

A new article by Peter Harris is forthcoming in Asian Security: “Problems with Power-Transition Theory: Beyond the Vanishing Disparities Thesis.”

Abstract: What happens when established states and rising powers meet on the world stage? Is conflict inevitable, or can adroit foreign policies produce peaceful accommodation between jostling Great Powers? Traditional power-transition theory tends to predict conflictual outcomes of shifting power, but this finding does not square with either the historical record or public policy-maker’s own intuitions about how international politics works. In this article, I exegete a central weakness of extant power-transition theory—that is, its reliance on vanishing disparities in national power as an explanatory factor—in order to understand where the theory is failing and how best to proceed with a view to generating greater understanding of geopolitical shifts. Beginning from the starting point that social science theory should generate useful implications for ‘real world’ social and political actors, I argue that power-transition theory’s monocausal vanishing disparities thesis is problematic in three respects: practical, theoretical and empirical.

Katherine Bersch: Comparative Politics Article

Katherine Bersch’s article, “The Merits of Puzzle-Solving over Powering: Governance Reform in Brazil and Argentina,” is forthcoming in Comparative Politics.

Abstract: Scholars of governance reforms in developing countries often argue that the surest way to address corruption, cronyism, inefficiency, and red tape is swift, dramatic change enacted by political leaders during moments of upheaval (i.e., “powering” reforms). This research finds that a very different type of change is not only possible but also more effective and enduring. A comparison of attempts to increase accountability, transparency, and institutional strength in Brazil and Argentina demonstrates that incremental changes sequenced over time in response to failings in previous policy (i.e., “puzzle-solving” reforms) provide two crucial advantages over powering’s wholesale and rapid overhauls of the state: (1) continual adjustments and modifications benefit from learning; and (2) an incremental approach makes reform more durable and helps preserve bureaucratic autonomy.

JJ Kinkel Publication and Award

Jonathan Kinkel’s paper, “Judicial Autonomy and Economic Development in Urban China: How Markets for Legal Services Create Pressure for Merit-Based Judicial Designs,” will be published in a 2015 issue of Law & Social Inquiry. The publication is tied to Kinkel being announced as the 2014 winner of the American Bar Foundation’s Graduate Student Paper Competition, widely regarded as the top graduate student prize in the Law and Society field.

Recent Archive of Graduate Student Publications

Bersch, Katherine and Sandra Botero. 2014. “Measuring Governance: Implications of Conceptual Choices.” European Journal of Development Research 26(1): 124–41.

Bersch, Katherine and Greg Michener. 2013. “Identifying Transparency.” Information Polity 18(3): 233–42.

Fortier, Jeremy. 2010. “Can Liberalism Lose the Enlightenment?” The Journal of Politics 72(4): 1003-1013.

Harris, Peter. Forthcoming. “When States Appease: British Appeasement in the 1930s,” with Peter Trubowitz. Review of International Studies.

Harris, Peter. Forthcoming. “Militarism in Environmental Disguise: The Greenwashing of an Overseas Military Base.” International Political Sociology.

Harris, Peter. 2014. “Environmental Protection as International Security: Conserving the Pentagon’s Island Bases in the Asia-Pacific.” International Journal 69, no. 3 (September), in press.

Harris, Peter. 2014. “A Political Trilemma? International Security, Environmental Protection and Human Rights in the British Indian Ocean Territory.” International Politics 51, no. 1 (January): 87-100.

Harris, Peter. 2013. “Decolonising the Special Relationship: Diego Garcia, the Chagossians and Anglo-American Relations.” Review of International Studies 39, no. 3 (July): 707-727.

Koivumaeki, Riitta-Ilona. 2010. “Business, Economic Experts, and Conservative Party Building in Latin America: The Case of El Salvador.” Journal of Politics in Latin America 2(1): 79-106.

Mohanty, Pete. 2012. “Thick and Thin Public Sentiments and the Politics of Immigration in Europe.” Comparative Sociology.

Pittz, Steven. 2011. “Providential Partners? Tocqueville’s Take on Equality and Centralization.” The Journal of Politics 73(3): 797-807.

Sorace, Christian. Forthcoming. “China’s Vision for Developing Sichuan’s Post-Earthquake Countryside: Turning Unruly Peasants into Grateful Urban Citizens.”The China Quarterly.

Sorace, Christian and William Hurst. 2011. “Recession and the Politics of Class and Production in the World’s Factory.” New Political Science 33(4): 509-524.

Sorace, Christian. 2010. “Saint Mao.” Telos 151: 173191.

Thomas, H.F. III and Timothy M. LaPira. Forthcoming. “The Revolving Door and Interest Representation.” Interest Groups & Advocacy.

Thomas, H.F. III, Amber E. Boydstun and Shaun Bevan. Forthcoming. “The Importance of Attention Diversity and How to Measure It.” Policy Studies Journal.

Thomas, H.F. III and Halpin, Darren R. 2012. “Evaluating the Breadth of Policy Engagement by Organized Interests. Public Administration 90(3): 582-599.

Thomas, H.F. III and Halpin, Darren R. 2012. “Interest Group Survival: Sources of Mortality Anxiety.” Interest Groups & Advocacy 1(2): 215-238.

Thomas, H.F. III and Bryan D. Jones. 2012. “Bounded Rationality and Public Policy Decision-Making.” In E. Araral, S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, and X. Wu (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Public Policy. New York, NY: Routledge.

Thomas, H.F. III, Maitland, Carleen, and Louis-Marie Ngamassi Tchouakeu. 2012. “Internet Censorship Circumvention Technology Use in Human Rights Organizations: An Exploratory Analysis.” Journal of Information Technology 27(4): 285-300.

Wolfe, MichelleThomas, H.F. III, and Jones, Bryan. Forthcoming. “Policy Bubbles.” Policy Studies Journal.

Wolfe, Michelle and Christoffer Green-Pedersen. 2009. “The Institutionalization of Environmental Attention in the United States and Denmark: Multiple- verus Single-Venue Systems.” Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 22(4): 625-646.

Kody Cooper Publications

Kody Cooper has published two articles (one forthcoming):

Hobbes Studies 26.2 (2013): “Reason and Desire After the Fall of Man: A Rereading of Hobbes’s Two Postulates of Human Nature”

British Journal of American Legal Studies 3.1 (2014): “Commanding Consistently With Sovereignty: Thomas Hobbes’s Natural Law Theory of Civil Law”

Trey Thomas Receives Clark Center Grant

The university’s Edward A. Clark Center for Australia and New Zealand Studies has awarded Trey Thomas a research grant for travel to Australia, where he will work with Darren Halpin at the Australian National University to study how organized interests in the U.S. and Australia use media releases to signal policy preferences to government actors.

Thomas has had two articles recently accepted for publication:

LaPira, Timothy M., Herschel F. Thomas III, and Frank R. Baumgartner. “Washington Lobbyists in the Core and on the Periphery.” Interest Groups & Advocacy, in press.

Theriault, Sean T. and Herschel F. Thomas III. “The Diffusion of Support for Same-Sex Marriage in the US Senate.” PS: Political Science & Politics, in press.