characteristics of an informal essay

• Place order

How to Write an Informal Essay: A Beginners' Guide

A typical academic essay is serious writing. It is serious because it is often well-researched and written formally. The typical informal essay is the exact opposite of this.

It is often not researched at all and is written in a casual tone. Furthermore, it is commonly written for enjoyment rather than serious discourse. And for that reason, it is a non-fiction essay that does not follow the writing conventions and is purely based on the author's reasons, reflections, and ideas.

In this guide, you will discover everything crucial you need to know to write a brilliant informal essay.

What is an informal essay?

An informal essay is an essay that is written for enjoyment rather than to argue or support a thesis with scholarly evidence. The essay is usually personal in nature and based on memory. A good example of an informal essay is – The happiest day of my life.

To write this essay, you simply need to recall the happiest day of your life and then write about it chronologically. As you can see, you don’t have to do much research to write an informal essay.

The fact that an informal essay is written for enjoyment does not mean that it does not have a set structure. The typical informal essay is a five-paragraph essay with three key parts – introduction, body, and conclusion. In terms of word count, the essay is often between 700 and 1,000 words long. The only thing informal about it is the fact that it does not need serious research. Moreover, unlike most essays, the informal can be written in a casual or conversational tone. This means that it can be written in the first and second person.

In most cases, informal essays are written for consumption by the author – to show their creativity, journal an experience, or release emotions through writing pieces.

Structure of an Informal Essay

Like most college students, you are probably used to following the five-paragraph essay structure that most professors recommend for formal essays . While using this structure to write your informal essay is okay, it is not necessary. The rationale for this is that the informal essay is informal and doesn’t follow any rigid structure.

Informal essays involve subjective opinions or ideas through prose. Some common examples of informal essays include impromptu speeches, diary entries, journals, social media posts, personal essays, and personal notes.

While the informal essay does not have a rigid structure or format, it must include four elements – topic, introduction, body, and conclusion.

The informal essay must have a title. It might be informal and without a structure, but it must have a title, and the title must be specific. By giving your informal essay a title, you are basically creating a compass that you can always refer to when writing your essay to ensure you are in the right direction. If, for example, you want to argue a point but are unsure whether it deserves to be in your essay, you can refer to your title to evaluate its importance. If the point helps to contribute to your title, you should include it in your essay. If it doesn’t, you should quickly ignore it.

2. Introduction

The informal essay must have an introduction . In other words, it must simply have a paragraph presenting what you will discuss in the body section. When writing the introduction of an informal essay, there is no specific formula to follow. The only thing that you must do is to make the introduction as interesting as possible. You can do this using a relevant quote, an interesting fact, or a related statistic.

In the body of your informal essay, you must go all out to tell the story you set out to tell in the introduction. You must do the title justice; you must make sure that anyone who reads your essay will agree that what you discuss or talk about in the body section is exactly what they expected. While there is no specific structure to follow when writing the body paragraphs of your informal essay, the best way to write them is chronological. This is because chronologically written paragraphs are easy to follow.

4. Conclusion

After writing your essay, you must write the conclusion part of your essay. The conclusion is usually the easiest part to write when writing an essay. This is because all you need to do is to summarize what you have written in the body section or body paragraphs. After doing this, you simply need to end your essay with a powerful closing sentence to complete it.

The Steps to Take to Write an Informal Essay

An informal essay is written in a conversational tone, which is laid-back, entails breaking academic writing rules, and sounds like everyday communication. You can use informal transition words, short sentences, contractions, common and cliché words, adages, expressions, and personal examples.

Here are the steps to take if assigned to write an informal essay.

1. Choose a topic

When you are asked to write an informal essay, you are normally allowed to choose your own topic. If this is the case, you should choose a topic that is very interesting to you. Because by doing so, the fact that the topic is interesting to you will result in you naturally writing an interesting essay. And interesting is what you want your informal essay to be to get a top grade.

Below the informal essay sample that follows this guide is a list of exciting informal essay topics. This list should inspire you to develop your own exciting informal essay topic; a topic that will make your essay interesting.

2. Create an outline for your informal essay

After choosing an interesting or exciting topic, you should create an outline for your informal essay . An essay outline is an essay writing plan. It highlights what you will include in the introduction section, the body section, and the conclusion section of your essay. To create an outline, provide a short summary of what you will include in your introduction paragraph, your three body paragraphs, and your conclusion paragraph.

But how do you know what you will include in your informal essay paragraphs? Well, it depends. If you are writing an informal essay based on a personal experience topic, you must recall as many details as possible about the experience to plan your essay. If you are writing an informal essay based on an academic topic, you will need thorough research to find as many details as possible about the topic to plan your essay.

3. Write the first draft of your essay

After creating a comprehensive outline for your informal essay, you should write the first draft of your essay. Do this by first writing your essay introduction. After writing your essay introduction, you should write its body paragraphs and the conclusion.

Writing the first draft of your informal essay after creating an outline for it should be a relatively straightforward job. You need to follow the outline like a map and use information from it to begin and structure your paragraphs.

The body paragraphs of an informal essay should each express your main message, perspective, or point of view. You can use persuasive writing skills to convince your readers. It would help to think of the topic as a forum thread where you defend your personal views against opposing opinions. Therefore, you must develop resilient supportive facts to defend your stance.

When developing the body paragraphs, you are allowed to use informal language. You should write short, clear, concise sentences, as long formulations are boring and misleading. You should center your discussions around some emotional vibe, express your personality, and write with vigor and respect.

Following your outline will make your informal essay well-organized and structured. However, it won’t guarantee flow in your essay. You will have to create a flow with your writing and transition words. Also, it won’t automatically give your essay a conversational and laid-back tone. You have to do this on your own using conversational words and writing.

Related Articles:

• Using I in an essay.
• How to format paragraphs for better readership.
• Steps to come up with a great thesis statement.

4. Edit your essay

After writing the first draft of your essay, you should edit it thoroughly. Do this by reading it to eliminate ambiguous and unclear words and statements. After reading it to eliminate unclear words, you should read it to remove all types of grammatical and punctuation errors.

The next thing you need to do with regard to editing your essay is to review it one more time using Grammarly.com or similar software. This will help you to catch the errors you may have missed and to correct them.

After proofreading your essay using Grammarly.com, it will be ready for submission.

Informal Essay Example

Title: Benefits of living in a remote location They say no man is an island. While living in a community surrounded by friends and neighbors is a good thing with many benefits, living alone in a remote location also has its benefits. I have been living alone in a remote Pacific island for the last eight months, and the experience has been bliss. The island has a single cabin research station with basic amenities and a satellite connection. The nearest settled island is over 500 kilometers away. I had doubts when I first stepped on the island. I thought I wouldn’t last long. However, this has obviously not been the case. My stay on this island has been quite amazing. I have enjoyed many benefits, including improved mental health, improved safety, and a low cost of living. When I was living in Sydney, Australia, I was in a bad place mentally because I felt a lot of pressure to succeed. I also felt depressed and was frequently on depression medication. Living in a remote location has changed all this. I no longer feel any pressure. I no longer feel depressed or miserable. Just about every day is a good day nowadays. I wake up, check equipment, spend hours on the beach, and eat fresh food I grow in the station’s garden. I feel amazing mentally. I feel like a new person because life is so slow-paced on this island and devoid of the pressures of city life. Regarding safety, I believe living alone on a remote island is much safer than living in a big town or city. I feel safer on this island because there is literally no one around to cause me harm. I do not have to look over my shoulder when walking, sleeping, or doing anything on this isolated island. I also have no reason to watch the news, so I am not exposed to the constant reports of insecurity that city dwellers are exposed to. Not being exposed to constant reports of insecurity makes me feel even safer. Furthermore, in case of any emergency, there is an emergency number I can call at any time of the day to request urgent help. Lastly, regarding the cost of living, living isolated on a remote island is much cheaper than city or town living. I literally do not pay any rent on this island. I also grow much of my own food, and supplies are brought to me biweekly. Furthermore, I do not pay taxes and am not exposed to constant adverts that force city dwellers to make impulse purchases. And even if I want to purchase something, I wouldn’t because it probably wouldn’t have much use on a remote, isolated island. In conclusion, living in a remote location is very beneficial. If you choose to do this, you will be happier, safer, and less stressed financially. I can only equate it to living in paradise.

Informal Essay Topics

Below are some informal essay topics you can use as inspiration to come up with your own informal essay topic if asked to choose your own topic by your professor.

• The best meals in our college cafeteria
• Celebrities who are excellent role models
• My religion and why I love it
• My thoughts on marriage and divorce
• The best day in my college life
• The most embarrassing incident in my life
• How parents can understand their children better
• Why my mother is the most important person to me
• The most famous African American inventors
• Entrepreneurs who changed the world
• Alcoholism among teenagers
• Why home education is bad
• Elon Musk and life on Mars
• The Illuminati and other conspiracy theories
• Legal migration and its benefits
• Mental health in the USA
• Communism and its benefits
• The United Nations and its failures
• Gender violence in California
• Freedom of speech around the world
• The effects of sanctions on Cuba
• Education during the peak of the pandemic
• East African culture
• Why the death penalty should be abolished everywhere
• Abortion and the right to life
• What would I do if I became a millionaire overnight?
• Why soccer is the most popular sport in the world
• The pros and cons of video gaming
• The Second Amendment and its protections
• Why I would like to become a doctor
• Why I love intermittent fasting
• How I won a half marathon when undergoing chemotherapy
• Lessons from my close friend who betrayed me
• How I plan to win the next marathon
• The car I love most
• My dream job
• Places I would like to visit
• Why I love my step-dad
• The last day at my first job

Dos and don’ts when writing an informal essay

• Do write your essay in the first person. This will make it clearly informal and casual. It will also make it read much better.
• Do write short sentences. Long sentences will make your essay difficult to read. In contrast, short sentences will make your writing easier to read and more casual (which is something you want when writing an informal essay).
• Do rewrite your essay. After writing your informal essay, you should read through it to make it flawless. Do this by editing or rewriting anything that appears out of place in your essay.
• Do proofread your essay. After you are done improving the flow of your essay, you should read it one more time to ensure it has zero grammar, punctuation, and formatting errors.
• Do ensure your essay is chronological. While it is unnecessary to make your informal essay chronological, making it chronological will make it easy to read and understand.
• Do use humor. It is okay to use humor in an informal essay. But you should only do it sparingly to avoid making your essay sound like a comedy script.
• Do use conversational language. Using conversational language will make your article to read like a blog, which is a good thing when writing an informal essay. But do not go overboard with conversational language. It could make your essay difficult to understand.
• Do read any informal essay examples. Before you write your informal essay, you should try to find and read informal essay examples online. This will help to make it easy for you to write your essay because it shows you the pattern you need to follow.
• Do let your personality show. If you have a way of expressing your ideas, arguments, and so on, you should let your personality show in your writing. Let your writing be as unique as it can be. Do not try to make your essay look or even feel academic. Just write it as you would write a blog to be read by a friend. This will help make your essay delightfully informal.                                                                                                                     
• Don’t forget to ensure a good flow throughout. While an informal essay doesn’t have a set structure, it must have a good flow. Therefore, you should ensure your essay is understandable throughout.
• Don’t forget to edit your essay. The best informal essays are flawless ones. So after writing your essay, you should read it severally to edit it and ensure it is flawless.
• Don’t make it formal. When writing informal essays, many students usually use the conventional academic language they use in formal essays. This is not right. You should try hard to make your essay as flawless as possible.
• Don’t forget to include a thesis . At the end of your introduction, you should have a thesis statement, and your entire essay should be centered on this statement. A thesis is what distinguishes an informal essay from a blog article.
• Don’t include weak arguments. It is important to ensure that your essay only contains strong arguments. Doing this will ensure you get a top grade. If you include weak arguments, you risk getting an average grade.

Parting Words!

Writing a good informal essay is not an easy job. It will require you to know the structure and style you must follow when writing an informal essay. Fortunately, you now know these two things. You also know exactly how to go about writing an informal essay. So go ahead and write yours. If you get stuck at any point, hire us to help you.

• The Ideal number of paragraphs in a comprehensive essay
• Reasons to buy essay help online

You can hire professional writers to write excellent informal essays for you. Therefore, you should never hesitate to hire the best creative/composition writers to help you complete your informal essay assignment or to write it from scratch. Try our essay writing services today; you will not regret it.

Through the years, even during the hype of AI essay writers, EssayManiacs has stood the test of time. We offer human-centered assignment help , meaning our writers write all the papers from scratch. You can also access the writers and coordinate the paper writing process for the best outcomes. 

Need a Discount to Order?

15% off first order, what you get from us.

Plagiarism-free papers

Our papers are 100% original and unique to pass online plagiarism checkers.

Well-researched academic papers

Even when we say essays for sale, they meet academic writing conventions.

24/7 online support

Hit us up on live chat or Messenger for continuous help with your essays.

Easy communication with writers

Order essays and begin communicating with your writer directly and anonymously.

Extended Essay: Formal vs. Informal Writing

• Extended Essay- The Basics
• Step 1. Choose a Subject
• Step 2. Educate yourself!
• Using Brainstorming and Mind Maps
• Identify Keywords
• Do Background Reading
• Define Your Topic
• Conduct Research in a Specific Discipline
• Step 5. Draft a Research Question
• Step 6. Create a Timeline
• Find Articles
• Find Primary Sources
• Get Help from Experts
• Search Engines, Repositories, & Directories
• Databases and Websites by Subject Area
• Create an Annotated Bibliography
• Advice (and Warnings) from the IB
• Chicago Citation Syle
• MLA Works Cited & In-Text Citations
• Step 9. Set Deadlines for Yourself
• Step 10. Plan a structure for your essay
• Evaluate & Select: the CRAAP Test
• Conducting Secondary Research
• Conducting Primary Research
• Formal vs. Informal Writing
• Presentation Requirements
• Evaluating Your Work

Differences Between Informal and Formal Essays

When writing your extended essay you should use language that is formal and academic in tone.  The chart below gives you some idea of the differences between informal and formal essays. See the box below for examples of the differences in tone in informal and formal essays written on identical topics. A PDF of this chart, and the examples below, is in the box to the right , along with a list of tips for avoiding colloquial writing.

Examples of Informal and Formal Tone in Essay Writing

The following examples highlight the differences between formal and informal tone.

Language B - English

• Formal vs. Informal Writing A chart giving the differences between informal and formal essays in seven areas (author's viewpoint; subject/content (sources of evidence); tone; structure; location of the research question; vocabulary; and purpose. Also included are examples comparing informal and formal writing for essays in English, biology, and psychology.
• How to Avoid Colloquial (Informal) Writing While it may be acceptable in friendly e-mails and chat rooms, excessive colloquialism is a major pitfall that lowers the quality of formal written text. Here are some steps/tips that you can follow to help improve your overall writing.
• << Previous: Plagiarism
• Next: Presentation Requirements >>
• Last Updated: May 8, 2024 3:48 PM
• URL: https://libguides.westsoundacademy.org/ee

• WRITING SKILLS

Formal and Informal Writing Styles

Search SkillsYouNeed:

Writing Skills:

• A - Z List of Writing Skills

The Essentials of Writing

• Common Mistakes in Writing
• Introduction to Grammar
• Improving Your Grammar
• Active and Passive Voice
• Punctuation
• Clarity in Writing
• Writing Concisely
• Coherence in Writing
• Gender Neutral Language
• Figurative Language
• When to Use Capital Letters
• Using Plain English
• Writing in UK and US English
• Understanding (and Avoiding) Clichés
• The Importance of Structure
• Know Your Audience
• Know Your Medium
• Note-Taking from Reading
• Note-Taking for Verbal Exchanges
• Creative Writing
• Top Tips for Writing Fiction
• Writer's Voice
• Writing for Children
• Writing for Pleasure
• Writing for the Internet
• Journalistic Writing
• Technical Writing
• Academic Writing
• Editing and Proofreading

Writing Specific Documents

• Writing a CV or Résumé
• Writing a Covering Letter
• Writing a Personal Statement
• Writing Reviews
• Using LinkedIn Effectively
• Business Writing
• Study Skills
• Writing Your Dissertation or Thesis

Subscribe to our FREE newsletter and start improving your life in just 5 minutes a day.

You'll get our 5 free 'One Minute Life Skills' and our weekly newsletter.

We'll never share your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Writing style is how a writer expresses themselves. It includes spelling, grammar and punctuation, as well as aspects like sentence length and word choice. Style may vary with the type or purpose of writing. For example, you may come across academic writing , journalistic writing and business writing , all of which have different purposes and characteristics. Style may also vary with period (age) and nationality.

However, all styles of writing can be described as either formal or informal.

This page covers the key aspects of formal and informal writing styles, to enable you to distinguish between the two, and use them appropriately.

Understanding Formal and Informal Styles

What do we mean by ‘formal’ and ‘informal’?

Some definitions

formal , adj . stiffly polite rather than relaxed and friendly; said of language: strictly correct with regard to grammar, style and choice of words, as distinct from conversational

informal , adj. without ceremony or formality; relaxed and friendly; said of language, clothes, etc: suitable for and used in relaxed, everyday situations.

Source: Chambers 21st Century Dictionary, online edition.

Informal language and writing, then, is suitable for use every day .

It is, effectively, how we speak and write to our friends and families. It will include slang and colloquialisms (defined as phrases that are used in informal but not formal language). The recipient may tolerate some spelling and grammar mistakes.

We are therefore likely to use an informal writing style when composing emails and letters to friends and family. Blogs and other online copy are also often written in a more informal, conversational style.

Formal writing needs much more care.

It is the style of writing used for business and other official purposes. It needs to be correct in terms of grammar, spelling, punctuation and usage.

A more formal style may also be appropriate for some letters, for example, if you are making a complaint to an organisation.

You may find our page on Writing Styles helpful. This is part of our study skills section, and summarises the main styles of writing that a student may encounter during their studies.

Characteristics of Formal and Informal Writing

When you look at a piece of writing, it is possible to distinguish whether it is written in a formal or informal style from several different aspects.

The main characteristics of an informal writing style are:

Colloquial language and terms. Informal writing is similar to a spoken conversation. It may therefore include slang, figures of speech, broken syntax, or asides.

A personal tone as if you were speaking directly to your audience (readers). Informal writing is often very conversational in style. The writer often uses the first person (I and we), and will also address the reader directly using the second person (you and your).

A simple structure and approach. As in conversation, both sentences and paragraphs tend to be shorter in informal writing. This is especially true in writing for the internet. Writers may also use incomplete sentences or ellipses (…) to make points.

Contractions and abbreviations within the text. Just as in speech, words may be shortened or abbreviated in informal writing. You will therefore see contractions (for example, I’m, doesn’t, couldn’t, it’s) and abbreviations (e.g. TV, photos) used much more in this form of writing.

Empathy and emotion. In informal writing, a writer will often show more empathy towards the reader. They may, for example, explain a more complex thought more clearly. This is linked to the more personal style in informal writing, which is more suited to conveying emotions.

The main characteristics of a formal writing style are:

A more complex structure. Formal writing often uses longer sentences. However, this is changing slightly with a growing understanding that clarity is important. In formal writing, you will also see a more structured approach generally, with points clearly introduced, explained and concluded. Formal pieces of writing are often carefully planned, revised and reviewed several times to ensure that they are as clear as possible, and make all the necessary points.

Complex should not mean incomprehensible

Some people equate formal writing with the use of longer words and complex sentence structures.

It is true that formal writing can be like that. However, this is neither essential nor desirable .

Any writing needs to convey your point to the reader as clearly as possible.

Using simpler language and sentence structures is usually a better way to do this. Long words do not make you sound cleverer, especially if you use them incorrectly.

See our page on Using Plain English for more about this.

An objective approach. In formal writing, the writer uses a more objective approach. Main points are usually stated and then supported with arguments. Formal writing is less likely to be emotional in style. It therefore avoids emotive punctuation such as exclamation points or ellipsis, unless they are being cited from another source.

Use of full words rather than contractions. As a general rule, no contractions should be used to simplify words in formal writing. Abbreviations should generally be spelt out in full when first used. There are a few exceptions to this rule, for example, when the acronym is better known than the full name (BBC, ITV or NATO for example) or where it has become part of the language (for example, AIDS).

Writing in the third person. Formal writing is not a personal writing style. The writer often aims to sound dispassionate about the topic. It is usually not appropriate to use the first person (I or we) or second person (you). However, there are some exceptions to this (see box).

First or third person in academic writing?

In academic writing, it was traditional to use the third person and the passive voice. For example:

“The authors are not aware of any other studies that have used this approach.”

“The reagents were added together carefully to avoid any cross-contamination.”

However, this type of language is quite hard to read. Many academic journals therefore now encourage the use of the active voice, and the first person, but within a style that is considered formal.

Examples of this use of language are:

“As far as we are aware, no other studies have used this method.”

“In total, we enrolled 65 people onto the study over a period of six months. They completed the initial questionnaire during April 2021.”

When to Use Formal and Informal Writing

A formal writing style is not necessarily “better” or “worse” than an informal approach.

There is a time and a place for both. They have very different purposes. You should therefore take care to choose the most appropriate style to use. There are several factors that may affect your choice.

Two of the key factors dictating the choice of a formal or informal writing style are your audience and your medium.

You may therefore find it helpful to read our pages Know your Audience and Know Your Medium .

In general, writing for professional or work purposes is likely to require a formal style. However, you may be able to use a more informal style if you are writing to someone you know in person.

Emails also tend to use a less formal style than paper-based communications. However, this is changing slightly as more organisations use emails for all communications. You should therefore avoid the use of “text talk” or too much informality.

There is more about this in our page on Good Email Etiquette .

If in doubt as to how formal your writing should be, it is usually better to err on the side of caution.

Almost nobody is offended by too much formality. However, it is certainly possible to offend by being too informal in your approach.

Continue to: Know Your Audience Common Mistakes in Writing

See also: Active and Passive Voice Creative Writing How to Write a Report

• Academic Writing / APA 7th Ed

Formal vs. Informal Writing

by Purdue Global Academic Success Center and Writing Center · Published December 11, 2020 · Updated December 11, 2020

Writing to many is about dos and don’ts, especially don’ts–don’t use first person, don’t use second person, don’t use slang, don’t use contractions, don’t use hyperbole. Don’t, don’t, don’t. And of course these “don’ts” are usually couched within the context of formal vs. informal writing in that the don’ts apply to formal writing and what you don’t want to do when writing formally. These don’ts (and others) highlight what many see as the differences between formal and informal writing. Well, I suppose so, but exceptions to rules exist, and not all writing can be so neatly categorized as either formal or informal. Certainly some writing might be what I will term semi-formal. And just because a piece of writing is less formal than formal writing doesn’t mean that’s inherently bad, which I think is sometimes the impression given. For me, how language is used in a piece of writing is less about the level of formality of the writing context and more about audience and purpose. 

First, let’s consider formal vs. informal writing with respect to APA Style. APA Style does include some “don’ts” such as to avoid using contractions and slang, but APA Style also makes it clear that its guidelines are intended for scholarly writing, and the purpose of scholarly writing is to share research and discuss findings on a narrowly defined topic, so the audience would primarily be experts in a given field. When presenting research, one wants to be taken seriously, so using a more formal writing style seems a good approach as it would help to establish the proper tone for the work. After all, what would you take more seriously?

A. The upshot of the study will blow your minds.

B. The results of the study raise a number of questions worth pursuing.

The tone in the first example is too colloquial and casual. If the audience is made up of other experts in the field–researchers, scholars, academicians, educators–for the purpose of sharing and discussing serious research, then the writer would be wise to adopt a more formal usage of language in this writing context. To ignore what is surely a standard expectation of scholarly writing would risk alienating the audience. Not being aware of the writing context and dressing up your prose appropriately is akin to being invited to a big-deal gala, an invitation-only black-tie affair and showing up wearing shorts, t-shirt, and sneakers. You wouldn’t be taken seriously, would you? With this in mind, the audience and purpose in this example dictate that more formal writing be used. It just makes sense. 

Conversely, if you wrote a text to a good friend to invite him to a weekend barbeque, you wouldn’t write, Dear Friend, I would be honored by your presence at a barbeque Saturday, July 20, at 2 PM sharp. Food and beverages will be provided by the hosts. Casual attire required. RSVP no later than–you get the idea. The audience and purpose in this scenario would be alienated by the unnecessarily formal prose, not to mention utterly flabbergasted and perhaps even a little concerned. Clearly, a text to a good friend is an occasion for informal writing that might even include abbreviated words. Make sense?

I am often in the minority when people rail against the evils of texting and how it’s the downfall of an orderly and civilized world. “Texting is ruining people’s ability to write complete and grammatically correct sentences,” they will say. “Before we know it, sentences will be nothing but abbreviations.” Well, I’m not so sure. I get the idea that when textspeak creeps into some writing contexts, a problem exists. But doesn’t the issue all come down to audience and purpose? Perhaps the issue isn’t so much texting itself, but, rather, people’s failure to consider audience and purpose appropriately? 

Further, doesn’t language usage evolve over time to reflect a changing culture? After all, we have new words in the English language this year that we didn’t have last year. And how many of you have received an email from your boss with such abbreviations as FYI or SME? Think of the abbreviations that are already used regularly and in many different writing contexts–TBA, FAQ, AKA, NNTR, and everyone’s favorite, TGIF. Would I use an abbreviation like these in an academic paper? Unless the point of the paper were to discuss textspeak or a related topic, of course not! Have I received emails from higher ups that include such abbreviations as NNTR or COB? Yes, I have, and I see nothing wrong with it. Communication and the formality of the language used is all about audience and purpose, and for written communication to be effective, the writer must consider audience and purpose carefully. EOD.

You might be thinking, ok, I get the difference between formal and informal writing situations, but what about the middle-of-the-road, hard-to-tell, not-so-black-and-white writing occasions? What’s the best approach in these kinds of situations? 

Just like there are back-yard barbeques and black-tie affairs, there are also semi-formal and business-casual events. Appropriate language use still comes down to audience and purpose. 

Let’s say your’re writing a blog post for an educational audience made up of primarily educators, students, and administrators. Your purpose is to inform and engage and develop an ongoing readership and learning community. Perhaps even to stir up a little controversy from time to time. Does this sound like a black-tie affair or business casual? While the audience may be comprised of students and educators, a blog post that shares information is not at all the same as sharing and discussing research findings in a peer-reviewed academic journal that might be published quarterly and whose primary audience is other experts in a defined field of study. Readers of a blog usually are subscribers and thus a more informal writing style is indicative of a closer relationship between the blog and its audience, so a casual treatment of language seems appropriate even if the topic itself is a serious one. While an author of a scholarly article might not use first person, address readers directly, engage in word play, or use other rhetorical devices for effect, such an approach seems perfectly fine for a blog. 

What about college assignments such as informative or persuasive essays that include research? Without a doubt, some student papers are intended to be formal academic works in which case avoiding contractions and first person makes sense. Indeed, for many college-level assignments, a more formal approach to writing is preferred, and if one has such an assignment and has questions about just how formal the writing should be, I suggest sending an email to the professor who would be the final authority on such a matter. (And if you do email your professor, please keep your audience and purpose in mind.)

That said, without another doubt, lots of student writing is not intended to be of a scholarly nature even if it uses content from research. Some assignments ask students to conduct interviews of family members or write about an issue in the community in which they live or discuss their personal educational journey, so, for example, it seems that using first person would be essential as referring to oneself in the third person is tremendously awkward and, frankly, just plain wrong. 

Now, despite all that I’ve written, I would be remiss if I didn’t at least put on the table that regardless of writing expectations and style guide pronouncements, I have to wonder if formal academic writing wouldn’t benefit by loosening up the writing a bit so that it sounded more natural, perhaps even personable. After all, those of us who teach writing or are educators surely have told our students not to use highfalutin, polysyllabic words and unnecessarily complex sentence structures when writing just to sound more sophisticated and knowledgeable, yet (dare I say it!), isn’t that what much formal academic writing does? 

Until next week–

Kurtis Clements

Share this:

• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Next story  A “We” Problem
• Previous story  Documenting Sources Made Easy

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

•    
• Informal Essay

The informal essay is written mainly for enjoyment. This is not to say that it cannot be informative or persuasive; however, it is less a formal statement than a relaxed expression of opinion, observation, humor or pleasure. A good informal essay has a relaxed style but retains a strong structure, though that structure may be less rigid than in a formal paper.

The informal essay tends to be more personal than the formal, even though both may express subjective opinions. In a formal essay the writer is a silent presence behind the words, while in an informal essay the writer is speaking directly to the reader in a conversational style. If you are writing informally, try to maintain a sense of your own personality. Do not worry about sounding academic, but avoid sloppiness.

The essay, which follows is an opinion piece that was written for The Globe and Mail. The style is therefore journalistic but aimed at a fairly sophisticated readership. Paragraphs are short, as is normal in a newspaper with its narrow columns, and the tone is more conversational than would be appropriate for a formal essay. Notice the clear statement of the thesis, the concrete illustrations in the body of the essay, and the way the conclusion leads to a more general statement of what is perhaps to come in the future. It is included here both because it is a good example of the essay form and because it explores the kind of problem you will come up against as you try to punctuate your essays correctly.

The essay topics of the informal essay type are not limited to any specific subject, you can write your informal essay on any topic. For example, here are some popular essay topics to give you an idea:

• The Best Journey of My Life
• The Point in My Life Where I Would Start Over
• The Perfect Woman, Marriage and Divorce
• My Religion
• The Celebrities Give Us Bad Examples
• Reincarnation
• The “Delights” of Our School Cafeteria

You should be well familiar with the informal essay topic you choose. Also, you have to consider the interests of your readers. You should show your personality and the attitude in your informal essay.

Useful links

• 5-paragraph Essay
• Admission Essay
• Argumentative Essay
• Cause and Effect Essay
• Classification Essay
• Comparison Essay
• Critical Essay
• Deductive Essay
• Definition Essay
• Exploratory Essay
• Expository Essay
• Literature Essay
• Narrative Essay
• Personal Essay
• Persuasive Essay
• Research Essay
• Response Essay
• Scholarship Essay

© 2004-2018 EssayInfo.com - Essay writing guides and tips. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy

Tips for Online Students , Tips for Students

Formal vs. Informal: Best Writing Practices

Updated: August 7, 2023

Published: April 5, 2020

Langston Hughes once said, “The prerequisite for writing is having something to say.” But you are probably aware that there are many different styles of writing — and it pays to know which to use situationally. When it comes to formal vs informal writing styles, there is a time and place for each. By understanding their nuances and respective best practices, you can continue to improve your writing.

We will break all of this down and more, with examples. This can serve as a useful guide on formal vs informal writing for you throughout your educational journey (and beyond).

Defining Formal vs Informal Writing Styles

Formal writing is written for an audience you do not know on a personal level. It is often the main style in academic writing (unless otherwise noted) and is more complex than informal writing. Formal writing is serious.

Informal writing consists of short sentences and is used in more personal settings, such as writing a letter to a friend or writing a diary entry. It is much more relaxed than formal writing.

Photo by  Annie Spratt  on  Unsplash

Which style is appropriate.

Knowing the difference between formal and informal writing is only half the battle. The other important aspect is knowing which to use. Here are some examples of when you would use formal vs informal writing.

Use Formal Writing When:

• Writing professionally (reaching out to a client or prospect)
• Academic writings (essays, research papers, etc.)
• Job applications ( resume writing , CVs, and cover letters)
• Reaching out to someone you do not know

Use Informal Writing When:

• Writing to a friend
• Sharing a story or writing a personal blog
• Writing creatively
• Instructed to do so (if in school)
• Writing dialogue and conversations
• Writing an outline

If you are unsure of whether to use informal or formal writing, it’s generally the rule of thumb to start out writing formally. Then, when you make the connection and you see how the other side responds, you can ease up on the formality.

Key Features of Formal vs. Informal Writing

While the above gives a simple overview of the differences and uses of each style, let’s take a deeper look into what each style entails. That way, it should become more obvious how to recognize and structure each.

Formal writing tends to include the following:

• Long and complex sentences: Sentences tend to be compound and contain commas to link two ideas or use transitions like “Furthermore” and “To exemplify,”
• Does not use contractions: Would use “cannot” instead of “can’t”
• Objective: Does not offer personal opinions
• Doesn’t use colloquial language: You won’t see any slang or common everyday vocabulary
• Diverse vocabulary words: Vocabulary is of a higher level
• Use of words that are subject-specific: For example, if you are writing about biology, you’d use words like “epithelial cells” instead of “skin cells”
• Use of third person: Does not use first person pronouns like “I” or “me”

Informal writing includes the following:

• Can use first person, second or third: You can use any type of pronouns, including “I”
• Can use slang: The use of everyday language and slang terms can be used, such as “It was cool that…”
• Active voice: Sentences tend to be written with a subject acting on the verb, such as “We chilled the drinks and went out to the sea” instead of “The drinks were chilled…”
• Personal emotional tone can be detected: Since the writing is personal, it can include feelings and the sharing of emotions
• Contraction and abbreviation: It’s okay to use “can’t” instead of “cannot” or “it’s” instead of “it is”
• Empathy: You can put yourself in the shoes of your audience and address their problems directly. This shows the author as coming from a place of understanding their situation.

Formal vs Informal Writing Comparison Guide

Additional Considerations

There are a few more things to take into account when starting out on any writing endeavor. These include the following 3 questions:

• “Who is my audience?” – This is the first question you should ask when writing anything. You want to write to your audience, so you have to define them.
• “How formal is the project I’m working on?” – This goes hand-in-hand with the audience and the project goals. However, knowing the level of formality will help you write accordingly.
• “What medium should I use?” – For both informal and formal writing, you can produce the piece digitally or by hand. If it is for academic purposes and on the job, you’ll want to type your work. But, if you choose to write a formal letter by hand (such as a thank-you letter after a job interview), then it is advised to write on thicker card stock paper to look more professional. Remember, presentation is everything when it comes to formal work!

Here’s an Example!

Along with this list of references , here is a (meta) example on how this article would be written both formally and informally:

• Formal: When writing academically or professionally, it is important to show respect to your audience by electing to write in a formal style, rather than informally. This means that sentences are longer than usual and tend to feel complex. Writing complex sentences with hyperfluent vocabulary shows your audience that you are well-informed on the subject matter. Furthermore, this writing style depicts unbiased information eluding emotions and first-person pronouns from the content.
• Informal: Formal writing feels harder than informal writing. I think it’s because I can’t use contractions or short sentences. The only reason I’d write informally is if I had to, like if it was professional or academic. But when I write like this about formal writing, it’s easier. My vocabulary doesn’t matter as much. As you can see, I still care about grammar. Writing like this feels like I am talking to a friend.

Photo by  Glenn Carstens-Peters  on  Unsplash

Tying it all together.

There are many differences between formal vs. informal writing. That being said, they both serve their respective purposes. That’s why it’s important to understand both styles, as well as when to use them.

When writing professionally or academically, opt for formal writing. Remember to leave out contractions and remain unbiased.

On the other hand, informal writing comes from within. It’s aimed towards a personal audience, so you can write as if you are speaking to them. That way, you can use contractions, shorter sentences, colloquialism, and the like.

Regardless of why you are writing, always be sure to reread your work to check for typos and mistakes. The most important thing for writing is having something to say, but it’s also making sure that what you say can be understood!

Related Articles

• Have your assignments done by seasoned writers. 24/7
• Contact us:
• +1 (213) 221-0069
• [email protected]

Is an Essay Formal or Informal: Characteristics of Each

Is an essay formal or informal

Essays are common in the world today. They have easily become part of our life.

The need to differentiate all types of essays that can be written has led to a popular question of whether essays are formal or informal. Essays can be both formal and informal.

To start with, formal essays are written for academic and professional purposes. They must be factual, research-based, and written in the third person.

On the other hand, informal essays are written for personal or casual services. They are also known as personal essays. Also, they are subjective and involve the writer giving his or her problem. They must be written in first person voice.

People Also Read: Can Literature Reviews Be Published: Can I Publish on my Own

Features of a Formal Essay

The following are the features that a formal essay should have:

1. Specific Language

Specific terms are preferred in formal essays to general ones. These terms help in providing more information and impact to the reader.

Also, physically concrete language is better than abstract terms because it helps give the reader a clear understanding. For example, instead of saying that “the scene was lovely and beautiful,” you can say that “the bright green grass and the clear blue sky were perfect for a day out.”

When descriptions are needed it is advisable to be as specific as possible.

2. Third Person Voice

Formal essays and any academic writing should always be written in the third person voice unless stated otherwise by the instructors. He, she, they, and one should be used instead of me or us.

Essays should not be referencing you unless in instances you ask for your own opinion which mostly occurs in coursework questions and not essays.

3. Active Voice over Passive Voice

To make the essay clearer and livelier to the audience active voice should be used because it uses fewer words and lays an emphasis on the doer of an action.

On the contrary, passive voice puts the receiver of the action first and puts the doer of the action after the verb or completely excludes the doer something that should only happen if the doer is not important.

In essays, the subjects need to act which is guaranteed by the active voice, unlike the passive voice where the subject is acted upon.

4. Present Tense over Past Tense

The present tense is preferred in essays because it makes it them to read, draws the reader’s attention more than the past tense, and makes information more immediate.

However, some sciences require that essays be written in the past tense. Therefore, you must consult with professors about what tense to use.

5. No clichés

Clichés should not be used in essays because they are not original. Also, they are overused hence making your essay lose originality and creativity.

They are too common and often used and should be avoided. For example, saying “as blind as a bat” is a cliché. Instead, the writer should just say “severe vision problems.”

People Also Read: Doing Homework At Work: How to do your Assignment Fast

Informal Essay characteristics

1. first and second person.

When writing informal essays, the writer is free to use the first and second person . Therefore, pronouns such as I, us, we, you, and me can be used. They help show the ownership of thoughts and experiences.

When writing an informal essay, telling a story is important. The story has to be personal for it to connect with the audience.

If your informal essay does not connect to the target audience, then it means that it will not serve its purpose.

3. Simple Grammar

Informal essays should not be too complex. The writer should always use simple words that are easy to understand.

One does not need to be an expert to understand the content of your essay.

To add to that, the sentences need to be short. There is no concept in an informal essay that calls for a detailed explanation requiring you to use long sentences to deliver the point home.

Short sentences make your informal essay easy for readers to understand and follow through.

4. Use of Slang, Colloquialisms, and Humour

Slang should be used in informal writing to connect with the audience. However, it is important to ensure that the slang words are well known to avoid giving trouble to readers who may not know the slang.

Colloquialisms or the words and language used in the street should be used to make your informal essay connect with common people.

Also, humour should be used to make the reader of your informal essay laugh. Exaggeration, shock, and misdirection are techniques that you can use to deliver humor in the essay.

People Also Read: Is an Essay a Research Paper: The Differences from Each

Differences between Formal and Informal Writing

Informal and formal essays can be differentiated using the following factors:

1. Vocabulary

In informal essays, the vocabulary is short, simple, and direct. There is no use of phrasal verbs.

On the other hand, long and hard vocabulary can be used in formal essays. Slangs and contractions are not used .

The tone used in formal essays should be objective. All emotions should be held back and if expressed they should be through the essay arguments.

However, the tone in informal essays is subjective and personal. What this means is that the tone can either be casual, conversational, amusing, or thoughtful.

3. Structure

There are no structure or format rules when it comes to writing informal essays. What you have to do mostly is just write. There is no logical standard or sequence put in place that dictates how the essay should be written.

Contrarily, formal essays have logical sequences and structures. Several formatting methods are required to be followed when writing these essays.

Also, arguments should be made in single paragraphs and points should never mix up. Remember the conclusion should also be a summary of the points discussed earlier.

Formal essays are mainly used for educational purposes to evaluate and detail analysis.

On the other hand, informal essays’ main purposes are interactions, entertainment, and reflections.

5. Subject/Content

The subject or content of formal essays mainly involves historical events, literature, and knowledge.

On the other hand, the content of informal essays mainly involves personal events and everyday events.

6. Characteristics

Formal essays are usually written using the third person pronouns while informal essays are written using first and second person pronouns.

Also, everyday language and slang can be used in informal essays while official and simple language is used in formal essays.

With over 10 years in academia and academic assistance, Alicia Smart is the epitome of excellence in the writing industry. She is our chief editor and in charge of the writing department at Grade Bees.

Related posts

Titles for Essay about Yourself

Good Titles for Essays about yourself: 31 Personal Essay Topics

How to Write a Diagnostic Essay

How to Write a Diagnostic Essay: Meaning and Topics Example

How Scantron Detects Cheating

Scantron Cheating: How it Detects Cheating and Tricks Students Use

• Staff Directory
• Library Policies
• Hege Research Award
• Quaker Archives
• Art Gallery
• Student Support
• Teaching & Learning
• Reserving spaces
• Technology Lending
• Interlibrary Loan
• Course Reserves
• Copyright & Fair Use
• Poster Printing
• Virtual Reference
• Research Guides
• Off-campus access
• Digital Scholarship
• Guilford Sources
• Open Educational Resources
• Quaker Collections
• Digital Collections
• College Archives
• Underground Railroad
• Universities Studying Slavery
• Images & Exhibitions

Service Alert

Hege Library & Learning Technologies

• Guilford College
• Campus Partners

Guilford College Writing Manual

Informal vs. formal writing.

• Practical Considerations
• Write to Learn
• Defining and Freeing the Self
• Joining a Community of Seekers
• Final Thoughts
• A Proposed Categorization of the Academic Writer's Responsibilities
• Required Writing Courses
• Placement in First-Year Writing Courses
• Writing Courses Beyond First-Year English
• Essay vs. Article
• Two Models of Papers
• What is the Real Difference?
• Specific Expectations of Papers
• Grade Descriptions
• The A Paper
• The B Paper
• The C Paper
• The D Paper
• The F Paper
• What makes college reading different?
• Levels of Reading
• An Overview
• Sample Schedule
• Suggestions for Prewriting
• Modes of Invention
• Four Categories of Invention
• Intuition Heuristics
• The Five Perspectives
• Loosening Heuristics
• Closing Observations
• Introduction
• Preliminary Tasks
• The Search Strategy
• Finding Materials
• Finding Appropriate Websites
• Selected Websites
• Documenting Your Sources
• Open Form vs. Fixed Form
• Geography of a Thesis and Proof Essay
• Introductions
• Body Paragraphs
• Conclusions
• Maintaining Control
• Geography of an Issues and Exploration Paper
• Reader Expectations
• What is Style?
• Festival of Verbs
• Two Zones of the Word Stock
• Levels of Generality
• Writing with Nouns and Verbs
• Avoiding Cliches
• The Two Faces of Jargon
• Using "I" in Academic Writing
• What Kinds of Sentences to Use
• Hemingway vs. Faulkner
• Three Syntactic Devices Worth Using
• Subject-Verb-Object
• Touches of Elegance
• Gunning's Fog Index
• Why It's Important
• Two General Principles
• Some College-Level Problems
• A Word on Typos
• An Important General Rap
• Revising Checklist
• Revising for Concreteness
• Revising to Eliminate Wordiness
• Revising to Sharpen
• Revising to Improve Coherence
• Revising to Make More Effective Use of Quotations
• Revising to Make Language More Inclusive
• Revising to Brighten
• What It Is and Why We Do It
• Sample Edit Guide

At Guilford you will do both informa l and formal writing. Let's look at informal writing first. The phrase is actually a misnomer. "Informal writing" suggests writing that is casual, unimportant. The true situation is just the opposite. Informal writing may be the most important writing you do.

Informal writing encourages independent thought, enlarges your capacity to make connections, makes you aware of yourself as a learner, increases your confidence by giving you a chance to get your ideas right with yourself before communicating them to others, affirms the value of your writing voice, and can serve as a springboard for formal assignments.

Informal writing tends to be:

exploratory digressive searching speculative talky writer-based uncorrected

Types of informal writing: impromptu writing in class, field notes, journal entries, initial drafts of papers, imaginative writing projects your professors will assign.

Now let's look at formal writing.

• << Previous: Types of College Writing
• Next: Essay vs. Article >>
• Last Updated: Dec 8, 2015 1:59 AM
• URL: https://library.guilford.edu/writingmanual

Northern Illinois University Effective Writing Practices Tutorial

• Make a Gift
• MyScholarships
• Huskie Link
• Anywhere Apps
• Huskies Get Hired
• Student Email
• Password Self-Service
• Quick Links
• Effective Writing Practices Tutorial
• Formal and Informal Style

Whether you use formal or informal style in writing will depend on the assignment itself, its subject, purpose, and audience.

Formal language is characterized by the use of standard English, more complex sentence structures, infrequent use of personal pronouns, and lack of colloquial or slang terms.

Informal language allows the use of nonstandard English forms, colloquial vocabulary and typically shorter sentence structures.

The choice of formal or informal style will affect the following areas:

• standard or nonstandard English
• choice of vocabulary
• use of contractions
• use of pronouns

Rule to Remember

Formal style affects the form of English, the choice of vocabulary, and the use of contractions and pronouns.

Standard or Nonstandard English

Standard English is the language used in professional and business communication. It is the form of English that follows the formal rules of the language.

Nonstandard English uses regional or social language variations. Nonstandard English should only be used when there is a purpose for it in writing. For example, it can be used in a narrative to describe a person with a specific regional dialect. Otherwise, the standard form of English should be used.

Choice of Vocabulary

Vocabulary  needs to be adjusted depending on the level of formality of any written work.

Consider the following words: investigate, examine, check out . Each of them has a different level of formality. While check out can be used in informal writing and speech, using it in a formal research paper would not be appropriate.

Use more formal vocabulary and avoid the use of contractions in formal writing.

Sometimes the whole sentence needs to be rephrased:

Contractions are more casual, and if you are striving for more formal style, they should not be used. Contractions in negative sentences should be especially avoided since they are easy to miss.

The Use of Pronouns

Formal language tends to be impersonal and precise. The use of pronouns , therefore, is restricted. In formal writing, when addressing the audience, you may use the passive voice or an adverbial clause in place of the personal pronoun:

Restrict the use of personal pronouns in formal writing.

The writer's presence, signaled by the use of the personal pronoun I , or we (if there are several authors), can also make writing more informal and less credible.

The second sentence is more formal and can be perceived by the audience to be more credible.

• Punctuation
• Organization
• General Document Format
• Formatting Visuals
• In-text Citations
• List of Sources
• Bias-free Language
• Sentence Structure

• Publications
• Writing for NASA
• Buy My Book!

Characteristics of Formal and Informal Writing

I’m currently supporting a new corporate client that is serious, so to speak, about maintaining an informal in-house writing style. How serious? Their in-house style manual runs longer than 200 pages. They want to make certain anyone writing for them gets it right. What does it mean for an organization to have an informal writing style, and how does that differ from formal? I thought I’d take a few minutes today to share my interpretation of these terms. Hopefully you find it useful.

Formal vs. informal

You can think of formal writing the same way you think of formal attire: you use it to look important, serious, and worthy enough to be doing whatever it is you are doing. Informal or casual writing is, again, like casual attire: more comfortable, relaxed, and even something approaching fun.

When do you wear formal clothing? While styles are constantly changing, there are some situations that maintain a certain seriousness, even in the dressed-down United States. These include: weddings, funerals, corporate board meetings, meetings with a banker (to ask for a loan), being sworn into public office, a special occasion with your family or significant other, formal dinners or dances, and attending places of worship. Formal writing, like formal clothing, invokes a certain sense of ceremony, of importance. All of those aspects of formality entail a certain attention to appearance and proper behavior. If your attire (or writing) does not “look the part” for a particular situation, you might not be taken seriously.

Casual writing, like casual clothing could be used practically anywhere else: attending a sports event, going to a party, or just attending a gathering of friends or family. Everyone knows each other, the atmosphere is lighthearted, and there isn’t an expectation for high diction or precisely ordained forms of speech.

How these behaviors are reflected in writing

The literary equivalents of formal-dress occasions include legal documents (contracts, wills, non-disclosure agreements, etc.); documents that could be used in a legally binding manner (employment offer letters, sales offers, service recovery offers); scientific or technical papers or reports; or any piece of paper that’s going to request money from or impose a financial charge on a person or an organization money.

Casual-dress (informal writing) occasions would be items like sales or marketing materials; personal correspondence; and blogs, tweets, and other forms of social media.

I should explain that there are varying levels of formal and informal. A government proposal is formal for the most part, but it could incorporate marketing or emotion-based writing to get the attention of the reader. A company like Disney can have a warm, casual style in its correspondence with its guests, but if the guest is to receive something of tangible value, say, like a free hotel night or theme park tickets, the letter will incorporate a very specific set of language that will explain how the guest can claim this item and what limitations accompany it.

Tactical examples of formal and informal writing

I decided a table was the best way to contrast the two styles.

Doubtless there are others, but this is a rather informal blog. The point here is to encourage you to pay attention to your audience, situation, and intended outcome, all three of which will determine whether you use formal or informal writing.

There are still formal situations out there, so be certain you and your writing “look the part!”

Share this:

About Bart Leahy

2 responses to characteristics of formal and informal writing.

Informal writing style, over 200 pages. I have to confess that I reread that sentence. 🙂

Okay, it was a paragraph, not a sentence. I’m getting way too informal today.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Paying for This Site

Heroic Technical Writing on Facebook

• Search for:

Recent Posts

• 2023 Wrap Up and Miscellaneous Advice
• Ennui Got You Down? Consider These Tips
• The Habits We Take With Us
• The 500 Hats of Bartholomew Leahy
• Transitioning from Freelance Life Back to Full-Time Employment

Follow this blog via email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address

Discover more from Heroic Technical Writing: Advice and Insights on the Business of Technical Communication

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

Get Weekly Language Tips That Work!

Receive study tips, resources, weekly challenges, helpful articles and inspiring success stories. Many students use our weekly newsletter as an essential part of their study routine.

Formal vs. Informal? Understanding the Language Spectrum for Fluent Conversations

Effective communication connects people across diverse backgrounds, cultures, and contexts. Language is the most effective tool for this because it can adapt to the nuances of each context and situation. That is why the spectrum of language styles spans from formal to informal. If you understand this spectrum, you will easily use it to convey ideas, form relationships, and send important messages. To be an effective communicator, you must choose the right language style. Mastery of language is not about grammar and vocabulary only. It is also about social changes, cultural norms, and situational contexts.

So, we want to explore the defining characteristics of formal and informal language in this blog post so that you will be better equipped to navigate various communication scenarios and be effective.

Defining Formal Language

Formal language is a structured and standardized form of verbal expression, characterized by a polite and respectful tone, precision, and adherence to established norms. This language type is usually used in such contexts as:

academic writing (research papers, essays, and dissertations);

business communication;

official documents (contracts, legal documents, government decrees, and official correspondence).

Using formal language in appropriate settings provides a set of benefits, like clarity and precision, demonstrating professionalism and credibility, compliance and legitimacy, and facilitating cross-cultural communication. The most complex ideas can be conveyed clearly and accurately, minimizing the risk of ambiguity and misinterpretation. In addition, formal language projects a professional image and boosts trustworthiness in both academic and business contexts. It also reveals the writer or speaker’s expertise and authority.

Using formal language in official documents ensures their legitimacy. Simultaneously, cross-cultural formal communication should break linguistic and cultural barriers because it avoids the use of colloquialisms or culturally specific expressions that may be inappropriate or misinterpreted in certain settings.

Defining Informal Language

Informal language is a more spontaneous and adaptable language form, characterized by its relaxed and casual tone, and a wide use of colloquialisms, slang, and familiar expressions. This language is common for such situations as:

casual conversations with friends and acquaintances, either in person or over the phone;

social media posts , comments, and messages;

personal emails to friends and family members.

Among the advantages of informal language use, let’s highlight the following:

authenticity, expressiveness, and emotional resonance (using the natural speaking tone and style to express thoughts and feelings more freely);

building rapport, relationships, and personal connections (through creating a relaxed, encouraging, and friendly atmosphere);

flexibility and adaptability (considering the differences in social contexts and the preferences and expectations of those participating in conversations);

ease of communication: it is more straightforward and accessible, reducing communication barriers and encouraging active participation.

All in all, informal language is a perfect tool for connecting with others .

Context Matters: When to Use Formal, Semi-Formal, and Informal Language

Using language forms depends on the settings and relationships between speakers. Your communication becomes more efficient if you understand when to use formal, semi-formal, or informal language across various contexts.

You can use formal or semi-formal language in professional contexts. The formal variant is used in job interviews, business meetings, and academic presentations and exams like the Md-102 exam , while a semi-formal tone is appropriate for interpersonal communication at the workplace, striking a balance between formality and familiarity. Such uses of formal and semi-formal language establish credibility, convey professionalism, and enhance respect among colleagues and clients.

Depending on a variety of business contexts, you may use formal or semi-formal language, too. A formal type is common for official correspondence, reports, and contracts, while semi-formal language is acceptable for networking events, informal meetings, and other forms of business interactions. Such uses facilitate clear and effective communication which are highly important for successful partnerships and collaborations.

Social contexts require either informal or semi-formal language. Of course, informal language is a norm at gatherings with friends or family since it allows for humor and spontaneity. The semi-formal type is more appropriate for networking events and community gatherings.

It is essential to adapt language to the context. If you do that, you will be able to build rapport and positive relationships in any context by demonstrating respect, empathy, and understanding. Utilizing a proper form of language will help avoid misunderstandings and misinterpretations while adapting language to cultural norms and expectations will help a lot in cross-cultural communication and collaboration.

To be an effective communicator, you must adapt language to the context. To learn this skill, try to:

actively listen and observe using language by others and learn from their examples;

practice mimicking the language patterns and tone appropriate for various situations;

understand cultural peculiarities by getting to know cultural norms and expectations;

practice code-switching between formal, semi-formal, and informal language in different contexts.

You can boost your effectiveness as a communicator and build stronger relationships if you learn how to use language properly according to different contexts. In the modern technological realm, practicing speaking with different levels of formality would include the opportunity to learn languages with AI. For example, you can ask the AI tool to reply formally or semi-formally and also ask this tool to show you how to say something more informally. Such learning techniques will help you adapt the type of language to the context in real communication more easily.

Strategies for Navigating the Language Spectrum

Let’s consider these main strategies for navigating the language spectrum in more detail.

Active listening and observation . When you want to understand the nuances of formal, semi-formal, and informal languages, listening to others attentively and observing their language use in different contexts is quite helpful. Due to that, you will be able to adapt your own language use accordingly.

Mimicking language patterns . Pay attention to specific language styles and the tone of others. For example, if you are attending a professional meeting, observe how your colleagues use formal language and avoid slang. That will show your dedication to effective communication, professionalism, and expertise.

Understanding cultural nuances . Try to realize cultural differences in communications, preferences, and taboos of people belonging to different cultural backgrounds to avoid causing offense or misunderstanding.

Practicing code-switching . Consider a specific situation to switch between different language styles or varieties, depending on the social or cultural contexts. Be aware of details, specific situations, emotional responses, and psychological characteristics of the people you communicate with to render your messages effectively.

For example, you may switch between formal and informal language in a workplace setting by changing your language patterns from “Good morning, dear colleagues. I’d like to discuss the quarterly sales report during today’s meeting” to “Hey, everyone. Let’s chat about how sales have been going lately.”

If you strive to adapt language for cross-cultural communication, change such a formal language pattern as “Greetings, everyone. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss our upcoming project” to “Hello, everyone. I’m excited to talk about our project plans. Let’s get started.” Both examples belong to semi-formal languages with different levels of formality. Using only informal patterns for cross-cultural communication is not recommended unless the person belonging to a different culture is your close friend.

Using appropriate language in digital communication is also essential. Let’s compare the formal email like “Dear Ms. Johnson, I am writing to follow up on our previous discussion regarding the project timeline” to the informal message “Hey Lisa, just checking in on where we’re at with the project timeline. Let me know if you need anything.” As you can observe, the levels of formality are pretty different, and informal messaging is more empathetic, straightforward, and personalized. It helps establish closer relationships based on trust and understanding of personal needs and preferences. You can use colloquialisms and slang here to make your communication easier and more emotionally colored.

Final Thoughts

Overall, it is essential to understand the language spectrum for effective communication in various contexts. Formal, semi-formal, and informal styles have their own sets of norms and principles you must observe. Therefore, it is vital to be able to adapt language to different situations. In this way, you can develop communication skills, build stronger relationships, and achieve more success in both personal and professional realms.

Here, we attempted to explore the importance of using formal, semi-formal, and informal language types properly in professional, business, and social contexts. We have considered the importance of adapting language to the context for building rapport, avoiding misunderstandings, and observing cultural requirements.

Language is a powerful tool for interacting with the world. Our use of it affects how others perceive us, how we establish connections, and how effectively we can overcome the challenges of human interaction. We have to improve our language skills continuously to communicate clearly, confidently , and empathetically.

Therefore, this blog post is meant to encourage you to learn, practice, and refine your language skills in diverse contexts. Active listening, mimicking language patterns, understanding cultural norms, and practicing code-switching will help you become a fluent and efficient communicator. You can transform the world around you by using the richness and power of different language styles.

• Language Learning Tips
• Most Popular
• Strategy and Method
• Motivational
• Just for Fun
• Japanese Speaking
• Japanese Grammar
• Japanese Writing
• Japanese Culture
• Russian Speaking
• Russian Grammar
• Russian Writing
• Russian Culture

Try a free lesson with Lingualift today!

Free language tips.

Get your weekly dose of language learning tips by email

Receive our free e-book Language Learning Secrets

You may also like, are some keyword mnemonics easier to remember than others, using the keyword method to learn vocabulary.

• [email protected]
• Meet Our Tutors
• The LinguaLift Method
• Help and Support
• Terms and Conditions
• Affiliate Program
• How to Learn Japanese
• How to Learn Russian
• How to Learn Hebrew

Copyright © 2021 by Lingualift. All rights reserved.

How to Write a Formal Essay: Format, Rules, & Example

If you’re a student, you’ve heard about a formal essay: a factual, research-based paper written in 3rd person. Most students have to produce dozens of them during their educational career. 

Writing a formal essay may not be the easiest task. But fear not: our custom-writing team is here to guide you through the process. This article will:

• explain what a formal essay is;
• show how to write it step by step;
• provide you with an essay sample. 

👔 Formal Essay Definition

• ✅ How to Write
• ✍️ Writing Rules
• 🖥️ Essay Format
• 📑 Sample Paper

🔍 References

A formal essay is a well-structured piece of writing with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. This type of essay often includes cited research, uses an academic tone, and is written in 3rd person. While writing a formal essay, it’s necessary to back up your arguments with factual evidence.

What Is an Informal Essay vs. Formal Essay?

Essays come in two formats: formal and informal (also known as personal .) They differ in terms of style and context. You can choose one of the formats depending on the situation and the type of paper you need to write.

Don’t know how to tell the difference between them? Well, here are some key characteristics of these essay types:

As you can see, these types of writing are almost total opposites. Informal essays are only reserved for creative assignments, which means that most of the papers you write need to be formal.

Our article on creative essays can help you write an informal paper. But how do you craft a perfect formal essay? Keep reading to find out.

✅ How to Write a Formal Essay

Traditionally, a formal essay it’s composed of 3 sections: an introduction, 3 or more body paragraphs, and a conclusion. Let’s examine each part in detail.

Formal Essay Introduction

The introduction is what your essay starts with. Its primary goal is to catch the reader’s attention with a hook, briefly introduce the topic, and lead toward the thesis statement located at the end of the first paragraph.

Here is what you might want to keep in mind while writing the introduction:

If you want some more inspiration for your introduction, check out our article on hooks in writing .

Now on to the thesis statement : the key idea of your essay. When working on it, keep in mind that it should answer the central question in your topic and reflect your essay’s overall structure. your essay’s overall structure.

Suppose your topic is related to the teaching methods involving poetry. In that case, the thesis statement can be like this:

Teaching methods that involve reading and writing poetry in elementary school are beneficial for children as they enhance their capacity for empathy, develop creativity, and help with self-realization.

Formal Essay Body

The next part of an essay is the main body paragraphs. They support the thesis statement with well-developed arguments and explore the topic in-depth. Each body paragraph starts with a topic sentence stating its main point. The length of a paragraph can vary, but the best option is to have between 4 and 7 sentences.

To make the text flow easily, you may use transitional words. Here are some examples:

• after all, 
• for instance, 
• on the one/other hand, 
• initially, 
• as a result.

How to Write a Formal Essay Conclusion

Lastly, every essay needs closure. A good conclusion summarizes the essay’s main ideas, includes a paraphrased thesis, and encourages the readers to think more about the topic.

The structure of a conclusion may change slightly depending on the subject. For instance, it can suggest some solutions to a problem, express an opinion, or give a recommendation. It’s important to remember that the conclusion is a part that emphasizes your essay’s most important points and doesn’t introduce new information.

If you’re curious about writing each essay part, check out our article on 5-paragraph essays .

✍️ Formal Writing Rules

Just like choosing the proper attire to wear to a formal event, we need to use the right words while writing a formal essay. Here are some suggestions that can help you maintain a formal tone in your paper:  

Dos of formal writing

• Pay attention to your vocabulary. The words you will use in a formal essay will likely have a nuanced meaning. Make sure you know exactly what the terms mean, and do your best to sound precise.
• Use punctuation correctly. Here are some of the things to watch out for: Avoid exclamation marks; Use dashes for insertions; Use colons with enumerations; If you’re unsure of whether to use a punctuation mark or not, rewrite the sentence in a way that doesn’t require it.
• Use varied sentence structure. In formal writing, there is always a danger of sounding monotonous. Avoid repeating sentence structures to make your essay more readable.
• Provide references. It’s essential to cite every idea that you borrow. Try to paraphrase quotations from your sources: it will help you avoid plagiarism.

Don’ts of formal writing

• Avoid using pronouns.  With words such as “I,” “me,” “we,” or “us,” an essay becomes wordy. It also makes the author seem less sure of their ideas. If you want to use personal pronouns, try substituting them with words like “the reader,” “viewers,” or “one.”
• Avoid using slang expressions and nonstandard diction. Slang words in a formal essay will make it less appealing to the readers. If you want to be taken seriously, it’s best to avoid those expressions and use proper Standard English.
• Avoid informal tone.  When you write a formal essay, incorporate the language and the expressions you would use while delivering a speech, not the words you use when you casually talk to friends. A formal tone suggests that the author is serious about the topic and respects the audience.
• Avoid passive voice. Passive verbs are hard to read, and they are wordy. Use active voice to sound more straightforward and concise.

Contractions in Formal Writing

A contraction is usually a combination of two words into one, such as “don’t,” “isn’t,” “can’t,” and “wouldn’t.” When you work on a formal essay, it’s essential to be careful about contractions. It’s inappropriate to use them in academic writing, so it’s best to stick to the full variant.

However, there are exceptions to this rule. For instance, when working with direct quotations, it’s essential to reproduce words exactly as they are used in the original. To learn more about it, be sure to check out the University of North Florida’s article on in-text citations .

What to Use Instead of “You” in an Essay

Another common mistake students make is using the “you” and “yours” pronouns to address the readers. This mistake can make the essay overly informal and lead to misinterpretations of the text.

How do you fix it? Our advice is to replace 2nd-person pronouns with the following words:

• individuals,

You can find more formal writing tips in this informative video from Smrt English:

🖥️ Formal Essay Format

Now that we’ve discussed formal essay writing in detail, it’s time to look at the formatting. A formal essay is usually written in MLA or APA formats. If you’re asked to write a paper in one of these formats, you may find the guidelines below helpful:

📑 Formal Essay Example

Here is an excellent sample of a formal essay that uses all the guidelines mentioned in this article. It will help you to produce a perfect paper of your own:

For more information, check out Purdue OWL’s resources on various formatting styles .

Formal Essay Topics

• Stress management techniques 
• The effects of coffee
• Negative effects of technology on children 
• Causes and outcomes of organizational conflicts in sports
• Different types of friends 
• Same-sex marriages in the United States
• Are early marriages harmful or beneficial? 
• How do nutrition and hydration improve athletes’ performance?
• Is polygamy morally acceptable? 
• Different features of sports business
• What characterizes friendship in the age of media? 
• Positive and negative effects of tourism on environment in the Caribbean
• How does society treat single parents? 
• How does the uninvolved parenting style affect child’s future well-being?
• The role of family relationships in Odyssey  
• Financial concepts in sport finance
• Main features of a strong marriage 
• The importance of media coverage for sport teams
• Reasons why students choose to get internship 
• The role of stadiums in the sports industry
• The multiracial family: the Carters case analysis 
• Characteristics of children’s sports
• Crucial factors affecting health fitness
• How is technology used in hotel management?
• Structure and operational context of Four Seasons
• What are the main qualities of a true friend?
• Different websites that promote rental properties
• The imperative aspects of tourism
• Importance of hotel training
• What factors determine adolescents’ adjustment after they experience parental divorce ?
• How does tobacco use affect the human body? 
• The importance of language and world view for communication
• What makes a combination of reinforcement and punishment in parenting efficient?
• The scientific approach of sports economics
• How does divorce affect children?
• Living on-campus vs. living off-campus when attending university: a comparison
• How does the New Moves program promote a healthy lifestyle?
• How to be an effective counselor
• Various types of restaurants in Ireland
• Carolina Dog’s characteristics
• Comparison of Monzameon’s The Love Suicides at Amijima and Tartuffe by Moliere 
• Comparing homosexual and heterosexual families
• How is family presented in Everyday Use by Alice Walker ?
• In what ways can Anaerobic Threshold be assessed?
• Is bad parenting a healthcare problem?
• Why student-athletes should benefit from sports
• Mind-body awareness and its health benefits
• Can punishment boost academic performance?
• Techniques to teach students swimming
• Issues faced by the sports licensing field

Thanks for reading through this guide! We hope that you found it helpful and now have a better idea of how to write an excellent formal essay. Don’t hesitate to share our article with a friend who may need it. Good luck!

Further reading:

• How to Write a Critical Thinking Essay: Examples & Outline
• What Is a Discourse Analysis Essay: Example & Guide
• How to Write a Narrative Essay Outline: Template & Examples
• How to Write a Précis: Definition, Guide, & Examples 

❓ Formal Essay FAQs

It’s best not to use pronouns such as “I,” “my,” “we,” “our,” etc., in a formal essay since it give the paper an informal tone and the text becomes wordy. It also makes the writer seem less sure about their ideas.

It’s better to avoid using parentheses and dashes in formal academic writing. If the information you want to include in the essay is important enough, it should be a part of the sentence. Otherwise, you can simply omit it.

The formal and informal essays differ in style and context. While a formal essay is a piece of well-structured writing that tries to convince the reader by providing arguments, an informal essay has no set structure. It reflects the author’s personal thoughts or opinions.

Starting your sentence with “because” in formal writing is not the best idea. The word “because” is a subordinate conjunction, which means it’s used to join the main clause to a subordinate clause, not to start a sentence.

It’s best to avoid using 1st- and 2nd-person pronouns, slang expressions, nonstandard diction, and contractions in a formal essay. They are primarily used in daily speech and are considered inappropriate in academic writing. 

• Point of View in Academic Writing: St. Louis Community College
• Components of a Good Essay: University of Evansville
• Introductions & Conclusions: University of Arizona Global Campus
• How to Improve Your Academic Writing: University of York
• Nine Basic Ways to Improve Your Style in Academic Writing: University of California, Berkeley
• Academic Writing Style: Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: University of Southern California
• Formal and Informal Style: Northern Illinois University
• Formal Writing: Davenport University: LibGuides
• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to LinkedIn
• Share to email

Rhetorical analysis is never a simple task. This essay type requires you to analyze rhetorical devices in a text and review them from different perspectives. Such an assignment can be a part of an AP Lang exam or a college home task. Either way, you will need a solid outline...

A synthesis essay requires you to work with multiple sources. You combine the information gathered from them to present a well-rounded argument on a topic. Are you looking for the ultimate guide on synthesis essay writing? You’ve come to the right place! In this guide by our custom writing team,...

A critical analysis essay is an academic paper that requires a thorough examination of theoretical concepts and ideas. It includes a comparison of facts, differentiation between evidence and argument, and identification of biases. Crafting a good paper can be a daunting experience, but it will be much easier if you...

Process analysis is an explanation of how something works or happens. Want to know more? Read the following article prepared by our custom writing specialists and learn about: process analysis and its typesa process analysis outline tipsfree examples and other tips that might be helpful for your college assignment So,...

A visual analysis essay is an academic paper type that history and art students often deal with. It consists of a detailed description of an image or object. It can also include an interpretation or an argument that is supported by visual evidence. In this article, our custom writing experts...

Want to know how to write a reflection paper for college or school? To do that, you need to connect your personal experiences with theoretical knowledge. Usually, students are asked to reflect on a documentary, a text, or their experience. Sometimes one needs to write a paper about a lesson...

A character analysis is an examination of the personalities and actions of protagonists and antagonists that make up a story. It discusses their role in the story, evaluates their traits, and looks at their conflicts and experiences. You might need to write this assignment in school or college. Like any...

Any critique is nothing more than critical analysis, and the word “analysis” does not have a negative meaning. Critical writing relies on objective evaluations of or a response to an author’s creation. As such, they can be either positive or negative, as the work deserves. To write a critique, you...

If you are assigned to write a rhetorical analysis essay, you have one significant advantage. You can choose a text from an almost infinite number of resources. The most important thing is that you analyze the statement addressed to an audience. The task of a rhetorical analysis essay is to...

Any literary analysis is a challenging task since literature includes many elements that can be interpreted differently. However, a stylistic analysis of all the figurative language the poets use may seem even harder. You may never realize what the author actually meant and how to comment on it! While analyzing...

As a student, you may be asked to write a book review. Unlike an argumentative essay, a book review is an opportunity to convey the central theme of a story while offering a new perspective on the author’s ideas. Knowing how to create a well-organized and coherent review, however, is...

The difference between an argumentative and persuasive essay isn’t always clear. If you’re struggling with either style for your next assignment, don’t worry. The following will clarify everything you need to know so you can write with confidence. First, we define the primary objectives of argumentative vs. persuasive writing. We...

Congratulations to the Economics PhD Class of 2024!

The Department of Economics would like to give a heartfelt congratulations to the Class of 2024! At this week’s Commencement ceremony, the Department awarded 20 new PhDs. Welcome to the Yale alumni community and we wish you the best in what comes next!

“We are celebrating the graduation of our remarkable class of 2024. Their impressive achievements, showcased by their cutting edge theses, resulted in fantastic job placements. As they embark on their new endeavors, the Economics Department congratulates them on a job well done. Class of 2024 we are very proud of you!” — Yuichi Kitamura, Director of Graduate Studies

The Class of 2024 with Department Chair Tony Smith and Director of Graduate Studies Yuichi Kitamura

Below we highlight the achievements and next steps of this diverse group of graduates. See here for the Economic Growth Center's article celebrating the Class of 2024, their achievements, and future plans. A full list of placement outcomes can be viewed here .

Pedro Casavilca Silva

Pedro is an economist with a policy-driven research agenda in Labor Economics and Macroeconomics. His current research seeks to enhance understanding of how labor market frictions and credit supply shocks affect informal employment prevalence, wage disparities, and firms' performance. His  job market paper (Job Ladder Consequences of Employment Protection: Theory and Evidence from Peru) examines how employment protection shapes the incentives for both workers and firms to demand and supply informal employment and different types of formal labor. In addition to his policy-driven research agenda, he is passionate about teaching and mentoring, and was awarded a Teaching Fellowship Prize in 2021-22 for contributing to courses taught by Professors William Nordhaus and Kaivan Munshi. In the Summer of 2024, he will join Davidson College as an Assistant Professor in the Economics Department.

Personal website Linkedin Profile

Fernando Cordeiro

Fernando's primary field of research is industrial organization, and much of his work has focused on higher education markets and productivity differences between public and private utilities. His job market paper, “College Quality and Tuition Subsidies in Equilibrium,” uses administrative data to gauge the quality of undergraduate programs in Brazil and studies how demand-side subsidies interact with the equilibrium level of price and quality in the Brazilian higher education sector. After graduation, Fernando will join Charles River Associates as a Senior Associate in its antitrust and competition practice.

Alvaro's research interests include economic growth and development. He focuses on the role of human capital in inducing firm growth and the aggregate implications of education policies aimed at reducing the cost of access to higher education. Alvaro’s job market paper, titled “ From Classroom to Prosperity: Fostering Development Through Higher Education ,” assesses the contribution to Brazilian economic growth of the reduction in access costs to higher education with a particular focus on the implications for firms' growth as a mechanism. After Yale, Alvaro will join the University of Oslo as a Full-Time Researcher for the academic year 2024-2025; later, he will join Universidad Carlos III de Madrid as an Assistant Professor.

Personal website @Alv_Cox

Hanxiao Cui

Hanxiao’s research interests include matching and sorting in the labor market and the marriage market, particularly matching and production in teams. Her job market paper studies the complementarity of multidimensional skills in innovation and the skill composition of inventor teams, using novel data linking social security data and patent records. Her dissertation also examines how childcare policies affect marital sorting and household allocation in the long run, as well as gender disparities among investors in terms of life-cycle productivity and teamwork dynamics. She will join Capital One as a principal quantitative analyst this summer.

Linkedin Profile

Mirco Dinelli

Mirco's research interests include macroeconomics, environmental economics, and political economy. His job market paper, titled “ The Political Economy of Climate Bonds ,” investigates the interplay between government debt and climate change policy in a setting where voters from different generations have different interests. The paper finds conditions under which debt instruments can help stimulate climate change policy as well as circumstances in which debt is a hindrance to climate policy. In the 2024-2025 academic year, Mirco will be joining the economics department at St. John Fisher University as an Assistant Professor.

Personal website

Tan Gan is a microeconomic theorist with broad interests in both theoretical and applied topics. Methodologically, he is interested in principal-agent frameworks, including mechanism design, information design, and contract theory, especially with robust objectives. Topicwise, he is interested in exploring the implication of digitalization on economic behaviors. Tan's job market paper, titled “ From Doubt to Devotion Trials and Learning-Based Pricing ,” studies the dynamic mechanism design problem of an informed seller of experience goods. In the fall of 2024, Tan will join LSE as an Assistant Professor in the Management Department.

Personal website @TanGan96

Daniel Giraldo Paez

Daniel's research is in labor and public economics. His work explores the evolution in the last fifty years of labor supply among major demographic groups, with particular focus on the elderly and women. Daniel's job market paper, “ The Changing Nature of Work, Old-Age Labor Supply, and Social Security ,” evaluates the extent to which the increase in older Americans' employment rate can be attributed to changes in the nature of work and this phenomenon's implications for Social Security reforms. Daniel is joining the U.S. Department of Treasury's Office of Microeconomic Analysis as an Economist.

Personal website @WDanielGiraldoP Linkedin Profile

Rodrigo Guerrero

Rodrigo's research focuses on household behavior and education in low-income countries. In his job market paper, titled “ Parental Death and Schooling: Gendered Spheres of Production and Parental Preferences ,” he exploits variation in the timing of parental loss to estimate a structural model of household consumption and time allocation in India. He finds stark differences in the impact of parental death based on the gender of the child and the gender of the deceased parent. The strict gender division of labor in Indian households and the differences in preferences for education of mothers and fathers play a crucial role in explaining the observed effects. After graduation, Rodrigo will join Analysis Group as an Associate.

Nghiem Huynh

Nghiem's research interests lie at the intersection of development economics, international trade, and spatial economics. His job market paper, “ Place-based Policy, Migration Barriers, and Spatial Inequality ,” uses a dynamic model and data from Vietnam to analyze how place-based tax incentives and reducing migration barriers affect regional inequality. After graduation, Nghiem will join the Department of Economics at the University of Oklahoma as an Assistant Professor in July 2024.

Personal website @nghiemqhuynh Linkedin Profile

Sid Kankanala

Sid's primary field of research is Econometrics. His job market paper develops a quasi-Bayesian approach to estimate a large class of models in which observed economic behavior depends on several latent unobservables. Sid will join University of Chicago's Booth School of Business as an Assistant Professor in Econometrics and Statistics.

“This was an impressive cohort. Following Yale’s intellectual tradition of rigorous economic research, the graduating class produced rigorous and groundbreaking work across many economics topics. We look forward to seeing what they do next. Congratulations, class of 2024!” — Fabrizio Zilibotti, Tuntex Professor of International and Development Economics — John Eric Humphries, Assistant Professor of Economics

Jaewon’s research interests include Industrial Organization and Applied Econometrics. His current research focuses on proper inference in the context of demand estimation. His job market paper, titled “Computationally feasible identification-robust inference on discrete choice demand,” explores how to adapt a recent econometric method that is robust to weak identification to BLP-style demand models, in a computationally feasible way. After completing his studies at Yale, Jaewon will join Compass Lexecon as a Senior Economist.

Ryungha's research interests include macroeconomics, spatial economics, and labor economics. Her research investigates why economic activities are concentrated across space and the policy implications of this concentration. Her job market paper, titled “ Spatial Sorting of Workers and Firms ,” develops a new theory of two-sided sorting where heterogeneous workers and firms sort across space and shows that cities can become excessively congested. Ryungha will join Northwestern and Becker Friedman Institute as a post-doctoral fellow before joining the University of Chicago Booth School of Business as an Assistant Professor.

Bernardo Ribeiro

Bernardo’s research interests include economic growth and innovation. He currently focuses on the innovation life cycle of technologies and how society allocates research efforts across technologies of different maturities. In his Job Market paper, “ Embracing the Future or Building on the Past? Growth with New and Old Technologies ,” Bernardo shows that only a small fraction of innovative investment goes into new, cutting-edge technologies, compared to technologies that emerged half a century ago. He then explores the determinants of this pattern and whether policymakers should try to change it. In the academic year 2024-2025, Bernardo will join Princeton University as a Postdoctoral Associate in the Economics Department. In 2025, he will join the Einaudi Institute for Economics and Finance (EIEF) as an Assistant Professor of Economics.

Personal website @bernardo_scrib

Hiroki Saruya

Hiroki’s research interests include health economics and industrial organization, and his current research projects focus on the demand and supply of medical care and long-term care under capacity constraints. His job market paper “Congestion-Quality Tradeoff: Evidence from Japanese Long-Term Care Facilities” explores the tradeoff between nursing facilities' congestion and quality for producing desirable care outcomes, estimates users' preferences for these and other facility characteristics, and then discusses impacts of policies on outcomes and user welfare. After Yale, Hiroki will join the Economic and Social Research Institute of the Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, as a 3-year postdoc researcher.

Jihoon Sung

Jihoon’s research interests include macroeconomics, economic growth, data analysis, corporate structure, and international trade. His dissertation, titled “Business Conglomerates and Misallocation: Theory and Evidence from Chaebols” explores the role of business groups—collections of firms owned by a single family—in determining factor misallocation and aggregate productivity. After graduation, he will join Konektis Capital Management.

Anthony Tokman

Anthony uses tools from industrial organization to study the economics of cities and housing supply. His dissertation research quantifies the neighborhood-level stringency of housing density restrictions in over thirty U.S. metro areas and investigates the disparate effects of these restrictions on housing affordability and spatial mobility across the income distribution. After Yale, Anthony will join Charles River Associates as a senior associate in the antitrust and competition economics practice.

Allen’s research interests lie in economic theory, particularly game theory and its applications. His current research focuses on dynamic games and communication. His job market paper, “ Mediated Repeated Moral Hazard ,” shows how a manager uses dynamic communication with a worker, hidden from the clients, to improve this worker’s productivity in serving the clients. Allen will join the National University of Singapore as an Assistant Professor.

Siu Yuat Wong

Siu Yuat’s research interests in development economics focus on migration, both temporary and permanent, and its intersection with child development and climate change. Siu Yuat’s job market paper, titled “ Maternal and Paternal Migration and Children’s Human Capital ,” explores how maternal and paternal migration will impact a child’s human capital development, which in turn will affect future parental migration decisions. After graduating, Siu Yuat will begin a postdoctoral research position at Stanford University.

Wei’s research interests include trade, growth, and the environment. His current research investigates how globalization affects growth and the environment through technology diffusion and innovation. His job market paper, titled “ Clean Growth and Environmental Policies in the Global Economy ,” provides a dynamic framework to evaluate environmental policies in the global economy. Wei will join the Department of Economics at University of Michigan as an Assistant Professor.

Qianyao's research interests include Labor Economics and Applied Microeconomics. Her current research focuses on human capital development, particularly the determinants of the development process. Qianyao's job market paper, titled “ Child Development, Parental Investments, and Social Capital ,” explores the impacts of social capital and parental investments on child skill development. After Yale, Qianyao will join Xiamen University as an Assistant Professor.

Quick links

• Make a Gift
• Directories

History Awards Over $440,000 in Scholarships and Prizes

The Department of History is delighted to announce this year’s scholarship and prize recipients. Thanks to our dedicated and generous alumni and friends, we were able to award an impressive $440,000 to 41 undergraduate and 4 graduate students in recognition of their academic excellence and service. In addition to the student awards, members from our faculty and staff, as well as one Washington educator, were given special recognition for their outstanding service.

Undergraduate Awards

Maurice d. and lois m. schwartz scholarship.

Created in 1977 as one of the first endowed scholarships at the University of Washington, the Maurice D. and Lois M. Schwartz Scholarship is awarded on the basis of academic excellence and a commitment to the study of non-Western history. While a student at the University, Mr. Schwartz became fascinated with the Middle and Near East. In 1934, Professor Pollard, head of the Department of Oriental Studies, secured funds to support a promising undergraduate who would serve as a reader to him as well as attend to clerical tasks within the department. That student was Maurice Schwartz, and nobody could have imagined just how big that little investment would one day pay out. The Schwartz Fund has been a vital source of tuition support to the students of this department for many decades. Now, due to a final bequest from their estate, the impact of their generosity will be even stronger. This year, and going forward, we are able to give out the equivalent of 63 quarters of resident tuition, or essentially award an entire year of tuition to 21 resident students! We will forever be grateful for the generosity of Maurice and Lois, and it is an honor to present these awards in their name. Alec Benson, Kyle Clark, Brionna Dulay, Aidan Dveirin, Saul Gonzalez, Eleanor Hoffman, Katherine Hoffman, Clara Kehoe, Sophie Knight, Ellen Koselka, Heidi Longwell, Lauren McClintock, Sarah Newman, Tam Nguyen, Vee Nguyen, Moniva Pal, Tate Parker, Amber Pilgreen, Dakota Riley, Laurel Rovetta, Samuel Shepard, Harjot Singh, and  Maia Sullivan

James Bicknell Fund for Academic Travel

Established by Professor Emeritus Daniel C. Waugh in memory of his maternal great-grandfather, this fund provides travel aid for students studying the languages and cultures of Russia, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, the Near and Middle East, and North Africa. Isaac Bronfine (Germany), Eleanor Hoffman (Poland), Olivia Tinettie (Slovenia)

Burke-Erickson Fund for Foreign Language Study

This award supports students in their study of the languages and cultures of the Middle East. Zinnia Hansen

Dale Roger Corkery Scholarship in History

Established in memory of UW alum Dale Roger Corkery, this fund honors his love of history by offering support to undergraduate history majors studying ancient history. Zinnia Hansen

Denison-Kernaghan Scholarship

Established in recognition of a friendship spanning over twenty years, it is the hope of this donor that the support provided by this fund will help students as they gain rich experiences through their education. 

Lauren McClintock

Faye Wilson Scholarship

This scholarship is made possible through the generosity of Faye Wilson, who directed that a portion of her estate be used by the UW Department of History to assist outstanding undergraduates with tuition costs. Tessa Chittendon , Selma Sukkary , and Katarina Vena

Freedman Remak Family Scholarship in History

Nancy (Freedman) and Ben Remak began this scholarship to assist history majors who face the high cost of non-resident tuition. Nancy herself had come to the UW from out of state and recognizes the financial burden such students face.   Emma Inwalson

Meder-Montgomery Family Student Support Fund in History

UW History alumna Marilyn Montgomery began this award to support undergraduate history majors in their studies.

Harjot Singh

Otis Pease Scholarship

Otis Pease was a professor and department chair of UW History. This scholarship honors his memory and provides tuition support to undergraduates pursing a major in history. Jacob Krell

Larry Lee Sleizer Scholarship

Herman and Rose Sleizer endowed this scholarship in memory of their son, Larry Lee Sleizer, with the hope that supporting many future generations of students would serve as a fitting memorial in his name.

Charlotte Bergevin, Brionna Dulay, Saul Gonzalez, Eleanor Hoffman, Cheyenne Jenkins, Jacob Krell, Heidi Longwell, Lauren McClintock, Natalie McLaughlin, Elliot Miller, Vee Nguyen, Moniva Pal, Tate Parker, Laurel Rovetta, and Harjot Singh

History Scholarship Fund Award

These funds are made possible through generous donations from our alumni and friends.

Maia Sullivan

John and Linda Ravage Prize 

This prize is given for an outstanding paper or project written on the history of African Americans, with a preference for African Americans in the American West. Nolan DeGarlais “Multiracial Labor Organizing and Community Building in Roslyn, Washington, 1888-1907” In this extensively researched, well-written, and tightly argued essay, DeGarlais presents a comparative study of two strikes in the coal-mining town of Roslyn, Washington: a failed 1888 strike by the Knights of Labor, a union comprising immigrant white workers, and a successful one by the United Mine Workers in 1904. As DeGarlais shows, the mine workers by 1904 were an integrated union, and in significant ways Roslyn had become culturally integrated as well. While Black miners were brought to Roslyn as strike breakers in 1888, they remained to guide the newly arrived Americans into the institutions of American life. Thus, in a period that saw the entrenchment of Jim Crow laws and the renewed rise of the Klan, Roslyn saw a diverse community make common cause. When better prospects led most Black workers to leave Roslyn, they were for the most part remembered by history only as strike breakers. DeGarlais has done the crucial work of history in uncovering and explaining a more complicated story. His work represents the best of our undergraduates’ scholarship, and the Department’s commitment to the careful study of race and labor in historical contexts. 

Thomas M. Power Prize for Excellence in History - Undergraduate Paper Prize

Established in memory of UW alumnus Thomas M. Power, the Excellence in History awards recognize exemplary scholarship in history and encourage study in the discipline. This award acknowledges undergraduates who have produced outstanding research papers within a UW history course. Nicole Grabiel “’Nadie Ganaba’/ ‘Nobody Won’: El Salvador, Argentina, and the Transnational Roots of State Terror” Using primary and secondary sources in both Spanish and English, in this essay Grabiel argues for the influence of Argentina on El Salvador in the embrace of a policy of violent repression of political dissent in the late 1970s. Pointing to a moment of contingency when it was still possible for El Salvador’s ruling powers to engage with their left-wing opponents, the essay shows how a panoply of influences, from the advice of Argentine military attaches, offers of financial and technical support, and the promotion of Argentine policy as exemplary of political stability tipped the balance towards state terror and ultimately the deaths of more than 40,000 of El Salvador’s population of about four and a half million people. The essay draws extensively on newly-declassified Argentine chancery records as well as a mastery of primary and secondary sources. It draws on, and contributes to, a new Cold War historiography of Latin America, one which decenters the influence and demands of the United States to look for continental contributors. The paper exemplifies excellence in historical research and writing.  Selma Sukkary   honorable mention “One Strange Brew: a Look Back on San Francisco’s Psychedelic Art Movement” This essay exemplifies one of the most important attributes of good history: the ability to rediscover and explain the network of mutually-defining elements that constituted a relevant context at some time and place in the past. Here, the time is the mid-1960s and the place is San Francisco, home to a graphic tradition of posters celebrating the contemporary music scene. Sukkary appeals to histories of psychedelic substances, counterculture politics, art history, and abstract impressionism, literature, computing history and the San Francisco cultural scene, all flourishing briefly before the construction of a counter-counter-culture in the name of Cold War efficacy and conventional economic progress. Nicely balancing the cold rationality of historical argument and the evocation of alternate realities, this essay is fully deserving of recognition.

Thomas M. Power Prize for Excellence in History - Outstanding Graduating Senior

Established in memory of UW alumnus Thomas M. Power, the Excellence in History awards recognize exemplary scholarship in history and encourage study in the discipline. This award acknowledges the superb work of graduating seniors within the history major. Nicole Grabiel   Nicole is an exceptional student, graduating with a 3.99 history GPA, 4.00 global and regional studies GPA, and 3.92 UW cumulative GPA.  Along with her sophisticated research abilities, Nicole has exhibited remarkable leadership, commitment to social justice, and language fluency in her extracurricular activities. Specifically, her advanced Spanish skills that led to her position at the UW’s Center for Human Rights. Nicole’s thesis adviser, Dr. Ileana Rodríguez-Silva, states, “The center regularly assists civil groups in Central America, especially El Salvador, in their judicial claims against state terror. Nicole is the only one at the center exclusively dedicated to Central American research tasks, labor central to rural communities’ claims for reparations and restitutions from the government.” 

History Department lecturer, Dr. Kyle Haddad-Fonda, has provided this stunning assessment of Nicole’s academic skills and achievements: “Nicole is the best student I’ve ever taught, at the UW or anywhere else. She is a force both inside the classroom and beyond it—a person who combines an impressive intellect with a remarkable ability to communicate and a sincere desire for her scholarship to promote justice, dignity, and respect. She’s also a kind and caring person who exemplifies the best of what this university has to offer.” Nicole has a grant to conduct research this year through the Hoover Institute at Stanford University.

Thomas M. Power Prize for Excellence in History - Outstanding Student Leader

Established in memory of UW alumnus Thomas M. Power, the Excellence in History awards recognize exemplary scholarship in history and encourage study in the discipline. This award acknowledges a graduating history major or a history graduate student, for integrating the study of history with community and public engagement. It builds on the sense that many of our students are drawing on their studies to do important work beyond the classroom. Makenna Page Makenna serves as editor-in-chief of UW’s The Historical Review , our student-run undergraduate journal featuring writing and research in history. This journal was started several years ago, and Makenna has helped introduce new elements to The Historical Review . As Dr. Ileana Rodriguez- Silva wrote, “I have been impressed with their work with the history journal and the ways in which they are ushering in some changes and collaborating with students outside the department to bring other dimensions to historical thinking.” Some examples of these collaborations and changes include hosting writing workshops that encouraged students to hone their writing through feedback on pieces they were writing for submission to the journal; holding social events; pairing with UW Poetry Club to incorporate poetry into the journal; and this year’s Historical Review board is largest since its founding. Beyond Makenna’s work with The Historical Review , as an honors in history student, Makenna completed a thesis entitled, “Scotland’s Outer Hebrides: A Colonial Oxymoron.” As part of their research, Makenna was able to visit the archives in Scotland. During this archival visit, they found an incredible primary source, a letter, in an unexpected book while visiting the archives.

Dean’s Medalist Nominee

Each year, the College of Arts & Sciences chooses Dean’s Medalists to represent the College. These students are the top graduating seniors in each division and are nominated by their departments. Nicole Grabiel

Graduate Awards

Thomas m. power prize for excellence in history - graduate paper prize.

Established in memory of UW alumnus Thomas M. Power, the Excellence in History awards recognize exemplary scholarship in history and encourage study in the discipline. This prize is given to a graduate student who had produced a masterful research paper in a University of Washington history course.

Sierra Mondragón  “Belonging Possibilities: Santa Clara Pueblo Women Confronting Colonialism and Rethinking Sovereignty” This ambitious essay looks at the tensions between tribal sovereignty and Native identity among the Santa Clara Pueblo. Part of the essay studies the policy, established in 1939, by which tribal membership could descend through the patriarchal line but not through the matriarchal line, if only one parent was a member of the Santa Clara Pueblo. When this policy was challenged in federal court in 1978 on the grounds that it discriminated against women, it was upheld by the Supreme Court on the grounds of tribal sovereignty. The second part of the essay draws on a program of oral history interviews to establish what Mondragón refers to as “Belonging Possibilities,” that is, strategies for female empowerment and identity worked out within the community in order to make places for women within the community. This essay works on every level, thoroughly and creatively researched, imaginatively interpreted, sensitive to place and space, and respectfully engaged with the informants who emerge as partners in the process of collecting oral histories. Mondragón represents the best of what we hope for our graduate students in the Department of History. Ari Forsyth honorable mention “Problem Students at the New York School of Social Work” In this paper, Forsyth shows how various categories of “problem students” came to be defined at the beginning of the 1920s, and to be applied to trainee social workers who operated in the field as student-workers. Engaged in the business of establishing social work as a middle-class profession predominately for white women, setting those manifesting what were regarded as problems, such as other racial identities, physical characteristics and capabilities, language facility, or relative intelligence, outside the professional boundary undergoing construction. The essay cannily makes use of administrative records, rather than students’ personal files, and pays close attention to the minutiae of such office work. Here the differences between annotated drafts and final copies, and between handwritten and typed reports, or the peculiar status of informal minutes of informal conferences all bear weight in the argument. 

Thomas M. Power Prize for Excellence in History - Outstanding Teaching Assistant

Anandi Bandyopadhyay

Anandi Bandyopadhyay is a veteran teaching assistant in the department with experience teaching a variety of courses both in South Asian history (her own area of specialization) as well as U.S. and European history. One of Anandi’s recent faculty supervisors considered it her “good fortune” to have had Anandi as a TA and noted that she “greatly contributed much to the overall success of the course….I could not have asked for a better teaching partner.”  The faculty praised Anandi’s “superior skills” as a discussion leader, classroom manager and teacher, “Anandi does a fantastic job! She’s excellent at interacting with the undergrads. She works super hard. I am very grateful to have had her working with me!” 

Burke Prize in History

Named for former University of Washington Department of History faculty member and Pacific Northwest historian, Robert Burke, this prize is given to the graduate student deemed to have amassed the most meritorious record during the year in which they complete their MA in U.S. history.  Sierra Mondragón Sierra completed her MA in 2023 under the supervision of Professor Josh Reid. Sierra’s research focuses on the Pueblos and other Southwest peoples. Sierra’s MA seminar paper, “Indigenous Women and Everyday Negotiation and Resistance at Carlisle Indian School,” examined the experiences of Pueblo girls in the Indian boarding school system and how the schools impacted the students and their communities, as well as how these students were able to develop strategies to challenge and succeed within the boarding school system. For her PhD program, Sierra will continue to explore the themes of race and gender in Indigenous history, the legacy of colonial violence, Indigenous resistance and feminist activism, in particular Pueblo women’s efforts to shape, theorize, and historicize what it means to be a Pueblo woman within the overarching theme of Indigenous Belonging.

Department Awards

Thomas and cameron pressly prize for excellence in secondary education.

Named for UW History emeritus professor Thomas Pressly and his wife Cameron, this prize recognizes remarkable teaching of history and social studies at the high school level in the state of Washington. Nominations are made each year from undergraduate and graduate students through short essays describing the talents of their favorite high school history teacher. Mark Tomasetti, Camas High School Mr. Tomasetti has been teaching history at Camas High School for 24 years, even doing his student teaching there, as well. He has been named Camas Teacher of the Year twice and has frequently been chosen by the graduating seniors to speak at their ceremony. He established AP courses in both world and U.S. history, and he serves as the social sciences department chair as well. Mr. Tomasetti’s nomination for this award received enthusiastic endorsement from former students and from the leadership at Camas High School. 

William J. Rorabaugh Departmental Service Award

This award is named in memory of UW professor of history, William J. Rorabaugh, and it honors Bill’s incredible legacy and loyalty to the department. It is given each year to a student along with a staff or faculty member.

Oya Aktas Oya has been a leader since coming to the University in 2018. To name just a few of her accomplishments, she has served on the department’s Graduate Liaison Committee as well as the Diversity Committee, fulfilled the role of lead teaching assistant, and worked as a union representative. Oya is an advocate for fellow students, calling for health insurance and financial support for all. In her role as lead TA, her teaching and professional mentorship have been instrumental in the successful development of other graduate students’ pedagogical skills, and she has contributed to creating a culture of excitement and collaboration surrounding teaching and learning. Beyond her departmental service work, Oya has been a reliable source for institutional knowledge, as well as intellectual and emotional support, all of which has been indispensable to community building among graduate students. She has often attends and leads online meetings when away on research travel.  Bianca Dang Bianca is an amazing faculty member who has quickly made herself an integral part of the department since arriving in 2021. Bianca has served on a wide range of committees, including Diversity, Chair’s Advisory, Undergraduate Studies, and Digital History. Her dedicated and comprehensive labor on behalf of the community as an academic mentor and as a faculty member on the Diversity Committee has made a palpable impression on graduate students, faculty members, and staff. As an academic advisor, she displays excellence that exceeds expectations for faculty-student mentorship and demonstrates her commitment to service. Because of her obvious expertise as a researcher and instructor, her efforts to curate expertise to serve the needs of her students, and her refusal to turn down a student in need of academic mentorship, Bianca currently serves on multiple graduate students’ exam and dissertation committees and on many undergraduates’ thesis project committees. In this role, she goes out of her way to support the unique research interests of graduate and undergraduate students and to provide advice, resources, and encouragement at every stage of her students’ academic careers. Her concern for students goes beyond the formal academic world and demonstrates a commitment to shaping future academics, not only as competent scholars, but as capable community leaders and contributors to positive local change.  In the course of only three years, Bianca has established a unique reputation as an academic advisor who supports her students holistically, cultivating and guiding student research and professional career development while also prioritizing students' mental, emotional, and physical health and well-being. She does critical work to facilitate a collaborative and supportive culture within the History Department. Bianca is a wise and compassionate advocate, using her position to connect people with resources and to facilitate department-wide policies and conversations to make the History Department a safe community for all students, faculty, and staff. Bianca’s commitment to service, equity, and inclusion spans goes far beyond the campus and is evident in her volunteer and community-building work in the broader Seattle community. Her efforts make our department an inclusive space that promotes community well-being. Mark Weitzenkamp Not only is Mark an incredible undergraduate advisor, but he has dedicated tremendous amounts of time to the careful watch of Smith Hall. In his role as building coordinator (a volunteer position) Mark served as guardian to Smith Hall during the pandemic, and he continues to watch over the building. He is thoughtful, patient, and incredibly detail-oriented in his understanding of what should and shouldn’t be happening in the building. He attends to countless requests, opens doors, meets people, answers emails and phone calls, handling with grace the many interruptions to his regular workflow. History is so grateful for all his behind-the-scenes work to keep the building safe and functioning. Mark is also a gifted adviser, who guides students through our large university. He is a tireless advocate for students and uses his deep knowledge of university systems to help connect students with resources and solve any logistical problems. His love of learning and discussing history and student interests is evident. Beyond this, Mark is an amazing and helpful team player in all aspects of his work. We are so fortunate to have Mark on our advising and history team! Kum Cha (Tina) Vicente Tina has been Smith Hall’s marvelous custodian, who is retiring this year. She has served us all incredibly well without much recognition. With great pride, she goes the extra mile to ensure our spaces are clean, and she has done an incredible job. We all wish her the very best in her well-earned retirement—she will be missed.

•   Facebook
•   Twitter
•   Instagram
•   Mailing List
•   More ways to connect

• Registration
• Code of Conduct
• Childcare Reimbursement
• Annual Meeting FAQs
• Attendee Resources
• International Attendees
• APSA Annual Meeting Ombuds
• Health & Safety
• Schedule at a Glance
• Online Program
• 2024 Theme Panels

2024 Mini-Conferences

• iPosters & iPoster Sessions
• Pre-Conference Short Courses
• Theme Statement
• 2024 Division Calls
• 2024 Related Group Calls
• 2024 TLC at APSA Calls
• 2024 Partner Organization Calls
• Proposal Submission Options
• Participation Rules
• Detailed Instructions for Submitting
• Transportation
•  Travel Grants
• Sustainability
• Affiliated Events
• Interview Services
• Working Groups
• Exhibit, Sponsor, Advertise

APSA Annual Meeting Mini-Conferences are full days of content devoted to a theme. Each mini-conference is in pursuit of a larger cohesive goal than traditional panels provide, such as an edited volume or an omnibus dataset.

Browse the 2024 APSA Annual Meeting Program for more information.

50 Years of LGBTQ Scholarship at APSA Mini-Conference

Sponsored by Division 47: Sexuality & Politics

Rainbow Elections, Rainbow Parties

Thursday, September 5, 12:00pm – 1:30pm Created Panel

Participants : (Discussant) Isabelle Engeli, University of Exeter

Session Description: These papers survey the politics of voting and party politics regarding LGBT rights and people.

Papers : LGBTQ Politics in Congress, 1973-2022: The Construction of Party Loyalty Gregory Koger, University of Miami; Andrew Thomas Proctor, University of Chicago

Gay rights emerged as a national political issue by the 1970s. As it did, the U.S. Congress provided a forum for competing views and policies on sexual orientation and gender identity. This paper demonstrates that, over time, gay rights shifted from a cross-cutting issue opposed by both parties into one that is mostly party-aligned and divides the two parties and their supporters. At the same time, the gay rights movement has evolved from a lesbian and gay rights movement to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender movement – leading to new conflicts about policy agendas and about understandings of sexual orientation and gender identity. We trace how the development of the gay rights movement into an LGBT rights movement intersects with the processes by which organized groups and politicians sorted themselves on these issues.

The Nomination of LGBTI+ Candidates in Proportional Electoral Systems Joel Canto Roche, University of Toronto; Javier Martinez Canto, IBEI

The nomination of openly LGBTI+ candidates is often seen in US literature as a supply-side phenomenon. Namely, LGBTI+ candidates will arise in those single-member districts whose population holds more favorable views towards the LBGTI+ community. This approach overlooks the role of political parties as active recruiters or blockers of minority candidates. Moreover, it ignores how the candidate selection process occurs in proportional electoral systems. This paper introduces a new way to understand the nomination of LGBTI+ candidates in such systems combining the supply and the demand side. On the one hand, we propose that LGBTI+ candidates will be more likely to appear in those places with organized LGBTI+ activism. On the other hand, parties with more liberal social views will be more likely to recruit candidates from such movements. We empirically assess these relations using a novel dataset on Spanish LGBTI+ candidates and activist organizations.

Are Straight Cisgender Voters Less Likely to Vote for LGBTQ+ Candidates? Quinn Albaugh, Queen’s University; Elizabeth Baisley, Queen’s University

In recent years, many Western countries have seen increasing numbers of LGBTQ+ candidates run for office. These candidates are especially important during the current era of anti-LGBTQ+ backlash because LGBTQ+ elected officials play important roles in advancing LGBTQ+ rights (Reynolds 2013). Are straight cisgender voters overall less likely to vote LGBTQ+ candidates in real-world elections? And to what extent do anti-LGBTQ+ attitudes predict voting against LGBTQ+ candidates among straight cisgender voters? Past work has typically examined questions of voter bias using either experimental designs or aggregate-level electoral results. These designs provide very useful evidence about voter biases, but they both have methodological shortcomings. Voter biases observed in experimental settings may not translate to real-world elections—and, indeed, studies of real-world elections do not tend to find that LGBTQ+ candidates receive fewer voters once adjusting for other variables (Haider-Markel 2010, Haider-Markel et al. 2020, Magni and Reynolds 2018). Aggregate electoral results, by contrast, do not allow us to make direct inferences about individual-level voter behaviour, which limits our ability to isolate the behaviour of straight, cisgender voters. We approach the study of voter bias using an alternative research design used in research on women and racial and ethnic minority candidates (Campbell and Heath 2017; Fisher et al. 2014; Heath, Verniers, and Kumar 2015). We combine data on straight cisgender voters from the 2019 and 2021 Canadian Election Study (CES) online panel’s post-election wave with data on major party LGBTQ+ candidates for the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal election. We adjust for a range of voter- and candidate-level variables known to affect vote choice. Our preliminary results suggest that, overall, straight cisgender voters are not biased against LGBTQ+ candidates, and out LGBTQ+ candidates do little to predict vote choice even among the most anti-LGBTQ+ voters. We conclude by discussing the implications of our work for explaining the continued barriers facing LGBTQ+ candidates.

How Gender Presentation Shapes Voter Evaluations of Queer Cabinet Ministers Joseph Francesco Cozza, Rice University; Phil Jones, University of Delaware; Amanda Friesen, Western University; Claire Gothreau, Aarhus University; Nicholas Semi Haas, Aarhus University

Increasingly, scholars have focused their attention on how voters evaluate queer, trans, and gender non-conforming candidates for political office. Missing, however, is an examination of how voters evaluate queer individuals serving in party leadership and executive positions. Past research has documented the gendered pattern of cabinet appointments. In advanced democracies, women have frequently been appointed to lead ministries that oversee “feminine” or low-prestige policy areas. While this pattern has changed in recent years, the question remains: do queer politicians face similar barriers? In this project, we employ a conjoint survey experiment in the United Kingdom to assess how individuals evaluate queer and gender non-conforming cabinet ministers. In doing so, we examine whether queer cabinet ministers are punished for presenting as gender non-conforming and whether voter evaluations differ depending on the particular ministry they lead. To vary the degree to which these ministers conform to typical gender norms, we manipulate the hypothetical minister’s sexual orientation, physical appearance, hobbies, and interests. We then explore how these factors affect perceptions of the minister’s legitimacy, including their leadership qualities and support for their appointment.

When Do Rainbows Form? Public Demand and LGBTQ+ Rights Yeon Soo Park, Texas A&M University

This paper explores the effects of public demand on the substantive representation of the LGBTQ+ population and institutional factors that condition this relationship. Across European countries, why has there been such a significant shift in the landscape of LGBTQ+ rights in the last decade with observable variation? I argue that legalizing LGBTQ+ rights on the country level requires public demand, which is comprised of social construction and issue salience. Furthermore, I assert that translating social constructions of LGBTQ+ populations to policy outcomes is mediated by electoral systems’ proportionality. I examine the theory by TSCS data of 28 European advanced democracies from 2012 to 2020 including LGBTQ+ policy scores, public acceptance about the people, and Google Trends on the issues. I find that positive social constructions are correlated with more liberal LGBTQ+ rights across countries, and the positive impact of issue salience on LGBTQ+ rights is observed only in countries with positive social constructions. However, the influence of proportionality of electoral systems-PR or SMD/Mixed, electoral threshold, and average district magnitude-is inconclusive.

Framing and Accessing LGBTQ+ Rights in Democracies

Friday, September 6, 8:00am – 9:30am Full Paper Panel

Participants : (Chair) Phillip M. Ayoub, University College London (Discussant) Calla Hummel, University of Miami

Session Description: Activists, politicians, and organizations have advanced gender and sexual minority rights (LGBTQ+) in a variety of democratic regime types in the past fifty years. Activists note that these legal and political changes are highly uneven within and across countries and groups. This panel delves into the actors, incentives, and unintended consequences that impact movements for gender and sexual minority rights and shape their divergent outcomes. The papers in this panel ask: What are the tactics that LGBTQ+ rights activists and organizations use and what are the intended and unintended consequences of those tactics in different democratic contexts? How does financial support affect rights? Who are rights for, who receives rights, and who is left out? How does the state incorporate heavily discriminated minorities and what are individuals’ incentives to be incorporated?

This comparative and multi-method panel brings together questions and data from democracies across the world. Kris Velasco disaggregates LGBTQ+ social movements around the world into distinct dimensions of personhood to explain contradictory LGBTQ+ policy environments. He finds that known transnational pathways for recognizing personhood vary significantly across each dimension, illuminating why contradictory policy environments exist and how strategies to advance one aspect of queer justice may hinder others. Sid Baral investigates why and how states implement rights and programs designed to incorporate previously excluded minorities and what incentives minorities have to participate. Working with trans communities in India, Baral finds that individuals value the redistributive benefits of the state’s attempts to make trans communities legible over other potential benefits. Calla Hummel and Sarah Berens examine how sending and receiving money and ideas across borders can change people’s beliefs about LGBTQ+ rights. Hummel and Berens use public opinion data, interviews, and survey experiments to demonstrate that monetary and social remittances can increase support for LGBTQ+ rights. Alberto Lopez examines common lobbying tactics from LGBTQ+ organizations and their unintended consequences. Lopez argues that maps and rankings designed to shame and blame underperforming governments may reinforce illiberal attitudes. Janine Clark and Julie Moreau address the political economy of activism through a case study of an LGBTQ+ sex workers’ rights and donor conference in Kenya. Clark and Moreau examine how the conference has shaped funding for activists and how funding has shaped LGBTQ+ activism.

Papers : Logics of Queer Justice: Disaggregating Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Kristopher Velasco, Princeton University

All movements experience uneven progress and setback – resulting in contradictory policy environments. Consequently, it is important to disaggregate movements to understand and overcome internal contradictions. This is especially true for global efforts to advance LGBT+ rights as countries commonly enact some progressive reforms while maintaining or hardening other discriminatory policies. Why? I argue that although articulated as a single cause, global LGBT+ movements advance distinct dimensions of personhood: sexual orientation, gender identity/expression, sex characteristics, and sexual behaviors. Each dimension, though interrelated, varies in its recognition as a legitimate form of personhood. This variation helps explain contradictory policy environments. Moreover, known transnational pathways for conferring queer recognition (e.g., transnational movements, international norms, human rights treaties), may be more amenable to some dimensions than others. I demonstrate this argument by comparing the adoption of rights based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and homosexual behaviors across 152 countries between 1991 and 2019. Results from seemingly unrelated regressions find that known transnational pathways for recognizing personhood and, thus, securing rights, vary significantly across each dimension. Findings from this study illuminate why contradictory policy environments exist and how strategies to advance one aspect of queer justice may hinder others.

Why Be Legible?: The Case of Transgender Minorities in India Siddhartha Baral, University of California, San Diego

Why would stigmatized minorities seek to be legible to the state, an entity that historically oppressed them? A prominent view within political science suggests that marginalized groups, with strained relationships with the state, aim to avoid being “seen” by it. Yet, understood from a different angle, legibility to the state can also entail recognition from it. For groups facing material and symbolic hardships due to the state’s failure to recognize them, being seen becomes important. Moreover, being legible is often a pre-requisite for accessing state welfare, providing material incentives to want legibility. This paper develops a framework to understand the complex factors influencing stigmatized minorities’ decisions to engage with state legibility initiatives. Through an in-person survey of working class, transgender women in India, I establish how they rationalize their participation in the country’s transgender identification program that comes with the promise of targeted welfare benefits. I analyze how prior interactions with the state impact such individuals’ willingness to join state legibility projects and the motivations driving their involvement. Importantly, I demonstrate that material concerns, above and beyond symbolic identity affirmation, drive such individuals’ pursuit of state-issued documents validating their gender identity.

Do Remittances Increase Support for LGBTQ+ Rights? Calla Hummel, University of Miami; Sarah Andrea Berens, University of Innsbruck

People who have migrated to new countries send billions of dollars in remittances to family members each year. Receiving remittances influences the recipient’s voting, political engagement, and beliefs. Our project asks: do remittances increase the recipient’s support for gender and sexual minority (LGBTQ+) rights? We suggest that they do. We theorize that migrants send social as well as economic remittances to relatives in their home countries and that these remittances include ideas about civil rights. We argue that when people move to a country with robust LGBTQ+ rights, they may change their beliefs about LGBTQ+ people and communicate that change to their relatives. We further argue that when the person sending remittances is out as LGBTQ+, they can have a particularly strong effect on their relatives’ beliefs. We hypothesize that social and economic remittances can travel through several pathways: 1) where migrants tell relatives about rights and protections in the host country, relatives are more likely to support similar rights in the home country; 2) where relatives rely on LGBTQ+ family members’ remittances, they are more likely to accept their identities; 3) where relatives see LGBTQ+ people being successful in another country, they are more likely to support LGBTQ+ rights in the home country. To evaluate the hypotheses, we analyze three sources of data: public opinion data from across Latin America that includes information about remittances and attitudes towards gay rights, interviews with LGBTQ+ people who send remittances to family members, and a set of online survey experiments with Mexican respondents who live in migrant and non-migrant households. We find that people who receive remittances are more supportive of LGBTQ+ rights than people who do not receive remittances.

Illiberalising Maps: Representations of LGBTQ+ Rights and Homonationalism Alberto Lopez Ortega, VU Amsterdam

This paper delves into the nuanced implications of how international LGBTQI rights are represented, particularly focusing on the practice of employing maps and rankings by liberal organizations. These visual tools are commonly used to illustrate the progression of LGBTQI legislation across countries, operating under the assumption that they will motivate civil societies to demand advancement in rights and governments to ascend these rankings. However, this research posits that such representations can lead to unintended, and often counterproductive, consequences by essentializing associations between national identities, ethnic outgroups, and LGBTQI rights. The study hypothesizes that in nations where a synthesis of national identity with pro-LGBTQI rights has occurred, these representations might inspire homonationalist attitudes. Such attitudes could manifest as a nativist instrumental increase of support for LGBTQI rights, coupled with an increase in negative affect towards ethnic outgroups, especially nationals from countries portrayed as less liberal. This might also lead to heightened anti-immigration attitudes and the perception that the population of these less liberal countries is less inclusive of LGBTQI individuals. Conversely, in countries without such liberal-national identity alignments, the consequences might be more heterogeneous. While liberal citizens might be encouraged to support LGBTQI rights more fervently, nativist citizens could react adversely, viewing advancements in LGBTQI rights as an affront to their national identity. This paper argues that these reactions are not uniform but vary significantly based on the interplay between individual national identity and perceptions of LGBTQI rights. To investigate these dynamics, the paper employs online vignette experiments conducted on the representative samples of the Netherlands and Turkey. Participants are exposed to different visual representations of LGBTQI rights to assess how these influence their attitudes towards LGBTQI rights, national identity, and ethnic outgroups. The findings elucidate the complex role of rights representations on attitudes, shedding light on how they shape identity perceptions and attitudes towards liberalization. By exploring the dual potential of visual tools to inspire progress or exacerbate negative attitudes, this paper contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the role of identity markers in shaping societal attitudes and public policy. It underscores the need for careful consideration of the broader socio-political context in which such representations are deployed and their potential to influence public opinion in complex and sometimes unintended ways.

The Political Economy of Transnational Activism: Changing Faces, Changing Spaces Janine Clark, University of Toronto, Mississauga; Julie Moreau, University of Toronto

Every other year, the Kenyan organization UHAI-EASHRI gathers over 200 LGBTQ and sex worker activists and funders for the Changes Faces, Changing Spaces (CFCS) conference. UHAI is Africa’s first indigenous fund by and for sex workers and sexual and gender minorities. CFCS is thus a South-led transnational initiative bringing African activists, African donors, and Western donors together. The literature on transnational activism has documented the importance of spaces like CFCS for building and sustaining movements and using them to develop momentum for policy change at the national level (Alvarez 2000). Within queer development studies, scholars have focused on the power dynamics that undergird North-South dynamics, especially around access to resources (Gosine 2018). Despite the growing number of transnational initiatives arising from the Global South, the literature has not adequately theorized the intersection of transnational activist spaces and the development industry. This paper seeks to fill this lacuna by examining CFCS’s role in the political economy of funding. We ask: 1) what is the impact of CFCS upon the relationships between donors and activists? 2) To what extent has CFCS allowed other Southern funders to emerge? 3) How has CFCS affected the types of funding available to African organizations? Answers to these questions will contribute to interdisciplinary conversations around LGBTQ and sex worker rights, development, and South-South collaborations.

Honoring Ken Sherrill and 50 Years of LGBTQ Scholarship

Friday, September 6, 10:00am – 11:30am Co-sponsored by the Committee on Status of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Individuals in the Profession Roundtable

Participants : (Chair) Jerry Thomas, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh (Presenter) Gabriele Magni, Loyola Marymount University (Presenter) Patrick J. Egan, New York University (Presenter) Zein Murib, Fordham University-Lincoln Center (Presenter) Joanna W. Wuest, Mount Holyoke College (Presenter) Melissa R. Michelson, Menlo College (Presenter) Andrew R. Flores, American University

Session Description: This roundtable will assess the major contributions towards the study of LGBTQ politics since Ken Sherrill’s presentation of empirical research on an LGBTQ issue fifty years ago.

50 Years of LGBTQ Scholarship at APSA Mini-Conference: Luncheon in Honor of Kenneth Sherrill

Friday, September 6, 12:00pm – 1:30pm Sponsored by Division 47: Sexuality & Politics, the Committee on Status of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Individuals in the Profession, & the LGBTQ Caucus Reception/Luncheon

Participants : (Chair) Jerry Thomas, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh

Frontiers in LGBT Politics Research

Friday, September 6, 2:00pm – 3:30pm Full Paper Panel

Participants : (Chair) Beth A. Simmons, University of Pennsylvania (Discussant) Phillip M. Ayoub, University College London

Session Description: This panel brings together a diverse group of scholars that study the politics of sexual minorities in a comparative and international relations perspective. Each study employs innovative methodologies and novel data to offer insights into the intricate dynamics of resistance, exploring the role of authoritarian regimes, the electability challenges faced by minority candidates, the influence of conservative NGOs in international organizations, and the global scenario of repression against sexual minorities.

Papers: “Let Them Play My Game”: The Authoritarian Paternalistic Referee in Singapore Nancy Tang, Princeton University

In the absence of interest group competition facilitated by multi-party democratic systems, how do authoritarian regimes resolve the challenges of pluralism, including movement-countermovement rivalry over contentious social issues? This article theorizes that authoritarian states can adopt a “paternalistic referee” role, a form of nonviolent, immaterial control distinct from strategies like repression and co-optation (Hassan et al. 2021). Examining Singapore’s 2022 repeal of Penal Code Section 377A (criminalization of male homosexuality) based on activist interviews, parliamentary speeches and media reports, I analyze both the “referee” and the “paternalistic” aspects of the role. First, unlike repression or co-optation, the authoritarian referee does not outright choose “winners” or “losers” on specific contentious social issues. Rather, the autocrat-as-referee assumes an appearance of neutrality. Second, a paternalistic referee defines the “rules of the game” (mobilization boundaries) for contention participants, and sets the “programming” (time, venue, and agenda) for arbitrating contention outcomes. Assuming the paternalistic referee role allows autocrats to project a democratic façade and mimic the conflict-resolution mechanisms facilitated by democratic party system yet maintain control. Building on “pragmatic resistance” (Chua 2014), I further posit that social movements are agentic players within the paternalistic referee framework: societal actors (e.g. movements) develop nuanced strategies to navigate the refereed landscape, thereby competing to shape policy outcomes. I also consider future research directions, including disaggregating the referee state into groups of non-unitary actors.

Minority Candidates and the Electability Curse Gabriele Magni, Loyola Marymount University

Discussions around electability are central in election campaigns, and often target women and minority candidates. This project examines three related questions: What shapes perceptions of electability? Why do electability concerns mostly affect minority candidates? And how can we contrast such concerns? To answer, I focus on LGBTQ+ candidates, a good test to examine electability given the relative scarcity of LGBTQ+ elected officials, the persisting prejudice against sexual minorities, and the lack of concentrated “natural” constituencies. I rely on three original datasets: the largest survey to date of LGBTQ+ candidates, which includes about 500 candidates who ran for office in the USA between 2018-2022; and two voter surveys, each conducted with a sample of about 2,000 American likely voters, where I embedded conjoint and priming experiments. I show that several factors fuel electability concerns among voters: first, the belief that the electorate will not support minority candidates because of prejudice; second, voters’ own prejudice, which spurs electability concerns as a way to provide a more acceptable justification to one’s opposition to minority candidates; third, the scarcity of past successful examples of minority candidates. I also explain that these concerns can be contrasted by correcting voters’ misperceptions, inasmuch as voters tend to overestimate the level of negative bias in the electorate. Providing accurate information on the level of societal support for minority rights and candidates successfully reduces electability concerns.

NGOs as Norm Obstructers: The Politics of Conservative NGOs in IOs María-José Urzúa, Princeton University

In recent years, there has been a drastic rise in the participation of conservative NGOs, advocating against sexual and reproductive rights, in international organizations (IOs). This paper analyzes this phenomenon and challenges the conventional understanding of NGOs’ involvement in IOs, contending that NGOs may collaborate with international institutions not to stimulate global mobilization for domestic change, but rather to obstruct international decisions and actions. The paper introduces the concepts of “IO’s obstruction”, defined as the attempts by NGOs to block an IO from adopting unwanted decisions regarding normative issues, by changing the cost of doing so for states and/or international civil servants; and “norm obstructers”, or NGOs opposing the adoption of “standards for the appropriate behavior of states” (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998, p. 893), which exist in opposition to norm entrepreneurs. This paper suggests that NGOs opt for obstruction as an international strategy under two primary conditions. First, when they lack a favorable political opportunity structure and are unable to influence sufficient states or international civil servants to adopt decisions aligned with their normative views. Second, when NGOs prefer a low-engagement strategy with international institutions. To test this theoretical framework, the paper examines the case of the Organization of American States (OAS), which has adopted progressive decisions on sexual and reproductive rights and has seen a sharp increase in the participation of conservative NGOs, seeking to obstruct the organization. The empirical methods employed in this paper are elite interviews, archival research of OAS documents, and participant observation of the 2023 General Assembly and parallel internal meetings of LGBT+ organizations.

Beyond Rhetoric: A Dataset on Global LGBT Rights Violations Gino Pauselli, Princeton University

What are the levels of repression against LGBT people around the world? Which countries have witnessed either an improvement or a deterioration in the living conditions of sexual minorities? Are there diverse practices indicating heterogeneity in the treatment of sexual minorities? While current available data allows scholars to study changes in de jure rights and societal attitudes towards LGBT rights, we are still missing an essential piece of the puzzle: de facto enjoyment of rights. This study addresses a critical gap in our understanding of repression against the LGBT community globally by introducing the first comprehensive dataset on rights violations against sexual minorities. Leveraging text analysis techniques, this research systematically quantifies rights violations by extracting information from the US Department of State’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. This dataset offers a country-year level measure of repression against sexual minorities. The data will allow researchers to address multiple questions surrounding the efficacy of policies designed to ameliorate the conditions of sexual minorities.

Know Your Rights: Legal Knowledge and the Pursuit of LGBT Litigation in Africa Sean Givnish, George Washington University

This research questions why LGBT social movements in Africa choose to legally mobilize and make civil rights claims in court. The well-documented political homophobia across Africa presents a hard tactical choice to LGBT-focused organizations: keep a low profile, focusing on socially appropriate issues such as public health work, or make themselves visible to combat anti-LGBT policies and rhetoric through the legal system. I argue that domestic LGBT organizations in Africa are more likely to engage in strategic litigation if they are made up of individuals who have been educated in a human rights-based understanding of LGBT issues. This education in rights comes from exposure to Western discourse, including a) experience in HIV/AIDS-related activism, which began to use a rights-based approach decades earlier and helped to give rise to the LGBT movement in Africa, or b) formal legal education that, as a result of colonialism in Africa, is based heavily on Western law. Knowledge of rights-based claims increases efficacy in the ability of courts to address LGBT rights violations, therefore making the visibility of engaging in litigation worthwhile. Through case studies of two LGBT organizations engaging in strategic litigation in Africa, the Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals of Botswana (LEGABIBO) and the National Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission in Kenya (NGLHRC), I show how individuals within these organizations gained experience in rights-based claims prior to joining, and how this understanding influenced their decisions to pursue litigation. This research aims to contribute to knowledge about how sexual and gender minority movements in the Global South pursue their own rights, pushing back against the notion that Western donors to their cause oversee their agendas; these movements in the South are influenced by the West, but in a manner that encourages individual learning and application to their own contexts. In a broader sense, this research also aims to contribute to the literature on the use of “pro-democratic judicial lawfare,” a strategy by civil society actors to challenge autocratic decisions by their governments (Gloppen et al., 2023). The use of strategic litigation by LGBT organizations in Africa to contest homophobic actions by their governments, which have been successful, is a way that minority groups who have been left out of the political process previously can utilize the judiciary to renovate their rights. This exhibits that there are still viable avenues for the protection of minority rights in democracies, despite the regional and global trends of democratic retrenchment.

Democracy in the Bedroom

Friday, September 6, 4:00pm – 5:30pm Roundtable

Participants : (Chair) Lida E. Maxwell, Boston University (Presenter) Katie Ebner-Landy, Harvard University (Presenter) Megan Gallagher, University of Alabama (Presenter) Isabelle Laurenzi, Yale University (Presenter) Micol Bez, Northwestern University (Presenter) Zoe Moss, University of Colorado Boulder

Session Description: This roundtable considers the strengths and limitations of democracy when applied to one specific setting: the bedroom. Bringing together political theorists who work on this question from diverse methodologies, it asks whether democracy works as a paradigm to think about sex. In doing so, it hopes to shed light on issues within both democratic and feminist political theory, ranging from consent to sexual violence. Seven groups of questions will serve as the basis for our discussion:

1) How does democratic political consent relate to sexual consent? Might the liberal roots of consent compromise the emancipatory potential of consent in the bedroom? 2) How does the language of democratic rights influence our contemporary discourse on sex (Srinivasan 2021)? Should critiques of rights inform sexual politics? 3) The bedroom has historically been thought of as a state of exception to democracy. Are there any good arguments to suggest it still should be? 4) If sex should be best understood as “a conversation” (Garcia 2023), what conditions need to be in place to have that conversation democratically? 5) More broadly: What might democratic sex look like? What kinds of democratic theories does – or could – it rest on? 6) Are there useful political alternatives to democracy in the bedroom, e.g. consensus? 7) What does it mean to uphold democratic norms when determining how to engage in social and political spheres with people who have committed or have been accused of acts of sexual abuse?

In addressing these questions, roundtable participants will reflect on the conference’s themes of democratic retrenchment, renovation, and reimagination and offer new insights into the complex interplay between democratic and feminist theories.

The Politics of LGBTQ Identity and Practice

Saturday, September 7, 8:00am – 9:30am Created Panel

Participants : (Discussant) Laura Sjoberg, Royal Holloway, University of London

Session Description: This panel explores how LGBTQ identity is expressed and politicized.

Papers : Fertility, Farming, and Femmes: Exogenous Hormone Regulation Zein Murib, Fordham University-Lincoln Center

Despite recent commentary and research on sex and gender, and although transgender people are not the only individuals who use exogenous hormones to thrive, there is to date no academic scholarship or public writing that devotes sustained attention to examining how and to what effect the policies that regulate the use of exogenous hormones reflect and shape how people understand gender. This paper enters these conversations by presenting the first critical analysis of the policies that regulate exogenous hormones in the United States. More specifically, this paper asks 1) how policies that regulate exogenous hormones shape prevailing understandings of gender and 2) the extent to which these policies create conditions of precarity for some members of the polity while also elevating the status of others. To answer these questions, this paper focuses on three sites where identical exogenous hormones are commonly used, but subject to regulation that vary solely with respect who uses them: 1) fertility treatments, 2) factory farming, and 3) hormone replacement therapy. Although these three cases all concern the use of estrogen and testosterone/androgen, the policies regulating them vary widely, from almost no rules, as is the case in fertility treatments, to classification as a controlled substance, as is the case for prescription testosterone. These differences raise questions about how, why, and to what effect identical chemical compounds are subject to diverging sets of regulations.

Heteronormativities and Queer Kinship Mark Blasius, The City University of New York Graduate Center

This paper is the second portion of a three-part project on heteronormativity as a concept for political theory and practice (and potentially public policies). The first part, given as a paper for the 2023 APSA Annual Meeting, analyzed heteronormativity genealogically in sexuality and gender studies in connection with its use among advocates promoting sexual rights and justice in several regions of the world. The paper concluded with the hypothesis that heteronormativity is a discursive and practical regime of sexuality that, while not universal, is prevalent enough with penumbral power to be studied comparatively through analysis of the different forms it has taken both historically and in different political contexts in the world today. To clarify how it works and evaluate it for political theory, the paper suggested taking an approach of “comparative heteronormativities.” Accordingly, this proposal for a second stage of the project is to study how heteronormativity works in relation to queer kinship, specifically how studies and advocacy around the latter subvert or transform what’s claimed as a heteronormative regime. It is expected that the third stage of analysis, already somewhat embedded in queer kinship critique and practices, is a call for sexual and reproductive justice; so, it is this call for justice that will be foreshadowed herein as a working framework for future research. For the purpose of this study, queer kinship has developed expansively from an earlier and narrower scholarly and public policy focus on the historical effects of trauma and exclusion from birth families to movements toward “families we choose.” Arising out of a broader critique of heteronormativity and its imbrication with patriarchy, white supremacy, and imperialism, queer kinship encompasses bodily practices and social relationships of belonging, intimacy, friendship, care, eroticism, dependency, and reproduction as chronicled by LGBTIQ- as it intersects with BIPOC- inflected historical scholarship and contemporary social research and theory. As such, the proposed paper will work beyond the already well-discussed topic of gender-neutral marriage rights and imagined experimentation with alternative structures of affective relations to focus on three examples of queer kinship in transforming heteronormativity: “transrelationality” as knowledge- and affect-sharing to resist medical stigmatization, police violence and incarceration, and colonialism; surrogacy and IVF in relation to heteronormativity and reproductive justice; and how queer kinship exemplifies a shift in the way in which the social life of sexuality is reshaped and sustained.

Queer Publicity, Homophobia, and Sectarianism in Post-transition Lebanon Omar Safadi, University of Chicago

In June of 2022, the public display of queer political symbols and the online circulation of advertisements for gay Pride Month in Lebanon mobilized an array of political, institutional, and popular actors in inter-sectarian and anti-gay political action. Happening just one month after the historic electoral wins of anti-sectarian MPs, both events held the promise of democratic transition, renewed queer visibility, and queer activism in Lebanon. Articulating homosexuality as a violation to religiously-defined “nature,” homophobic actors framed queer publicity as a violation to laws protecting religious pluralism, a threat to inter-sectarian coexistence, and a danger to Lebanon’s postwar civil peace. In a move later deemed unconstitutional by the Lebanese Court of Cassation, the Interior Ministry released a memo banning all homosexual (sexual deviancy) gatherings and assemblies in the name of the “heavenly religions,” “customs and traditions,” and the secular public order. Also sparked was a host of anti-gay mobilizations, ad campaigns and policy initiatives across sect and class. Interestingly, homophobia neither generated – nor aimed to generate – national solidarity around a common enemy. Rather, it incited modes of identification and action that reinforced particular communal symbols and causes. Taking this observation as its starting point, this paper asks the following questions: how is queer sexuality articulated as a specific violation to institutionalized religious pluralism? And what does that articulation reveal about the heterosexual structures and foundations of Lebanon’s sectarian political order? What new modes of political action and identification does homophobia incite? Finally, and in the wake of a “failed” revolution, what can the case of homophobia in Lebanon tell us about how citizens get divested from political alternatives and re-invested in crisis-ridden and defunct political regimes? By politicizing homosexual publicity as a symbolic violation to “all religions and sects,” sectarian actors simultaneously politicized heterosexual “nature” as a popular, cross-sectarian, and absolute source of political authority. In doing so, they invested heterosexuality with the status of an absolute symbol in political sectarianism, one whose inviolable authority is maintained by the sectarian plurality that holds it. Ultimately, and by politicizing heterosexuality as an absolute-in-common, I argue that homophobia reproduces sectarian differences and relates them in and against a global age.

The Politics of New Prides Edward F. Kammerer, Idaho State University

LGBT Pride Events have been held in cities across the country since 1970. New Pride events continue to be formed, often in smaller communities further from urban centers. This project uses semi-structured interviews with organizers from smaller, newer Pride events from across the country to explore why these events are being formed and how these events relate to LGBTQ politics. By focusing on these newer events, this project seeks to show how LGBT Pride and the politics associated with it, remain relevant.

Somewhere over the Rainbow: How Economics Shape the Mobility of Queer Americans Angela Kothe, Cornell University

In the United States, same-sex couples’ parental rights are legally linked to their marital status. Prior to Obergefell v. Hodges, same-sex couples were not guaranteed the legal rights to their children that opposite-sex couples enjoyed. The link between marriage and parental rights meant that this disparity was especially significant in states where same-sex marriage was banned. This paper builds on existing evidence that same-sex couples see challenges to their parental rights as a threat rather than an inconvenience. I theorize that parents in same-sex relationships will migrate when states ban same-sex marriage with the caveat that these families’ ability to remove themselves from hostile legal environments is limited by economic conditions. I test this theory using panel data of American states from 1999–2020. The analysis reveals that when the unemployment rate increases in states with same-sex marriage bans same-sex couples and their children are less likely to migrate compared to families living in states without bans. Parents in same-sex relationships are also less likely to migrate compared to parents in opposite-sex relationships when unemployment increases in states with same-sex marriage bans. These results demonstrate that parents in same-sex relationships do migrate in response to hostile legal measures, but their ability to do so is limited by economic conditions.

Queer Migrations, Queer Movements

Saturday, September 7, 10:00am – 11:30am Co-sponsored by the Committee on Status of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Individuals in the Profession Roundtable

Participants: (Chair) Cyril Ghosh, Clark University (Presenter) Calla Hummel, University of Miami (Presenter) Isabel Felix Gonzales, University of Virginia (Presenter) Kristopher Velasco, Princeton University

Session Description: This panel will consider the politics of queer migration and movements.

Political Homophobia and Resistance

Saturday, September 7, 12:00pm – 1:30pm Full Paper Panel

Participants : (Chair) Erica Marat, National Defense University (Discussant) Momin Rahman, Trent University

Session Description: Political homophobia is a global phenomenon. From the Russian government’s deployment of “traditional values” to squash political opposition in civil society to Argentine President Javier Milei’s campaign promise to shut down the National Institute Against Discrimination, politicians routinely stoke homophobia and moral panic to justify repression and exclusionary policies, and appeal to voters. In other words, political homophobia is entangled with forms of both authoritarian and democratic governance, occupying the intersection of formal exclusion and popular prejudice. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) scholarship outside of the United States and North America underscores the importance of the entanglement of nationalism and homophobia, often expressed as anti-colonial or anti-Western resistance at the heart of the intersection. This panel seeks to uncover the mechanisms of political homophobia as well as forms of innovative resistance from contexts outside Euro-America. How does political homophobia intersect with colonial and decolonial discourse? How does the relationship between electoral politics, homophobia and LGBTQ resistance play out in what Cricket Keating calls “authoritarian-leaning democracies”? How do these insights challenge existing literature on the sanguine connection between democratization and LGBTQ politics?

The papers bring rich empirical data to bear on these essential questions, employing a variety of methods from survey experimentation to ethnographic observation. O’Dweyer, Rosenberg and Stenberg explore the electoral impact of “LGBT-free zones” in Poland, contributing to the establishment of the specific consequences of political homophobia. This paper fills the gap in the literature regarding how and under what conditions political homophobia is electorally useful for politicians. Ayoub and Harris tackle the tricky issue of outcomes in social movement research by testing the efficacy of different framing choices, directly comparing competing options for countering homophobia in Zimbabwe. What is the best way to address the confluence of nationalism and homophobia? The paper moves beyond identification of different LGBTQ rights frames to assess their relative efficacy, providing actionable insights for scholars and activists alike. Moreau problematizes the connection between democratic governance and improvements in wellbeing for LGBTQ people by applying a biopolitical lens to LGBTQ inclusion. Bringing together the social movement literature on strategic identity work and queer theory, she explores two specific examples of the use of identity to resist the embodied effects of homophobia, both of which incorporate transnational discourses of human rights and what Ayoub and Harris call “locally rooted” messaging. Finally, Keating examines the tensions of coalition building between LGBTQ and other social movements in moments of political turbulence. Such cross-movement coalition building can prove extremely efficacious, precipitating the resignation of corrupt politicians, but also extremely risky, leading to intense repression. Keating’s study contributes to existing social movement literature on coalition building and repression, and feminist scholarship on the limitations of solidarity and the tensions between the politics of representation and redistribution negotiated within multi-issue coalitions.

Papers : Races at the Bottom: Local Impacts of Official Discrimination on Elections Conor O’Dwyer, University of Florida; Andrew S. Rosenberg, University of Florida; Matthew Stenberg, University of California, Berkeley

Between 2019 and 2021, over a hundred Polish subnational governments–regional, district, and municipal–established so-called “LGBT Free Zones.” The zones, while largely symbolic, constituted official government policies that openly discriminated against LGBTQ+ individuals, fostering a general climate of hostility. At the same time, these zones garnered significant international backlash, including sanctions from the EU targeted at the implementing governments. These policies were largely pushed by the then-ruling party, Law and Justice (PiS), and its allies as part of a broader electoral and political strategy. This paper analyzes the impact of these policies on PiS’ local election outcomes to examine the efficacy of this partisan strategy. We will analyze the results of the upcoming spring 2024 municipal elections, which will include 2,477 Polish local governments. These elections, the first since the zones’ implementation, present a unique opportunity to explore critical questions in democratic studies: the interplay between minority rights and electoral competition; the role of local governments in either challenging or reinforcing democratic backsliding; and the effectiveness of international interventions in protecting minority rights from local-level threats.

Testing the Effectiveness of Frames Combatting Homophobia in Zimbabwe Phillip M. Ayoub, University College London; Adam Harris, University College London

In a recent political wave that has been emulated across many African states, state-sponsored homo- and transphobia is being entrenched via draconian laws. Social movements in these regions grapple with countering these state-driven initiatives and altering ingrained anti-LGBTQ sentiments within populations often lacking exposure to LGBTQ ideas and people. Emulating strategies from other movements, local activists in Zimbabwe have crafted culturally rooted messages affirming the indigenous identity of queer individuals to challenge narratives propagated by influential figures and conservative movements, claiming homosexuality as un-African and foreign. Collaborating with Zimbabwean LGBTQ activists, this paper explores the effectiveness of two main types of locally-rooted messaging through a survey experiment in a context marked by notably high levels of homo- and transphobia on a global scale. This is the first study to test systematically such narratives with this method in the African region. We find that an indigenous message reduces prejudice toward LGBTQ neighbors and that a liberation message increases support for LGBTQ equal rights. These findings are important as they provide empirical support for effective ways to combat anti-LGBTQ sentiments in contexts challenging for queer liberation.

The Biopolitics of Identity Work: LGBTQ Activism in Argentina and South Africa Julie Moreau, University of Toronto

In October 2011, a dozen members of the South African black lesbian organization Free Gender protested police inaction in the murder case of a young lesbian, Nontsikelelo Tyatyeka. Despite the confrontational tactic, the group highlighted lesbian belonging to multiple communities, including the local black African community. The same year in Argentina, the lesbian organization La Fulana held a major public even following the murder of fellow lesbian, Natalia Gaitán. La Fulana presented activists’ embodied lesbian visibility at the event as a vital way to oppose deadly violence. Scholarship on strategic identity work has focused on how organizations strategize a single identity (e.g. sexuality), emphasizing the “sameness” or “difference” from the majority (Einwohner, Reger and Myers 2008). Recent queer scholarship insists on the biopolitical construction of sexuality in tandem with race, class, and gender, but tends to be skeptical about the use of identity to achieve social change. This paper incorporates a biopolitical perspective into the literature on identity work to capture the way the intersection of race/class/gender/sexual identities form requirements for entry into the nation, the stakes of which are exposure to violence and death (Alexander 1994). Based on over two years of participant-observation with Free Gender in Cape Town and La Fulana in Buenos Aires and more than 160 in-depth interviews, I argue that LGBTQ activists manipulate multiple identities to produce new forms of relationality that extend past the bounds of citizenship. This research has implications for future work on identity strategizing and accounts of queer resistance.

Coalition and Contention: LGBTQ Struggles in Sri Lanka’s Aragalaya Protests Christine (Cricket) Keating, University of Washington

In 2022, Sri Lankans came together in one of the largest and most coalitional protests in its history. These protests, which became known as the Aragalaya (the Struggle), began in response to a political and economic crisis that had been deepening in the country since 2019. Marked by severe inflation which sent food prices skyrocketing and a critical shortage of fuel, medicine, cooking gas, and other essential goods, the protesters attributed the drastic economic downturn to the government’s corruption, incompetence, and fiscal mismanagement and demanded the resignation of then-President of Sri Lanka, Gotabaya Rajapaksa. The Aragalaya protests drew participants from across Sri Lanka’s societal spectrum, including the LGBTQIA+ community, who were a vital presence in the protest camp as well as in rallies and marches, with many commenters pointing to this participation as an indication of the Aragalaya’s openness and inclusivity. In the wake of the protests, however, the government has severely cracked down on the struggle, targeting protesters for prosecution and curtailing public demonstrations. In the face of this government crackdown, there has been a fierce internal debate about the relationship of LGBTQIA+ struggles with broader fights for economic and ethnic minority justice, with some arguing that these struggles are deeply interconnected, and others holding that such linkages jeopardize the specific legislative objectives of the Sri Lankan LGBTQIA+ movement. This essay explores ways in which LGBTQIA+ activists in Sri Lanka have sought to build solidarities across differences both within the Aragalaya and in its aftermath. How might these interventions point to LGBTQIA+ politics that can address the complexity of coalition-building in authoritarian-leaning democracies?

Dueling Rights: Protection of the Family at the UN Human Rights Council Michael Joel Voss, University of Toledo

The United Nations Human Rights Council, which is the primary discursive body for human rights at the UN, is a critical arena in the global polarization of human rights. States, NGOs, and other stakeholders attempt to pass resolutions at the Council, which may eventually become international law. Dueling rights examines how competing stakeholders attempt to advance their conceptions of human rights while also undermining their opponents’ proposals for human rights protections. This paper builds on a theoretical and empirical foundation of dueling rights at the UN Human Rights Council and serves as a chapter in a larger work on competing human rights strategies at the UN. Specifically, this paper examines the creation of “the protection of the family” initiative by an alliance of like-minded, religiously conservative states, led by Egypt. Protection of the Family works in opposition to protections provided to individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI), which have recently seen successes through a series of resolutions and a special rapporteur at the Council, led predominately by Latin American states. Dueling rights helps advance research on norms, particularly norm dynamics and norm contestation by showing how stakeholders attempt to use norms to advance their own human rights agenda(s). Further, this work helps advance research on international law and international organizations by offering a case study on how public policy processes and institutional design shape human rights. Dueling rights uses process tracing including interviews with stakeholders in Geneva, Switzerland, where the Council is located, archival research, and participant observation of formal Human Rights Council meetings and informal observations of “side events” held during official meetings of the Council in order to capture the strategies used by “family” advocates and how these strategies respond to or shape opposition tactics. This paper finds that “family” advocates are using a multi-prong strategy at the Council. The first tactic is to undermine SOGI resolutions by arguing that these resolutions lack international legal standing. The second strategy aims at weakening the language of SOGI resolutions. The third strategy aims are undermining the efforts of the special rapporteur, and the final strategy attempts to undercut support for SOGI rights, particularly by Latin America states, who are overwhelmingly Catholic and cannot politically come out in opposition to “the family.” This multi-pronged approach seeks to undermine SOGI normative and legal standing while reinforcing the central role of “the family” in international human rights law. This paper is unique in norm advocacy research and international law scholarship because the central focus is on actors that are promoting a version of human rights which is generally viewed by human rights defenders as “regressive.”

The Global Backlash to LGBT Rights

Saturday, September 7, 2:00pm – 3:30pm Created Panel

Participants : (Chair) Andrew Thomas Proctor, University of Chicago

Session Description: The papers in this panel outline the various ways in which groups, movements and other actors have organized and sometimes succeeded in rolling back LGBT rights.

Papers : Humanitarian NGOs, Homocolonialism and the Global Recession of LGBTQIA+ Rights Jana Foxe, University of Washington

When humanitarian NGOs speak publicly on LGBTQIA+ issues, what do they say, and who do they represent? In the paper, I explore the involvement of humanitarian NGOs in LGBTQIA+ discourse. Specifically, given its cultural and religious sensitivity, might the salience NGOs attach to this subject depend on the countries where they operate abroad, or should they reflect domestic human rights imperatives? Using the websites of 200 aid-distributing NGOs, I analyze whether and how NGOs make demands for rights for gender non-conforming and transgender persons, or if text is predominantly oriented around sexuality. This paper empirically evaluates the critique that the norm of LGBT-rights-as-human rights reflects cultural imperialism because it imposes Western cultural norms. The role of Western NGOs as promoters of LGBTQIA rights is disputed as insufficient or surface-level engagement relative to the needs of the LGBTQIA+ community in aid-recipient states (Velasco 2018; Brown 2023) or critiqued as ‘homocolonialist’ (Rahman 2014; Delatolla 2020). Homocolonialism constitutes the promotion of queer rights through a Western frame, thus promoting Western exceptionalism, or prescribing acceptable expressions of sexual and gendered behavior according to Western norms (Rahman, 2014). States may also be sanctioned or otherwise penalized or shamed by international donors for violations of LGBTQIA+ rights, illustrating how expectations around human rights constitute an influential form of both soft and hard power, impacting the lives of LGBTQIA+ people, influencing the rights they are awarded (Kollman and Waites, 2009). Rahman (2020) argues explicitly that homocolonalism constitutes a dilemma for LGBTQIA+ rights, “by potentially replaying the neo-colonialism of Western politics in adopting Western understandings of sexuality for international rights.” Other scholars have argued that the applications of LGBT-rights-as-human-rights discourse has even provoked backlash in the Global South (Long, 2005). Given these effects, I argue that there are also clear implications for humanitarian NGO advocacy work on human rights. Since humanitarian NGOs are largely Western in origin, they may reproduce a universalist interpretation of sexual and gender diversity, one which may reinforce Western standards and norms, emphasizing issues that are likely to affect the most beneficiaries, which usually center around rights for gay and lesbian persons, e.g. decriminalizing homosexuality and recognition of same-sex partnerships. Additionally, the political context of many major donor states is important. Many donor states where NGOs originate, such as the US and UK, have progressed legislation targeting transgender and gender non-conforming people, at least more than targeting sexual minorities. Backsliding in rights for LGBTQIA+ people in many-aid recipient states may also be a further impetus to reduce, or minimize, advocacy for LGBTQIA+ rights, and in extreme cases such as proposed legislation in Ghana, outlaw any such advocacy (Human Rights Watch, 2023). Yet there are also instrumental implications. If an NGO is operating in a country where LGBTQIA+ identity is being increasingly monitored and/or criminalized, we may expect that it may elect not to focus on LGBTQIA+ issues, for fear that authorities could interfere with the NGO’s aid distribution operations, or other human rights advocacy. Given these conflicting pressures, under what conditions do humanitarian NGOs make demands for LGBTQIA+ rights? First, I hypothesize that NGOs will be less likely to make demands for LGBTQIA+ rights if they operate in countries that have criminalized aspects of LGBTQIA+ identity, due to concerns over how this work may impact their operations regarding the distribution of aid. Second, I consider whether sexuality or gender identity are most commonly referenced, hypothesizing that demands NGOs make on behalf of sexual minorities will take precedent over issues related to transgender and gender non-conforming persons. Third, I hypothesize that probability of demands for LGBTQIA+ rights will be moderated by the faith orientation of a given NGO. I will collect data collection by scraping the websites of the 200 largest humanitarian NGOs with global operations (i.e. the NGO is not constrained to recipient states from any given region or continent). I will collect information on, countries and regions in which the NGO has operations, annual revenue (USD millions), the religious background (if any) of a given NGO, which correspond to website excerpts gleaned using key terms relating to differing frames of LGBTQIA+ rights, facilitating statistical tests.

Christian Nationalism, Racial Attitudes, and Opposition to Transgender Rights Laura P. Moyer, University of Louisville; Anne I. Caldwell, University of Louisville

In the first six months of 2023, state legislators across the country filed more than 400 bills targeting transgender individuals – double the number from the previous year (Shin, Kirkpatrick, and Branigin 2023). In the 2022-23 period, anti-trans legislation was often identified by conservative interest groups, candidates, and legislators as part of a broader “anti-woke” legislative agenda that included proposals to limit the teaching of Critical Race Theory (CRT). At the same time, a 2023 national survey by PRRI found that most Republicans either holds Christian nationalist ideas or are sympathetic to those views. The PRRI survey also found that Christian nationalism beliefs are correlated with anti-black, anti-immigrant, and anti-Muslim racism, as well as to patriarchal views of gender roles. We argue that these phenomena are interrelated in ways that help us understand attitudes toward transgender people and anti-trans policies. Although extant research has found evidence that those with Christian nationalist beliefs are less likely to support same-sex marriage and LGBT political candidates (Whitehead and Perry 2020; Cravens 2023), we know less about how anti-LGBT beliefs may be activated by attitudes toward other groups. We posit that contemporary political rhetoric by political elites about “anti-woke” policies and CRT activate a more generalized outgroup prejudice among those who hold Christian nationalist views. For instance, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who has successfully pushed for anti-CRT legislation (Stop W.O.K.E Act of 2022) and restrictions on gender-affirming medical care for children (SB 254) has called on “people all over the country to be willing to put on that full armor of God, to stand firm against the left’s schemes” in a 2022 CPAC speech (Ceballos 2022). Historical accounts show linkages between White resistance to desegregation, organizing efforts against gay rights and the Equal Rights Amendment, and the emergence of the Christian Right in the 1970s (Maxwell and Shields 2019; Frank 2013) that are useful analogs for understanding the nexus between Christian Nationalism, white supremacy views, and attitudes about gender and sexuality. Across these issues is a concern with family structure, parenting, and children (Self 2012) that has re-emerged in the discourse surrounding trans rights (e.g., Snow 2023; Waters 2023). In this paper, we investigate whether sentiment about racial outgroups triggers a stronger reaction to another outgroup, transgender Americans. Using a nationally representative survey fielded in spring 2023, we assess how racial identity and outgroup prejudice interact with Christian nationalism beliefs to affect attitudes toward transgender people and policies targeting the medical care of transgender children.

Unpacking the Backlash against LGBTQ+ Rights in the United States Ellen Ann Andersen, University of Vermont

In this paper, I draw on two bodies of scholarship—the literature on moral panics and the literature on citizenship—to consider the current deluge of bills, laws, and policies targeting LGBTQ+ people in the United States. More than 500 bills targeting LGBTQ+ people were introduced across 46 state legislatures in 2023; by the end of the year, 75 had been signed into law across 22 states. 2024 promises more of the same: by the middle of January, the ACLU was tracking 285 anti-LGBTQ+ bills introduced across 35 states. The great majority of these bills, laws and policies attack trans and nonbinary people, especially youth, commonly through prohibitions on gender-affirming health care, school sports participation, and bathroom use. Other measures, both proposed and enacted, are aimed at limiting the ability of students to learn about and/or express non-normative sexualities and gender identities. The Movement Advancement Project, which tracks LGBTQ+ policies, calls the current political environment “a war against LGBTQ+ people in America and their very right and ability to openly exist.” I argue that the current backlash against LGBTQ+ people is a paradigmatic example of a moral panic. Moral panics are moments in time when public fears—and state interventions—about a “new” threat to societal values greats exceeds any object threat posed by the individuals or groups who are treated as creating the threat. Moral panics share several key elements, including the existence of moral entrepreneurs who seek to shape public opinion and influence policy by framing an issue in hyperbolic moral terms; the creation of folk devils who are treated as the embodiment of evil; media amplification of the narratives created by moral entrepreneurs; and political actors who draw on those narrative to justify criminalizing or otherwise restricting the rights of folk devils. Central to the concept of moral panics is that the creation of a folk devil is mutually advantageous to moral entrepreneurs, media actors, and state officials. Drawing on analyses of legislative bills, public statements made by states legislators, media coverage, and the messaging developed by anti LGBTQ+ activist groups, I show how the current backlash is the product of a deliberate effort by countermovement actors to instigate and stoke a moral panic, an effort adopted and advanced by right-leaning media sources and predominantly Republican legislators and public officials. I then draw on the literature on queer citizenship to argue that the current political moment is usefully conceptualized as a debate over the civic status of LGBTQ+ Americans. Drawing in particular on the work of Stephen Engel and Shane Phelan, I argue that citizenship is more than a legal status or an accumulation of rights, it is a claim on the public’s attention and concern, a claim that necessitates that members of the polity recognize the claimant as a legitimate member of the polity. From this perspective, the current backlash against LGBTQ+ people—and particularly transgender people—is fundamentally an argument about whether they should be recognized as legitimate members of the polity. Bringing the two literatures together, I conclude by suggesting that some moral panics—perhaps many—are at their heart, arguments over civic status.

Transnational Transphobias: Anti-trans Advocacy Coalitions Mary McLoughlin, Syracuse University

Across the globe, actors, and interest groups from conservative and traditionalist Right-leaning movements and Left-leaning feminist and gender-critical movements are organizing transnationally to erode trans rights. Where right wing anti-gender movements perceive trans rights as an unwelcome threat to traditional gender roles and the patriarchal norms they seek to protect, the increasingly active pocket of anti-trans feminists see trans rights as extensions of the patriarchal norms they seek to bring down. Despite their fundamentally opposing views on what a woman’s sex should mean for her place in the social order, both anti-trans and traditionalists and feminists are allied in their rejection of gender-based rights in favor of sex-based rights. This project takes up the question of how these ideologically diverse groups appropriate sex-based rights discourses and shared anti-trans frameworks to advance contradictory political projects. Through discursive analysis of mission statements and advocacy materials from anti-trans feminist and traditionalist organizations, this project reorients the direction of norm diffusion and relocates normative contestation from the end of the norm life-cycle and argues that the presence of competing anti-trans frameworks within these transnational advocacy networks (TANs) and the ensuing normative contestation generates new anti-rights languages and norms. Though anti-trans norms—and specifically the regimes of cisnormativity— revolve around the primacy of sex-based recognition and thus may often be tied to specific policies and legally formalized, anti-trans norms are not subsumed by policy. I find that the true ideological and socially transformative content of norms lies in the normative justification of why these policies matter and to what end and is therefore linked to informal and non-state practices.

Autocratization and Transgender Rights Myles Williamson, University of Alabama; Amanda B. Edgell, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa

Despite the emergence of transgender rights discourse, recent years have seen a global anti-trans wave. Several prominent right-wing populists have specifically targeted transgender rights through their rhetoric and policies. For example, on the International Trans Day of Visibility in 2020, Viktor Orban’s Fidesz-controlled parliament introduced legislation banning legal gender marker changes for transgender individuals in Hungary. In the United States. the Trump Administration rolled back anti-discrimination protections for transgender individuals to access housing, healthcare, and education. This anti-trans wave overlaps with a wave of autocratization. How does autocratization affect a country’s protection of transgender rights? Previous research has yet to examine the intersection of regime transformation and transgender rights despite the increasing scholarly attention being devoted to these topics separately. Research on autocratization – or moves toward autocracy along the democratic-autocratic continuum – tends to focus more heavily on its causes rather than its consequences. When studies examine its impact on rights, the scope is often limited to issues such as physical integrity or women’s rights. Empirical work on transgender rights also remains limited, as “LGBT” scholarship traditionally focuses exclusively on sexual orientation minorities. In this paper, we assess the relationship between autocratization and transgender rights using theory-building nested analysis. Drawing on original data tracking transgender rights from the Transgender Rights Indicator Project (TRIP) and the Episodes of Regime Transformation (ERT) dataset from the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project, we quantitatively test the correlation between autocratization and transgender rights in 173 countries from 2000 to 2021. Contrary to expectations, we find that transgender rights tend to improve during episodes of autocratization for the years covered in our analysis. To understand this unexpected result, we qualitatively investigate several prominent off-the-line cases of democratic backsliding, including Bolivia, Brazil, India, Slovenia, and the United States. Through these cases, we uncover several potential causal mechanisms to explain why autocratization, even when characterized by anti-trans rhetoric, is associated with improvements in transgender rights. Thus, the paper contributes to the literature by providing a more nuanced understanding of the consequences of autocratization, especially for highly marginalized groups like the transgender community.

Poster Session: Current Studies of LGBT Politics

Saturday, September 7, 1:30pm – 2:00pm Poster Session

Session Description: These papers are part of the poster session for the Sexuality and Politics Division.

Posters : Do We Need More LGBTQ Politicians? Evidence from the Mental Cost of Hate Crime Peiyuan Li, University of Colorado Boulder

Exposure to specific negative information has an impact on mental health, particularly affecting minority groups in relatively vulnerable social positions. This study delves into the correlation between exposure to hate crimes against LGBTQ individuals and the mental health of the LGBTQ community. Our methodology involves utilizing the FBI’s Hate Crime Statistics Program (HCSP) to quantify occurrences of hate crimes against LGBTQ individuals. The HCSP compiles data on hate crimes motivated by biases related to race or ethnicity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender, or gender identity. It encompasses crimes reported to the police that, upon investigation, provide sufficient evidence to be classified as hate crimes. Subsequently, we utilize data from The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) to assess the mental well-being of the LGBTQ community. The BRFSS dataset offers the advantage of enabling us to distinguish between LGBTQ and cis-family groups, allowing for a comparative analysis of their mental health conditions. Comparing the mental health outcomes of those in a same-sex household (SSH, who will be more likely to be sexual minorities) and those of different-sex households (DSH), we found that the SSH individuals are more sensitive to the negative impact from the hate crime happenings. When hate crime happenings increase by one percent, the SSH individuals are TWICE more likely to witness mental issues (extensive margin) and TWICE the length of happening of mental issues (intensive margin). In addition, we extend the model to see the impacts of different levels of hate crime happenings. The results show that as the number of hate crimes increases, the negative impact among SSH individuals increases more substantially. In the second section, we switch our attention to investigate if having a LGBTQ politician can mitigate the negative impact from hate crime. We merge our data with the LGBTQ politician information we collected from Wikipedia. We extend the model to incorporate the status of having a LGBTQ leader and its party affiliation (Republican/Democratic). We first show that, with the control of previous LGBTQ politicians in the given state, having an LGBTQ leader will significantly mitigate the negative impacts of hate crime on mental health, outcomes including the probability of having mental issues, probability of having extreme mental issues and the length of having mental issues. Having a democratic politician in office will significantly mitigate impacts on both individuals while having more impacts among SSH individuals. For SSH individuals, an additional democratic politician currently in office will decrease the probability of having mental issue by 0.48 percent (0.36 as of DSH individuals), the probability of having extreme mental issue by 0.29 percent (0.20 percent as of DSH individuals) and the days of having mental issue by 0.03 day (0.01 day as of DSH individuals). Having a republican LGBTQ leader, being very rare, will significantly mitigate the negative impacts among DSH individuals while having insignificant impacts among SSH individuals. For DSH member, having an additional Republican politician in office will reduce the probability of having mental issue by 0.92 percent, the probability of having extreme mental issue by 0.68 percent and days of having mental issue by 0.12 day. Yet these numbers for the LGBTQ individuals are all insignificant.

Online LGBTQ+ Activism in Eastern Europe Radzhana Buyantueva, Université libre de Bruxelles

While the scholarship on post-Soviet activism, including those analyzing online activism in separate post-Soviet states, is rapidly growing, there is still a lack of systematic comparative research on online activism in the region. This gap is especially noticeable concerning the comparative analysis of online LGBTQ+ activism across post-Soviet states with different socio-political trajectories. This omission is striking because LGBTQ+ activists in the region have increasingly prioritized online engagement as the key mode of mobilizing supporters, promoting LGBTQ+ agenda, and publicizing instances and patterns of discrimination. The paper aims to fill in this gap by analyzing how LGBTQ+ activists employ social media depending on local socio-political environments in Eastern Europe. The focus of the analysis is Estonia, Russia, and Ukraine. These countries present interesting cases for the comparative examination of online LGBTQ+ activism. On the one hand, all three countries are impacted by the legacy of Soviet homophobia. On the other hand, these states display radically different socio-political trajectories over the post-Soviet period, which have created very different opportunities and constraints for LGBTQ+ activists. They have also adopted different approaches to censorship and the freedom of online communication. The paper adopts social movement theories and recent advances in political communication (strategic narrative approach) to examine the use of social media LGBTQ+ Estonians, Russians, and Ukrainians. It explores how local social and political contexts affect discourses and narratives used by LGBTQ+ activists online in these countries.

Queer Activism after Conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Northern Ireland Cera Murtagh, Villanova University; Runa Annasdotter Neely, Villanova University

The relationship between sexuality and ethno-national conflict is a critical one. That LGBTQ+ rights are particularly vulnerable in the context of ethno-national violence is well established (Hayes & Nagle, 2016; Curtis, 2013). Yet, how do these rights fare in the ‘post-conflict’ phase, in the context of new governing institutions designed to accommodate the main groups to the conflict? Research shows a dearth of recognition and provisions for LGBTQ+ rights in peace agreements (Bell & McNicholl, 2019). However, notwithstanding valuable contributions (see for example: Mikdashi, 2022; Nagle, 2018; Nagle & Fakhoury, 2021; Swimelar, 2020), our knowledge of the impact of post-conflict institutions, such as consociational power-sharing, on queer rights is limited. How are claims for LGBTQ+ equality affected in systems constructed on the basis of a different form of group rights: ethno-national? Moreover, how do activists navigate this system? This paper examines queer activism in post-conflict Bosnia and Herzegovina and Northern Ireland, contexts in which consociational power-sharing was implemented as part of peace agreements in 1995 and 1998 respectively. Drawing together the conceptual frameworks of intersectionality and consociationalism, the paper considers several questions: a) what political opportunity structure do movements for LGBTQ+ rights face in these environments? b) how do these movements mobilize under such conditions? (what strategies do they use, particularly with regard to engagement with political institutions and actors?) and c) to what extent does this activism mount a broader challenge to the system of ethno-national power-sharing and bear the capacity to contribute towards wider debates about citizenship and moves towards democratic reform? The paper draws on evidence from fieldwork conducted in Northern Ireland in 2018 and 2021 and Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2023, including ethnographic research and semi-structured interviews with civil society actors and activists. The comparative analysis of these two cases seeks to provide insights into the impact of post-conflict institutions on LGBTQ+ rights movements and, by extension, other movements for human rights and equality. The paper also explores the agency used by such movements to mobilize in this context and their potential to contribute to broader democratic reform and even transformation.

Queer Radical Resistance: A Political Analysis of the Dyke March Sara Angevine, Whittier College

The Dyke March, one of the broadest reaching, longest lasting protest marches in the United States, focuses on lesbian/dyke visibility and the democratic principles of inclusion, equality, and participation. The first ever Dyke March took place in Washington D.C. on April 24, 1993. Every year since, Dyke Marches have been organized in cities and towns across the United States and around the world, most often during their Gay Pride weekend. Despite its importance and necessity, we know little of the origin and global expansion of the Dyke March. In democracies, protest marches are a critical way for minority viewpoints to gain recognition, to shape the political agenda, and to build community space (Gillion 2013). Both within and outside of the broader LGBTQ political movement, the Dyke March began as a site for radical democratic politics and intersectional mobilization. Dyke Marches depend on the voluntary civic engagement of participants to continue, resisting institutional hierarchy, state affiliation, and market support. Drawing on over 20 face-to-face interviews with lesbian organizers in New York City, San Francisco, and Los Angeles as well as numerous secondary documents, I analyze the origins of the first Dyke March and discuss what factors facilitate its continued success. Beyond their value in sustaining the diversity of the LGBTQ movement, the longevity of Dyke Marches illustrates the powerful democratic impact of any political action governed by inclusion, equality, and participation.

Understanding LGBTQ+ Perspectives on Policing Michelle Ramirez, Texas A&M University Kingsville; Jose Raul Guerrero, University of North Texas

This research examines the perceptions of law enforcement by the LGBTQ+ community. Relying on data from the 2016 and 2020 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Surveys, we examine the relationship between sexual identity and perceptions of police. We also observe how comfortable members of the LGBTQ+ community feel contacting the police and the role that interactions with law enforcement have on their perceptions of police. We compare our results across five different sexual and gender identity groups in the United States.

Globalizing the Study of LGBTQ Politics

Saturday, September 7, 4:00pm – 5:30pm Co-sponsored by the Committee on Status of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Individuals in the Profession Roundtable

Participants : (Chair) Scott Nicholas Siegel, San Francisco State University (Presenter) Samuel Ritholtz, University of Oxford (Presenter) Sarah K. Dreier, University of New Mexico (Presenter) Sa’ed Atshan, Swarthmore College (Presenter) Ian Liujia Tian, University of Toronto (Presenter) Scott Nicholas Siegel, San Francisco State University

Session Description: We have made a substantial amount of progress in understanding the politics of sexual and gender minorities over the past fifty years. Yet, much of this work focuses on the Global North and is done by scholars from the Global North. The politics of LGBTQ rights in the Global South, in comparison, has received less attention in the literature. Scholars from the Global South also confront institutional and attitudinal barriers in the discipline to the study and presentation of research on the Global South that those from the Global North deal with less often.

This roundtable assesses the state of the literature with regard to attention paid to the LGBTQ politics of the Global South, identify our knowledge gaps, and will propose recommendations about how the field can move forward by being more inclusive of scholars globally.

Chinese Politics Mini-Conference

Sponsored by Division 13: Politics of Communist and Former Communist Countries

State and Society in Contemporary China

Participants : (Chair) Sungmin Rho, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (Discussant) Martin Dimitrov, Tulane University (Discussant) Xian Huang, Rutgers University

Session Description: This panel brings together five innovative papers that collectively advance our understanding of the intricate dynamics between the state and society within the Chinese context. Each paper offers a distinctive perspective, contributing to the evolving scholarly discourse on this important subject. In the midst of China’s rapid social, political, and economic transformations, a nuanced understanding of the evolving dynamics between the state and society becomes imperative. This panel endeavors to address pivotal questions such as the impact of recent socio-political changes on state-society relations, the observable shifts over time in their interactions, and the identification of actors or phenomena that remain underexplored. By engaging with these inquiries, the panel aims to provide fresh insights into the complexities of governance and agency in contemporary China.

Contributing to this discourse, panelists pose unique questions. Two papers scrutinize how state institutions both shape and are shaped by state-society relations. Matt DeButts and Tongtong Zhang examine a decade of citizen complaints, documenting the nature and evolution of these claims over time. Hongshen Zhu and Viola Rothschild investigate how the geographical location of police stations influences citizens’ political trust and engagement. They offer new insights into the understanding of state institutions as repressive and co-optative devices. Another set of papers explores informal, cultural, and social mechanisms impacting state-society relations. Lynette Ong delves into the role of ‘social brokers’ that rely on social and moral norms to elicit concessions from citizens. Dan Chen examines how urban stand-up comedy clubs have become new sites of popular expression and explores their broader implications. Finally, Wei Gu, Ning Liu, and Dongshu Liu explore the growth of the video game industry and its role in reducing economic actors’ reliance on political connections.

The panel integrates diverse methodological approaches, including in-depth interviews, participant observation, large N analysis, survey experiments, and machine learning. These methodologies explore dynamic tensions within the contemporary Chinese context. We expect the panel to contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of state-society relations in China.

Papers : Is Rights Consciousness Rising in China? Evidence from Ten Years of Complaints Matt DeButts, Stanford University; Tongtong Zhang, Stanford University

How do citizens living under authoritarian rule elicit assistance from those in power? Existing literature suggests that Chinese citizens are increasingly exhibiting “rights consciousness” when making claims to the government, invoking the regime’s formal legal commitments as a binding constraint on government behavior. In this paper, we use a novel approach to evaluate this claim by systematically assessing the rhetorical strategies of over three million citizen complaints submitted between 2011-2022 on the largest nationwide online petition platform—the Local Leaders Message Board (LLMB, 人民网地方领导留言板)—using human annotation and automated analysis. Contrary to our expectation that “rights consciousness” is rising in China, we find that only 24% of citizen appeals over the past decade invoke the state’s formal legal commitments when soliciting assistance. In contrast, 56% of appeals perform subjecthood, portraying the complainants as helpless subordinates seeking help from powerful and virtuous rulers. Finally, we also identify that 54% of complaints employ a script of socialist citizenship: that local officials have a moral obligation to provide socio-economic welfare. Nearly half of complaints on LLMB use a mixture of two or all these three citizenship scripts, suggesting that many citizens in China today conceptualize their relationship with the government in multiple and at times conflicting ways. We analyze how the three citizenship scripts vary over time, by complaint topic, and by socio-demographic status of complainants. We also assess the effect of different scripts on substantive government responses. Findings of this research shed light on the evolution of authoritarian citizenship and the changing relationship between Chinese citizens and their government in the Xi Jinping era.

Never Meet Your Heroes: Community Policing in Contemporary China Hongshen Zhu, University of Virginia; Viola Rothschild, Duke University

In autocracies, police are tasked with both providing law and order for citizens and monitoring and repressing political opposition to the regime. For ordinary citizens, the local police represent the most common and recognizable face of coercive state power, yet, we have little systematic knowledge about how every day, street-level policing impacts citizen’s political attitudes and behaviors in modern autocracies. We study these relationships in the context of contemporary China, a high-capacity authoritarian state that, in recent years, has invested heavily in developing its domestic security apparatus. Drawing on literatures that emphasize the physical and spatial dimensions of autocratic power, we propose that citizens living geographically closer to police stations will be both more exposed to, and reminded of, police violence, incompetence, or malfeasance—issues endemic to local policing in many autocratic states. As a result, they will be less likely to trust and participate in community political institutions. Using data from a recent nationally-representative, probability sample survey and highly precise, geo-referenced information on the location of police stations, we find evidence to support our theory: citizens who live closer to police stations (1) feel less safe, (2) express lower levels of trust in community political institutions, and (3) participate less in neighborhood political affairs. Our findings indicate that the growing investment in the physical police state may further exacerbate local information capture and the alienation of citizens from the system.

Augmenting State Power: Repression through Complicit Society Lynette H. Ong, University of Toronto

How do states repress society and minimize backlash at the same time? In this paper I address this theoretical puzzle by proposing their use of a strategy of repression through complicit society. I examine the roles of brokers as complicit nonstate actors and the conditions under which they help to legitimate state repression. Notably, social brokers draw on their social capital with network members to exercise social compulsion. By legitimating repression with social‒moral norms, they assuage the perception of policy imposition as state coercive acts and help to augment state power to penetrate society and elicit compliance from the masses accordingly. I illustrate these arguments drawing on case studies of the Chinese state’s gaining community consent to contentious urbanization and demolition projects. This paper contributes to the literature on state power, repression, and brokerage.

Popular Expression in Chinese Standup Comedy Dan Chen, University of Richmond

As a cultural import, standup comedy has captivated China’s young people since the 2010s. Traditionally, standup comedy is understood as a site of cultural, social, and political critique delivered through humor, which can disarm people’s defensiveness and create a space for alternative views to be considered. In China, however, the party-state controls public discourse and Xi Jinping’s rule has seen collapsing arenas for public speech, setting up an interesting puzzle where intensifying political restrictions have coincided with growing outlets for cultural expression. So, how does standup comedy’s transgressive character transpire in the Chinese context? What is the implication for popular expression in an authoritarian context? Based on recent fieldwork consisting of participant observation at various comedy clubs in Shanghai, Beijing, Nanjing, Suzhou, Yangzhou, Shenyang, and Dalian and semi-structured interviews with comedians, club managers, and audience members conducted in Shanghai from May to July 2023, I examine the interactive forces of political power, capitalist interest, and traditional culture that both constrain and empower comedic expressions on socially and politically significant issues, such as gender norms, generational conflict, and work culture. By doing so, I situate political power in a late-socialist system of hierarchical yet mutually influencing forces to understand how politics trickles down to everyday public discourse and to uncover the complex relationships between popular desire and state rhetoric. Despite various constraints, standup comedy still allows alternative, sometimes subversive, views to be expressed. Its popularity with Chinese audiences indicates the cultural power of authenticity under current authoritarian conditions.

Internet Economy and the Reduction of Political Connection in China Wei Gu, City University of Hong Kong; Ning Liu, City University of Hong Kong; Dongshu Liu, City University of Hong Kong

In nations characterized by pronounced political nepotism, firms often establish political connections to secure preferential treatment. This study explores how the emergence of a new economic sector can attenuate such dependence. We argue that the growth of the internet economy, measured in this study by the large-scale video game ‘Honor of Kings’ (HoK) with over 100 million daily active users, enhances the business environment and diminishes local firms’ reliance on political connections. Utilizing provincial and firm-level data from 2007 to 2019, we illustrate that the official operation of HoK within a province fosters a more conducive local business environment and reduces firms’ dependence on political connections. The results indicate that HoK can stimulate the growth of digital-related industries and the digital transformation of the business sector. This aligns with the government’s objective of fostering a digital economy, thereby securing policy support without necessitating political connections. A subsequent survey experiment also reveals that the experience of HoK’s reporting mechanism encourages game players’ political participation and willingness to report corruption, thereby diminishing political connections by enhancing political accountability and public monitoring. These findings illuminate how the growth of the video game industry, and the internet economy more broadly, can foster a favorable business environment and reduce the influence of political connections in the economy. This study also urges policymakers to consider the socioeconomic impacts of the internet economy that have been previously overlooked.

Firms, Industries, and China’s (International) Political Economy

Saturday, September 7, 9:45am – 11:15am Created Panel

Participants: (Chair) Siyao Li, University of Pittsburgh (Discussant) Xiaojun Li, University of British Columbia (Discussant) Seung-Youn Oh, Bryn Mawr College

Session Description: This panel focuses on the role of firms and industries in China’s international and domestic political economy. This set of papers addresses two main themes: 1) the strategies and patterns of firms and industries in an age of economic decoupling between the US and China; 2) the interplay between state and market and how the domestic political economy of China affects firm performance. Newman and Xiong’s paper argue that autocracies face a new type of dictator’s dilemma in a world of weaponized interdependence, where authoritarian leaders are likely to prioritize domestic political control over global competitiveness of its large MNCs, as is illustrated by the case of Ant Group. Jaros, Vortherms, and Zhang’s paper study how China’s local political economy impacts foreign firm exits after the outbreak of the trade war and finds that local industrial policies and investment agglomeration decreases the possibility of firm exit. Jialu Li’s paper examines the strategic response of the state in the context of the United States’ economic sanctions against China and finds that sanctions reinforce the state’s perception of firms as core to national security, leading to increased industry support. Meng, Xu, and Xu’s paper studies the effect of China’s economic development zones (EDZs) on economic development and finds that firms located near and within provincial EDZs benefit similarly from EDZs, while the effects of national EDZs lead to a divergence in firm performance. Qin Huang’s paper uses both machine learning methods and in-depth interviews to uncover local state types in China’s economic governance, elucidating the reasons behind divergent developmental models both subnationally and across different time periods in China.

Papers : China’s Dilemma to Asserting Economic Coercion Yiying (Gloria) Xiong, Cornell University; Abraham Newman, Georgetown University

The concentration of economic activity around a few central firms creates chokepoints in the global economy, which can be exploited by powerful states to either monitor or isolate adversaries. While the United States has used such tools against a host of targets, it is still an open question as to whether other great powers, particularly China, will be positioned to compete in a world marked by weaponized interdependence. Proponents of Chinese economic power have shined a spotlight on a series of state sponsored activities largely under the banner of the Belt and Road initiative. Notwithstanding these efforts, private Chinese companies have yet to establish themselves as central players in global economic networks capable of replacing U.S.-based firms. Building on a markets-as-power approach, this paper argues that autocracies face a new type of dictator’s dilemma when attempting to compete in a world of weaponized interdependence. While globally central firms (e.g. economic hubs) offer the state foreign policy tools to compete against other great powers, these firms can also become the site for political power competition with the state domestically. Authoritarian leaders are likely to balance domestic political control over foreign policy autonomy, and thus, placing the emerging hub firms in the cross hairs of domestic political conflict. As the regime attempts to reassert control over these large private economic actors, the tightening of political control not only amplifies market uncertainty but induces greater political risk of cross-border businesses, diminishing the attractiveness of the firm to global partners. To test our argument, we look at the rise and fall of Ant Group, a Chinese digital payment provider. With the technology foundation, business channels, and licenses for cross-border payments, Ant Group was on the path to build a global payment network based on local e-wallets as “nodes” and cross-border payments as “channels”. However, the power struggle with the state eventually led to the abrupt suspension of its IPO, which marked the beginning of a decisive crackdown on the country’s tech industry and hub erosion of the company’s rise to global centrality. The case demonstrates the domestic political limits of competing in a world marked by weaponized interdependence as well as the tensions posed by platform power in autocratic states.

Industrial Policy and Investment Networks in the US-China Trade War Jiakun Zhang, University of Kansas; Samantha Vortherms, University of California, Irvine; Kyle Alan Jaros, University of Notre Dame

As the business environment sours in China, why do some foreign investors decide to exit while others choose to stay? While international factors such as international agreements buffer firms from increased political risks in a trade war, how does the local political-economic context affect firms’ decisions to exit? Vortherms and Zhang (2021) show that the US-China trade war broadly elevated political risks for multinational corporations (MNCs) operating in China, increasing firm exit overall but not necessarily in sectors facing higher tariffs. In this paper, we investigate the impact of the domestic political economy on MNC exits after the outbreak of the trade war. Specifically, we test two concurrent hypotheses: local industrial policies and investment agglomeration. We argue that local officials use protective policies to undercut the costs introduced by the trade war to maintain existing foreign contracts, which decreases the costs of weathering the costs of the trade war. Simultaneously, networked agglomeration of foreign capital, where foreign firms are integrated in a local market of foreign capital, increases the costs of exiting. Firms both located in districts with preferential policies, such as economic development zones, and integrated with locally networked foreign capital will be the least likely to exit. We add to existing studies of comparative political economy of foreign investment by adding highly detailed political geography variables to understand the spatial variation in firm exits during the unprecedented trade war between the US and China.

China’ s Strategic Response to US Sanctions Jialu Li, Harvard University

Amidst escalating geopolitical rivalry, states may use economic sanctions not only to punish foreign firms’ illegal behaviors, but also to contain the growth of rivals. This paper examines the strategic response of the target state in the context of the United States’ economic sanctions against China. I argue that US sanctions reinforce China’s view of sanctioned industries as core to its national security goals and prompt the government to respond through industry boosting. With an original dataset of US-sanctioned Chinese firms from 2008-2023 and their domestic competitors, I employ a triple difference-in-difference strategy by comparing sanctioned-impacted firms to not-yet-impacted firms before and after the US sanctions, as well as estimating the differential impact between directly sanctioned firms and indirectly affected domestic competitors. I find strong evidence that the Chinese government does not indiscriminately subsidize US-sanctioned firms; rather, it doubles down support only for firms in the information technology industries. Following US sanctions, China also extends support to sanctioned firms and their domestic competitors through government procurement and expedited patent approval. I show that these protective measures provide assurance to other domestic market actors and incentivize them to continue “business as usual” with sanctioned firms. These findings provide new insights into how geopolitics impact industrial policy, highlighting the dynamic interactions between states and market actors in the realm of economic warfare.

Firm-Level Evidence on Market Competition and Corporate Performance Jian Xu, National University of Singapore; Tianguang Meng, Tsinghua University; Jing Xu, Tsinghua University

Do Economic Development Zones (EDZs) help foster economic development? EDZs have been established by governments around the world to encourage the growth of industrial clusters, to facilitate collaborations, and to achieve more efficient utilization of local resources. Yet, we still have limited firm-level evidence on the effectiveness of EDZs. The extant literature has offered two expectations regarding the impact of EDZs on firms. The conventional and optimistic view suggests that EDZs encourage greater competitions among firms by creating industrial clusters, where firms receive government support to become industrial leaders. The pessimistic view suggests that EDZs concentrate disproportionately high amounts of economic and political resources, which disadvantage and discriminate against outsiders, especially smaller, late-comer firms and foreign businesses. In this paper, we examine EDZs’ impact on economic development by using an original geocoded dataset of EDZs, which include a total of 177 national-level and 1,264 province-level EDZs in China. We merge the EDZ dataset with a firm-level dataset of about 1.1 million enterprises, combined with census data for 3,137 counties, including the 1,343 counties where the EDZs are located. Exploiting spatial discontinuities in firms’ distances to EDZs, our RDD analysis finds that firms located within provincial EDZs benefit from their presence similarly as firms located nearby. Meanwhile, firms located near national EDZs perform significantly worse than those located inside national EDZs. Our mechanism analysis shows that, compared with national EDZs, firms in provincial EDZs are more sensitive to competition from foreign and domestic firms and to the needs of the local economy.

Varieties of Socialist Market Economy: Categories, Cases, and Explanations Qin Huang, Northwestern University

This paper delves into the longstanding debate surrounding China’s rapid economic growth, examining whether it is driven primarily by market forces or state intervention. By adopting the perspective of regional developmental models, it aims to unravel the complex interplay between state and market roles in the economic development of Chinese provinces since 1978. The analysis utilizes a novel panel dataset featuring over 30 macroeconomic variables that reflect institutional changes in Chinese provinces. Employing machine learning algorithms such as time-series hierarchical clustering and Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection (UMAP), the study discerns two primary dimensions for categorizing provincial developmental models: state ownership/investment (prevalent or diminished) and market infrastructure (prototyped or underdeveloped). Four distinct socialist market economy types in China emerge: dual-market (strong state and market, e.g., Beijing and Tianjin), coordinated-market (weak state, strong market, e.g., Guangdong and Zhejiang), state-dominating (strong state, weak market, e.g., Guizhou and Shannxi), and state-retreating (weak state and market, e.g., Guangxi and Anhui). In-depth interviews with over 100 government officials, approximately 50 state enterprise managers (including state bankers), and over 50 entrepreneurs from these eight provinces provided insights into how different agents interact in these economies. The study identifies four economic states corresponding to the developmental models: the service state (in coordinated-market economies) fosters market rules and leverages private capital with limited state involvement, actively resolving coordination issues among government departments to support private enterprise growth. The regulatory state (in dual-market economies) predominantly hosts state enterprise headquarters and regularly formulates regulations to maintain non-competitive conditions for state enterprises, while deliberatively leaving the private sector in a competitive market environment. The paper concludes with a cross-case comparison and within-case process tracing, aimed at elucidating the reasons behind the divergent developmental models and their respective balances of market and state forces. It underscores that the capacity of central and provincial leaders to develop market infrastructure is constrained by historical contingencies and natural endowments.

Consolidating State Power

Saturday, September 7, 11:30am – 1:00pm Created Panel

Participants : (Chair) Li Shao, Zhejiang University (Discussant) Yuhua Wang, Harvard University (Discussant) Denise van der Kamp, Oxford University

Session Description: This panel, centered on the theme of “Consolidating State Power,” brings together five pioneering studies that provide critical insights into the mechanisms and challenges of state formation and power consolidation in both imperial and contemporary China. Clair Yang and Yasheng Huang’s work sheds light on pivotal moments in the consolidation of political power during the Middle Ages, highlighting Europe’s shift towards polycentrism and China’s move towards bureaucratic centralization, which set distinct developmental trajectories for each region. Erik Wang and Joy Chen, focusing on the role of the military in state-building, examines the paradoxical effects of military reforms during the Tang Dynasty, revealing the complexities in balancing centralized military control with maintaining state coercive capacity. Peng Peng and Haohan Chen underscores the significant role of political elites in China’s transition from empire to nation-state, demonstrating how ideational change was essential in consolidating national sovereignty. Moving to contemporary China, the state employs various methods to strengthen societal control and consolidate power. Two papers in this panel explore the art of state control from different perspectives. Jieun Kim investigates the impact of national language (Putonghua) promotion on increasing regime support, utilizing a major language reform as an identification strategy. Chao-Yo Cheng and coauthors, through an analysis of over 130 thousand original court records, assess the effects of elevated trials in administrative litigation reform on citizens’ chances of winning cases against the government. Both reforms are shown to strengthen the state’s power, with Kim finding that Putonghua promotion enhances regime support, while Cheng et al. argue that the legal reform decreases the likelihood of citizens winning cases against county governments.

Papers: National Language Promotion under Authoritarianism Jieun Kim, NYU Shanghai

Existing literature on multiethnic, multilingual societies emphasizes that a common national language is critical for enhancing shared identity and cohesion across groups. Beyond the widely applicable nation-building purpose, I argue that national language promotion carries unique significance for authoritarian regimes, as it may serve to bolster regime support. Drawing on large-scale surveys, original interviews, and online community discussions, I examine this argument in authoritarian China, which has achieved a dramatic success in disseminating a common language called “Putonghua” in recent decades. By leveraging cross-cohort and cross-locality variation in the exposure to Putonghua as a medium of instruction following a major language reform in 2001, I find that greater exposure to Putonghua at school results in heightened regime support. Individual-level evidence suggests two possible mechanisms: first, greater access to education and job opportunities essential for material well-being, and second, increased consumption of television news, an important vessel for state propaganda. Despite some backlash against the risk of stifling diversity, the regime has managed to broaden its support base by cultivating more contented and aligned younger generations, especially among Han dialect speakers compared to ethnic minorities. This study has implications for the sources of authoritarian support, and politics of language and identity.

War, Political Entrepreneurs, and National Sovereignty in China Peng Peng, Duke University; Haohan Chen, The University of Hong Kong; Yingtian He, Tsinghua University

This paper investigates why and how non-western states embraced and integrated the notion of national sovereignty, with a particular focus on the shift from empire to nation-state. We propose that political entrepreneurs played a crucial role in promoting the concept of national sovereignty. To test this theory, we analyze novel datasets from newspapers, focusing on China’s transition from the Qing Empire to the Republic. Our findings reveal that neither the formal change in government nor the western invasion resulted in a change in the national perception of sovereignty. However, political elites played a vital part in facilitating the adoption and internalization of the Westphalian system. This study emphasizes the critical significance of ideational transformation in state formation and the role of political entrepreneurs. It adds to a deeper comprehension of state-building and nationalism.

The Consequences of Military Control in Medieval China Erik H. Wang, New York University; Joy Chen, Renmin University of China

Post-conflict state-building remains a challenging endeavor across space and time. This paper unpacks one critical aspect of this challenge: the proliferation of armed groups as an aftermath of civil war. As rulers confront the daunting task of reconstructing political order after war, what are the consequences of their efforts? Relatedly, how do local elites respond when the national government attempts to bolster state capacity? Our research develops a theory of post-conflict state-building by drawing on insights from the civil-military relations literature. We argue that military (re)centralization may increase rulers’ control over the upper echelon of military elites in the regions but could simultaneously weaken their hold over lower-level officers and soldiers. The state’s coercive capacity declines as the rulers’ efforts at military control exacerbates the divide between the upper and lower military in the localities. Empirically, we study a later part of China’s Tang Dynasty (618 – 907 CE). As a result of a severe civil war in the mid-8th century, military power became dispersed across semi-autonomous generals who ruled over provinces with large, locally-raised armies in the Chinese hinterland. To reassert imperial authority over the provinces, the regime enacted a military reform aimed at improving centralized control of armies through counterbalancing – i.e. fragmenting the authority of military generals over their armies. From a comprehensive collection of archival and archaeological sources, we digitize and geocode datasets on the career histories and family background of more than 1,400 provincial generals. Exploiting the provinces’ differential exposure to the reform and using a difference-in-differences (DD) strategy, we arrive at three main findings. (1) The reform accomplished its chief objective by strengthening the regime’s monopoly over violence as control over provincial generals improved over time. This enhancement manifested itself in a decrease in the generals’ rebellions against the regime. (2) Meanwhile, the regime’s coercive capacity, as measured by the ability to enforce order both within the military and with respect to the local society, declined because of the reform. Specifically, the reform led to a rise in soldier-led mutinies against their generals, and an increase in both the incidence and intensity of civilian uprisings against the regime. (3) The decline in coercive capacity is further supported by DD estimates at the battle level, demonstrating that provincial militaries became less likely to win battles after the reform.

New Crops and Old States – State Building in Historical China Yasheng Huang, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Clair Yang, University of Washington

The world witnessed a Great Divergence when Europe surpassed other parts of the world, especially Asia, and emerged as the global leader in economic growth sometime between the 17th and 18th century. This historical event has fascinated historians and social scientists for decades. In this book, we introduce the concept of a Political Divergence, which predated the Great Economic Divergence between Europe and East Asia by centuries. For the conference presentation, we will focus on the first chapter of the book, which delineates the overarching statistical and narrative patterns encapsulating the transition “from convergence to divergence.” The evidence is largely based on four quantitative indices: political unification and centralization, elite conflicts, fiscal capacity, and ruler stability. Building upon these four indices, we unveil “three divergences” and “one convergence” between Europe and East Asia. Until the Middle Ages, East Asia and Europe exhibited many common characteristics. However, a pronounced divergence emerged from the 10th or 11th century onward. While both regions achieved stability following the medieval period, they manifested entirely different patterns concerning political centralization, elite conflicts, and fiscal capacity. The presentation will review the general contours of political development, supplemented with historical insights and a brief discussion of potential drivers behind the phenomenon.

Justice from Above? Elevated Trials and Intergovernmental Delegation in China Chao-yo Cheng, Birkbeck, University of London; Haibo He, Tsinghua University; Chao Ma, University of International Business and Economics

Given the judiciary’s position within the political system, Chinese local courts are unlikely to side with citizens in administrative litigation. Would transferring these cases to higher-level courts make a difference? Drawing from over 130,000 original court records, we offer the first empirical tests evaluating the effect of “elevated trials” (提级管辖), a reform introduced by Beijing in 2015 to shift the handling of administrative cases against county governments from primary to intermediate people’s courts. Our results, using the two-stage Heckman selection model to correct the selection bias, indicate that elevated trials might have placed citizens seeking to resolve disputes with local governments at an even greater disadvantage. We also find that such a disadvantage is jointly correlated with the number of counties involved in administrative litigation and the number of cases undergoing elevated trials, as citizens are, in fact, more likely to win their cases when more counties in a prefecture are entangled within administrative litigation, and when the prefecture faces more cases against county governments. We posit that the adverse impact of elevated trials against Chinese citizens is determined by prefectural leaders’ challenge in monitoring county governments to ensure social stability, while also allowing county officials to chase economic growth, which has become a major source of administrative litigation. Our analysis offers deeper insights into the implications of judicial decision-making in China.

China’s Role in International Relations and Its Worldwide Impacts

Saturday, September 7, 2:15pm – 3:45pm Created Panel

Participants : (Chair) Frances Yaping Wang, Colgate University (Discussant) Ketian Zhang, George Mason University

Session Description: This panel presents a comprehensive examination of China’s growing influence, both within its borders and globally, through a series of in-depth studies. The first paper, by Kerry Ratigan, David Bulman, and Ning Leng, explores the “China Factor” in global South politics. Their research delves into public perceptions of China in middle-income democracies and the influence of these perceptions on political candidate support. Through extensive surveys across South America and Southeast Asia, the study seeks to understand the complexities of the “China model” and its impact on electoral politics. Similarly, Selina Ho and Xue Gong investigate the implications of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in Southeast Asia. Their focus on Special Economic Zones (SEZs) in the Mekong region highlights the dual nature of China’s overseas engagement—promoting development while also being associated with transnational criminal activities, thus presenting a nuanced view of Beijing’s international strategies.

The second part of the panel shifts focus to internal Chinese dynamics and their outward implications. Elizabeth Plantan and Diana Fu examine the responses of Chinese civil society to increasingly stringent governmental restrictions, exploring how these limitations have led to new forms of activism abroad. Shuyuan Shen’s work offers a unique perspective on the strategic use of international news in Chinese state media as a tool for maintaining domestic legitimacy. Lastly, Min Ye, Zeying Wu, and Jiaqi Wang analyze the green transition in China’s BRI, looking at domestic drivers and their geopolitical ramifications, particularly in the context of the electric vehicle industry. Together, these papers provide a diverse and insightful look into China’s complex roles and strategies as a major global actor, blending domestic policies, international relations, and economic ambitions to shape the geopolitical landscape of the 21st century.

Papers : Voter Perceptions and Candidate Support in Middle-Income Democracies Kerry Ratigan, Amherst College; David Janoff Bulman, Johns Hopkins University; Ning Leng, Georgetown University

This paper examines what voters in the global South think of China and how their perceptions of China shape their support for political candidates. Through large-scale, population-representative surveys in eight countries across South America and Southeast Asia (N=19,200), we examine two interrelated research questions: (1) What do voters in the global South think about when they think about “China”? (2) How do these perceptions of China shape how voters evaluate presidential candidates? We focus on large, middle-income democracies (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand) to capture populations that are substantively significant and understudied, and in countries that have substantial political and economic ties with China. This paper makes two contributions to the literature. First, existing research on global China has produced conflicting and incomplete narratives regarding perceptions of China in the global South. Second, we contribute to a small body of cross-national studies on how public perceptions of foreign countries influence support for political candidates.

Special Economic Zones in the China-Southeast Asia Borderlands Selina Ho, National University of Singapore; Xue Gong, Nanyang Technological University

Chinese President Xi Jinping has described the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as “a road of peace.” China’s proposition is that its investments in infrastructure projects overseas will promote development and peace and stability in developing countries. However, as China exports its technology, credit, and labor overseas, public security and social issues follow China’s economic footprint. By connecting regions, the BRI has made it easier for transnational Chinese criminal groups to transport drugs, launder money, and engage in human and wildlife trafficking. China’s image and reputation have suffered because of widely publicized illegal activities by these criminal networks that moved out of China in tandem with legitimate businesses. This paper focuses on special economic zones (SEZs) run by these syndicates in the Mekong region. These SEZs have been described as “mini Chinese colonies” and enclaves of the “grey economy,” where casinos, online gambling, scams, human and wildlife trafficking and prostitution operate side by side. We investigate the puzzle of why Beijing intervenes in some host countries to put a stop to these activities but not others. The extent of intervention also varies with some measures that are more intrusive and that violate the sovereignty of host countries to a greater degree than others. What explains the variations in Chinese intervention? The widely held assumption is that reputational costs and domestic pressures to crack down on trafficking of Chinese citizens motivate Beijing to act. However, we found that these are insufficient for explaining Chinese intervention. Focusing on three SEZs situated in Myanmar, Cambodia, and Laos, respectively, we use process-tracing to identify new causal mechanisms to explain why China intervenes and the extent of Chinese intervention. We hypothesize that Beijing intervenes when (1) criminal activities in these SEZs destabilize Chinese borders and/or (2) China’s strategic and economic interests are negatively impacted. We also hypothesize that the extent of Chinese intervention is dependent on host countries’ capacity and willingness to cooperate.

How China’s Restrictions on Civil Society Create Spaces for Activism Abroad Elizabeth Plantan, Stetson University; Diana Fu, University of Toronto

The operating environment for civil society in mainland China and Hong Kong has changed dramatically under the Xi Jinping administration. New regulations including the 2017 Overseas NGO Law and the 2020 National Security Law, as well as broader campaigns against illegal social organizations have reined in both domestic and foreign NGOs. In response, many domestic activists have decided to leave mainland China or Hong Kong. The “exit” of activists raises several questions. What has happened to these activists following regulations and campaigns limiting their activities? Why and when do they decide to “exit”? Do they engage in new activities or continued activism from abroad? To what extent do these actors find support from INGOs or other communities abroad? What kind of influence can these actors have on the politics of China or policies toward China from abroad? This paper investigates these questions through interview data with Chinese activists-in-exile and their potential INGO supporters and funders abroad. Together, these two sets of actors’ adaptive strategies have resulted in the ongoing reconstruction of civil society both inside and outside of China’s borders. By mapping out their respective adaptive strategies and continued activism, this study shows how the repression or limitation of civil society under authoritarianism could create new spaces for activism from abroad.

“Whatabout” Legitimacy: International News as Distraction in China Shuyuan Shen, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Legitimation constitutes a foundational pillar of authoritarian politics, and propaganda is a key strategy of legitimation. What is puzzling is that the Chinese regime enjoys remarkable popularity despite its unappealing propaganda. Prevailing studies of Chinese propaganda predominantly concentrate on domestic matters or historical conflicts with rivals. This approach assumes that the underpinning of domestic legitimacy hinges upon propagandistic discourse concerning the regime itself and internal issues. This study proposes that international news on Chinese state media serves as a potent and efficacious propaganda instrument, strategically mobilized to shift people’s attention away from domestic problems. By diverting the public’s focus from the negative agenda and diminishing its salience in evaluating the Chinese regime, negative international news mitigates legitimacy loss and even enhances regime support. To test the hypothesis that Chinese media will likely increase the production and dissemination of negative international news following legitimacy crises and mass protests, I obtain all social media posts of Chinese state and local party media from January 2019 to the present day. Both the Granger causality test and a non-parametric permutation analysis identify a significant increase in negative international news on Chinese media after legitimacy crises and mass protests, supporting the international news as distraction hypothesis. A survey experiment is in progress to investigate whether the intended consequence of distraction is achieved. The project expands the realm of authoritarian propaganda research by recognizing international news as a distinctive and significant form of propaganda material. Moreover, it provides insights into the intricate relationship between propaganda and legitimacy in autocracies.

Domestic Sources of the Green Belt and Road and Its Geopolitical Implications Min Ye, Boston University; Zeying Wu, Boston University; Jiaqi Wang, UNC

“China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) faced environmental backlash shortly after its launch in 2013. Yet, starting in 2019, there has been a notable shift in BRI’s official policy towards promoting high-quality and sustainable development, and by the end of 2023, clean energy took center stage BRI’s energy projects. What has driven the green transition in the BRI framework? Does the Green BRI alleviate or aggravate geopolitical tensions between China and the West? While externally focused explanations provide logical context for China’s green BRI, we posit that domestic factors are the main impetus for this policy evolution. And among the probable and multi-faceted internal motivations, our primary hypothesis centers on the surplus capacity within China’s green industries—including solar, wind, electrical vehicles (EVs)—and related sectors. We contend that the growth of these green energy sectors has outpaced domestic consumption in recent years, and with restrictions from Western markets, the BRI regions have become essential for mitigating this excess capacity. Two key observations have underlined our argument. Firstly, BRI projects are financed by China, and there is real financial calculation behind them, making it less likely that green projects are mere vanity ventures, especially during times of economic strain (Ye 2020). Secondly, for the green BRI to take root, Chinese corporate actors must have buy-in, and private firms have dominated the renewable energy sectors (NDRC 2022). China Inc. are guided by cost-benefit analyses, aligning with market logic (Tan 2021).

New Frontiers and Perspectives on Chinese Politics

Saturday, September 7, 4:00pm – 5:30pm Created Panel

Participants : (Chair) Lizhi Liu, Georgetown University (Discussant) Xu Xu, Princeton University (Discussant) Blake Miller, London School of Economics and Political Science

Session Description: This panel comprises five papers that introduce fresh perspectives, draw upon novel datasets, and delve into relatively unexplored areas within the field of Chinese politics. These papers collectively expand the boundaries of our understanding about China.

Junyan Jiang and Songpo Yang challenge the conventional rationalist perspective on political selection in China, employing a unique dataset comprising 18,879 photos of 5,124 Chinese officials and an innovative machine-learning algorithm to assess how officials’ facial features influence their career progression and political survival. Chengli Wang and Guo Li delve into the intersection of authoritarian politics and popular culture, using a novel dataset of over 3,500 Chinese celebrities. The study examines how authoritarian regimes, such as China, strategically select and endorse celebrities who align with state preferences. Xiaoxia Huang’s research highlights how structural and political barriers limit women’s representation in public office. Using an original dataset containing extensive data from 238,151 job ads in the Chinese National Civil Service Examination (NCSE) spanning bureaucratic and party positions, the research reveals a consistent and increasing bias towards male candidates by the Chinese government between 2005 and 2024. Yannong He investigates China’s race for global talent and why some local governments excel in attracting talent while others lag behind, drawing upon extensive interviews and archival research. Lastly, the paper by Handi Li, Shengqiao Lin, and Minh Duc Trinh examines the issue of data manipulation in authoritarian contexts, highlighting strategies employed by the Chinese government, including public shaming and centralization of power, to tackle the problem of data overreporting.

Papers : Physiognomic Features and the Tacit Domain of Political Selection in China Junyan Jiang, Columbia University; Songpo Yang

Political selection is often studied as a conscious and calculated decision based on candidates’ competence and social relations. We argue that it also has an important, yet overlooked, tacit domain that involves subconscious or unconscious processing of certain perceptual traits. Using an original dataset of over 18,879 photos for 5,124 Chinese officials and a novel machine-learning algorithm to measure and quantify facial features, we examine the impact of officials’ physiognomic traits on their career advancement and political survival. Our findings suggest that, holding constant officials’ performance and connection, those whose facial features convey an impression of strong leadership skills tend to enjoy a systematic advantage in moving up the administrative hierarchy. We reaffirm this selection pattern with a survey experiment wherein respondents evaluated the rank of simulated official profile pictures. Our findings challenge the rationalist assumption in political selection research by underscoring the diverse criteria and complex cognitive processes involved.

Unveiling the Celebrities in Chinese Authoritarian Politics Chengli Wang, University of Macau; Guo Li

Nothing is separate from politics in authoritarian regimes, including their people’s entertainment interests. Pop stars and celebrities from the entertainment industry are frequently used by authoritarian governments to legitimize their rule or to leverage their influence on fandoms and the public. Yet, critical questions about these practices persist: What characteristics define the state’s ideal celebrity? What logic informs the selection of these favored individuals? And how does the state signal its preferences to the entertainment industry and mass society? To address these questions, our study analyzes a novel dataset comprising over 3,500 Chinese entertainment celebrities, encompassing a broad array of metrics ranging from demographic information, political affiliations, and societal engagement levels to fandom metrics, accolades, and professional participation. Our findings reveal that certain individual characteristics, often overlooked in existing literature, play a pivotal role in aligning with the state’s preferred celebrity archetype. Furthermore, we document a shift in the state’s ideal celebrity profile across different eras of CCP leadership. Significantly, our analysis demonstrates that celebrities who align with state preferences enjoy distinct advantages, highlighting the tangible impacts of state endorsement. To complement our study, we also apply machine learning techniques to predict emerging talents within the Chinese entertainment sector, offering insights into the future trajectory of state-celebrity relations. This research contributes to our understanding of the intricate interplay between authoritarian governance and popular culture, shedding light on the nuanced strategies employed by such regimes to maintain their grip on power.

Gendered Recruitment and Implications in China’s Public Sector Xiaoxia Huang, Syracuse University

Comparative research on gender and representation in politics tends to focus on reforms that promote women’s entry, retention, and promotion in politics. Despite progressive reforms, women’s underrepresentation in public offices remains constant in much of the world. In this paper, I examine the case of China to show how structural and political barriers can restrict women’s representation in public office. Specifically, utilizing an original dataset encompassing detailed information on job ads (238,151) from the Chinese National Civil Service Examination (NCSE), covering both bureaucratic roles and party positions, this research unveils a clear and growing preference for male candidates by the Chinese government from 2005 to 2024. Further analysis indicates that the increased demand for male applicants is attributed to two factors: the expansion of the candidate pool and the rise of qualified females in the talent pool. In addition, this research will delve into the potential costs of prioritizing male candidates in job ads. Regardless of the model specification, the results consistently demonstrate that male-preferred jobs are significantly correlated with fewer candidates and lower formal performance in the NCSE. This research makes two key contributions. Firstly, it quantitatively measures gender discrimination in public sector recruitment by analyzing explicit gender preferences in Chinese government recruitment ads. Secondly, it has the potential to enrich the broader literature on women’s representation in public roles, spanning civil service to political positions, in China and other countries where public servants are a primary source of political offices.

The Local Politics of Talent Attraction in China Yannong He

This study examines China’s city-level race for global talent since 2008. Specifically, it asks: why are some governments more likely to deploy local innovations to attract talent while others lag behind despite their similar need for highly skilled labor, and why do some local talent programs succeed while others have failed woefully in China? Drawing on extensive interviews and archival research in Shenzhen, Hangzhou and Changchun, this project compares how policymakers, employers, and elite talents in sought-after fields engage in a talent race at the local level. It speaks to questions of policy making and policy experimentation in the Chinese context and to the broad question of how developing countries can reverse the brain drain. Underneath a central directive to reinvigorate China through human resource development, local governments in China have become the key drivers in the global race for talent. The decentralized nature of talent recruitment politics calls for a city-by-city study because of the wide variation in the local talent retention responses. First, this project looks at 27 major cities, including all 22 provincial capitals in the mainland and the five cities that are specifically designated in the state plan. It draws on an original dataset of local policies that aim at bringing in high-level talents from overseas. The large-n analysis reveals successful talent attraction in three divergent cities—Shenzhen as a global technology hub, Hangzhou as an emerging first-tier city, and Changchun as a traditional industrial city. Despite the variation, Shenzhen, Hangzhou, and Changchun all actively respond to the central government’s call for global talents and reap the fruits of their attraction policies. Findings from fieldwork in the three cities question the conventional belief that societal groups are marginalized in the policy-making process in authoritarian regimes. Each in its own way, successful cities continually update their policies and incentives, and are responsive to the needs of related firms and campuses. Despite Xi’s era of recentralization, talent policies remain surprisingly decentralized. On the one hand, local governments have been delegating local talent recruitment to firms and campuses. On the other hand, the Chinese Communist Party regulates the market for highly skilled labor through the cadre responsibility system. Under the pressure of promotion, key actors such as local officials, recruiters and talented people are forced to compete in the city-level race for talent.

Countering Local Data Manipulation in China Handi Li, Princeton University; Shengqiao Lin, University of Texas at Austin; Minh Duc Trinh, Purdue University

The manipulation of economic data has long been a concern in many authoritarian or developing countries. Using the case of China, this paper examines the effectiveness of different ways of countering local GDP manipulation: public shaming and power centralization. We adopt two complementary measurements of data report accuracy and conduct difference-in-difference estimations that exploit the publication of data manipulation and a pilot that centralized the power of statistics reporting. We find public shaming to strongly reduce overreport of local GDP, although the effect seems to be temporary. However, no effect is detected for power centralization. We further explored the mechanisms of public shaming.

Civic Learning on Campus: Bringing Political Science In Mini-Conference I

Theme Panel Mini-Conference

“Engaging Citizenship”: Teaching Democracy in an Era of Rising Authoritarianism

Thursday, September 5, 8:00am – 9:30am Co-sponsored by Division 10: Political Science Education Roundtable

Participants : (Chair) Lauren Marie Balasco, Stockton University (Presenter) Claire Abernathy, Stockton University (Presenter) Jennifer Forestal, Loyola University, Chicago (Presenter) Lauren A. Farmer, Temple University (Presenter) Danielle Rochet Gougon, Rowan University (Presenter) Leah A. Murray, Weber State University (Presenter) Allison Rank, SUNY, Oswego State

Session Description: Democratic erosion in the United States—rendered vivid in the events of January 6, 2021—as well as the global decline of democratic regimes should push us to reflect on how we introduce politics to students. What responsibilities do we have as teachers, as we promote political engagement which may expose students to the risks of political violence and repression? Further, these reminders of the vulnerabilities of democratic institutions—in the U.S. and elsewhere—also highlight ongoing challenges of democratic life, such as the saturation of disinformation, state violence, and undermining of democratic norms, as well as the legacies of white supremacy, racism, and colonialism that persist in the United States and globally.

This roundtable will focus on Balasco, Forestal, and Abernathy’s Engaging Citizenship, a forthcoming introduction to politics textbook (Oxford University Press 2025). Engaging Citizenship introduces foundational concepts in political science through the lens of citizenship, democracy, and civic engagement, highlighting the relevance of the discipline to students’ lives and encouraging them to become engaged and empowered citizens. The authors ground Engaging Citizenship in three learning goals for students: 1) to explore the main subfields of Political Science, 2) to develop a broad understanding of the U.S. political system within a global context, and 3) to engage with the political process as educated and empowered citizens.

As the authors debated, drafted, and shaped the meaning and purpose of this book, the following questions came to the forefront:

• How does democratic erosion in the United States inform our teaching of political engagement?  
• Do current global and national trends in populism and authoritarianism require us to teach introductory politics courses differently than in the past?  
• What experiential learning and civic engagement activities promote critical thinking about what it means to live under a democracy?

In this Author Meets Critics roundtable, we explore these questions through the lens of Engaging Citizenship. Within introductory politics courses, faculty encounter a range of academic abilities and levels of interest in the classroom. How we approach the subject of democratic erosion and place it in conversation with the value of democracy and political engagement, then, requires pedagogical skills and strategies that promote empathy, accessibility, and openness. The stakes of a shared commitment to a deeper and more inclusive democracy are high, as the costs of democratic engagement evolve in light of increasing populist authoritarian movements. Faculty who teach introductory political science courses confront these realities in the classroom, and Engaging Citizenship offers a framework for teaching about the value of democracy to an often skeptical student population.

Schools and Democracy: How Varieties of Education Matter for Citizenship

Thursday, September 5, 10:00am – 11:30am Co-sponsored by Division 12: Comparative Politics of Developing Countries Full Paper Panel

Participants : (Chair) Rebecca Weitz-Shapiro, Brown University (Discussant) Joan Ricart-Huguet, Loyola University Maryland (Discussant) Elizabeth Parker-Magyar, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Session Description: How do different types of education contribute to democratic citizenship around the world? Political scientists have long been interested in the relationship between citizens’ educational attainment and their level of political participation. However, we have paid much less attention to how distinct types of education influence diverse aspects of citizenship. Does the public, private and/or religious administration of schools influence the effect of education on students’ subsequent participation? Does the content of the curriculum matter for turnout, vote choice and political attitudes? Does attending university domestically or in foreign country have similar effects on citizens’ political views? This panel brings together a diverse set of scholars and research papers to shed light on these questions. We draw on the panel participants’ research and expertise in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, and the MENA region to show how distinct educational experiences have heterogenous effects on citizens’ political participation, vote choice and political attitudes. In Mexico, variation in the content of civic education between 1960 and 2000 matters for its effects on citizens’ turnout. In Sudan, foreign training in Islamic educational institutions in Arab countries increases support for fundamentalist Islamic parties. In Zambia, education in Catholic versus secular primary schools decreases support for progressive gender attitudes. Across Latin America, citizens who attend private versus public schools have less support for the social contract. In Peru, access to university education changes the types of local politicians who get elected to office and how they govern. The panelists draw on diverse research methods to support their claims, including text analysis, life histories, and differences-in-differences regression. The panel also brings together scholars at varied career stages (from graduate students to associate professors) and at diverse institutions on multiple continents.

Papers : When Does Education Promote Participation? The Role of Curriculum Reforms Agustina S. Paglayan, UCSD; Francisco Garfias, University of California, San Diego

There has been renewed global interest in the role of education to strengthen democracy by forming engaged and informed citizens. However, past studies find mixed evidence on the impact of years of schooling on political participation. We posit that the impact of schooling will depend on the content of education. The evidence for our argument comes from a study of a national primary school curriculum reform in Mexico under the PRI regime and its long-term impact on individual voting behavior. Analyses of the entire corpus of primary school textbooks from 1960 to 2000 using content analysis and automated text analysis shows that, for decades, school textbooks characterized the PRI regime as a democracy and placed heavy emphasis on teaching future citizens that their most important civic duty was to vote. However, when electoral support for the PRI began to erode, the regime reformed the curriculum to reduce the importance given to democracy and voting. Difference-in-differences estimates of the long-run impact of this reform using unique administrative records of voting behavior show that exposure to the reformed curriculum during primary school reduced the propensity to vote during adulthood. Our results show that education systems are a key policy tool that enable autocratic regimes to have enduring effects even after their collapse and highlight the importance of the curriculum for shaping political outcomes.

Conservative Islam and Politics: Examining the Role of Arab Foreign Education Aala Abdelgadir, Stanford University

Over the last fifty years, Islamic fundamentalism, marked by scripturalism and an emphasis on purification of Islamic customs, has emerged in sub-Saharan Africa. Motivated by this seismic transformation, this paper examines how and why Islamic fundamentalism emerged in African countries. I argue that Arab countries’ soft power strategies, specifically recruitment of Africans for study in Islamic educational institutions in Arab countries, has served as a key channel for the diffusion of conservative ideas from the Arab world into African countries. Using original measures of foreign training and fundamentalist Islam, I employ cross-sectional and event study analysis to find that foreign training increases the likelihood that fundamentalist social and political organizations emerge. Using the test case of Sudan, I also find evidence that foreign training is correlated with the success of fundamentalist political parties at the sub-national level.

The Gendered Effects of Church versus State Education: Evidence from Zambia Katharine A. Baldwin, Yale University; Eran Rubinstein, Yale University

Proposals to change the power of the state vis-à-vis religious actors in managing schools often cause significant political conflict. The historic pervasiveness of these conflicts in diverse settings suggests that key players believe church control of education is likely to influence students’ long-term identities and attitudes; however, as of yet, there have not been any systematic studies of the attitudinal effects of increased state control over church-run schools. We study the long-term effects of a policy change in Zambia that increased state control over Catholic schools independently of other major educational reforms in the 1970s. Combining differences in exposure to state versus Catholic-managed education induced by religion and the timing of the reforms across cohorts, we show that increased state-control over Catholic schools has limited effects on students’ long-term national identities and political attitudes, but it reduces women’s religiosity and makes men and women’s gender attitudes more progressive. The quantitative analysis is complemented with evidence from life histories.

Opting Out from Public Schools and the Social Contract in Latin America Ana Lorena De La O Torres, Yale University; Pilar Manzi, Northwestern University; Maria Cecilia Rossel, Catholic University of Uruguay

The seemingly upward trend in opting out from public services and the segregation of income groups in public and private education systems has raised concerns about the future of an already fragmented social contract in Latin America. In this paper, we examine the evolution of the use of private education in selected countries during the first two decades of the 2000s. We also examine the socio-demographic correlates of the decision to opt out, and the association it has with attitudes that are relevant to understanding the foundations of the social contract in the region. Overall, the evidence suggests that scholars’ concerns about the fragility of the social contract are justified, but with some nuances. Wealthy households are mostly opting out of the public education system, and the middle-class is split with a substantial proportion of households opting for private schools. We also find that people who use private services have worse evaluations of public services, express less support for the public provision of those services, and more generally, are less supportive of redistribution compared to people inside the public systems. We discuss the implications of these descriptive statistics for the sustainability of the public provision of services and the social contract.

Eligible Bachelors? How University Education Harms Performance by Mayors in Peru John Marshall, Columbia University; Horacio Larreguy, ITAM; Miguel Angel Carpio, Universidad de Piura

While development policies have emphasized decentralization and good governance, access to university education has dramatically increased in the Global South. We explore the link between these trends by examining whether university expansion has improved the quality of local governance by getting better educated people into municipal politics. On one hand, better educated politicians could be more competent or less willing to be corrupt. On the other hand, this new class of politicians may lack the requisite connections to get things done or fail to represent their less educated electorate. Drawing on variation across cohorts in access to a university in the Peruvian province where a candidate was born, we leverage a difference-in-differences design to estimate the effects of politicians having access to university education on performance in office as well as their propensity to run for and win office. Our initial findings show that mayors in provinces with greater access to university education spend less of their budget and are less likely to obtain transfers and competitive funding for their municipalities. Further evidence suggests that these differences reflect these outsider candidates lacking political connection and being less willing to engage in corruption, rather than possessing different ideologies. Finally, voters are less likely to elect university-educated politicians, suggesting that they anticipate the limited benefits of this attribute for local governance.

Rethinking Citizen Competence in Democratic Theory and Practice

Thursday, September 5, 12:00pm – 1:30pm Roundtable

Participants : (Chair) Simone Chambers, University of California, Irvine (Presenter) John S. Dryzek, University of Canberra (Presenter) Henry Farrell, Johns Hopkins University (Presenter) Hugo Mercier, University of Pennsylvania (Presenter) Melissa A. Schwartzberg, New York University (Presenter) Simon J. Niemeyer, University of Canberra (Presenter) Michael Neblo, Ohio State University

Session Description: One of the most long-running debates in political science concerns the competence of citizens and the implications for what we can expect from democracy. It is 80 years since Schumpeter spoke of “a lower level of mental performance” when citizens engage in politics. Skeptical empirical researchers and more enthusiastic normative theorists can continue to talk past each other. Recently the debate has moved in a more productive direction that seeks not either positive or negative sweeping generalization about citizen capacities, but rather looks at the precise circumstances under which competence is revealed or absent. The big difference appears to be between solitary reasoning, where incompetence, ignorance, and bias dominate, and interactive reasoning, where (depending on the precise conditions) competence, knowledge, and reasonableness can come to the fore. This roundtable will build upon the recent contributions in this idiom of Chambers (2019), Farrell et al (2022), Niemeyer et al (2023), and Minozzi et al (2023), with participants from the authors of all these papers. The precise questions to be addressed in this roundtable include:

• How adequate is the existing empirical investigation of competence in interactive settings?
• What do we know for sure about the conditions that either facilitate or obstruct competence, and what now needs to be researched considering what we do not know?
• How do we reconcile this evidence with more skeptical findings from social and political psychology?
• Is it possible to apply lessons learned from the conditions that promote effective reasoning in micro contexts (such as deliberative forums) to the macro level?
• How do these lessons apply to both formal institutions, and more informal communicative practices?
• Does the macro level require a different kind of inquiry when it comes to studying the interactive nature of reasoning?

Countering Democratic Backsliding through Civic Education for All Students

Thursday, September 5, 2:00pm – 3:30pm Co-sponsored by Division 58: Civic Engagement Created Panel

Participants : (Chair) Mary A. McHugh, Merrimack College (Discussant) Richard M. Battistoni, Providence College

Session Description: Civic education has been proposed as a mechanism for countering democratic backsliding by developing fundamental support for core democratic principles, norms, dispositions, and capacities in upcoming generations. Providing opportunities for quality civic education for all students, including those who often are marginalized, has the potential to promote productive civic engagement that emphasizes cooperation, collaboration, civil discourse, and tolerance. This panel explores the effectiveness of innovative civic education initiatives, including those aligned with the Educating for American Democracy roadmap, to enhance the civic capacity of diverse student populations, including students of color, incarcerated students, and students with disabilities.

Papers : A Tale of Two Educations: Custodial Citizens and the “Hidden Curricula” Klara Maria Cecilia Fredriksson, University of Texas at Austin

How does the carceral state educate, and what behavioral consequences does this have? We know much about traditional civic knowledge, and how this affects political participation, but we know little about the political learning acquired by those involved with the carceral state, and how this affects their political behavior. I argue that we should consider this a separate type of political knowledge, one that is vital to understanding the political participation of custodial citizens. Contact with the carceral state creates political learning that is centered around the criminal justice system, which in turn enables political action aimed at features of the system such as changing laws, policies, or the fate of specific justice-involved people. I explore and deepen this theory using a series of focus group discussions with custodial citizens.

Can Civic Education Bulwark against Democratic Backsliding? Joseph Kahne, University of California, Riverside; Benjamin T. Bowyer, University of California-Riverside- Graduate School of Education

What role could civic education play in reversing democratic backsliding, especially the decline of democratic norms and commitments? In a period of intense political polarization marked by the erosion of basic civic and democratic norms and increasing tolerance of political violence in American society, the Education for American Democracy (EAD) framework provides an effort to reimagine history and civics education to bolster the democratic capacities of the next generation of the polity. In this paper, we examine whether such educational efforts can succeed in instilling democratic values in young people, including a commitment to engage openly and constructively with those with whom they disagree politically. We draw upon data collected during the 2023-2024 academic year from a sample of middle school students (n=4,067) from a diverse set of six school districts across the country that are introducing an EAD-aligned US history curriculum. The sample includes students who are in classes that are implementing this curriculum (n=1,996), as well as a comparison group of students in these districts whose US history classes are not using the new curriculum (n=2,071). Student survey data collected at the beginning and end of the school year are used to evaluate whether exposure to the learning opportunities embedded within the new curriculum led to changes in the civic dispositions of youth. In particular, we test whether features of the new curriculum (such as an emphasis on collaborative learning) are associated with increases in students’ willingness to engage in dialogue across political differences, sense of political efficacy, and their intention to engage civically. In addition, the diverse sample of students allows us to evaluate whether these learning opportunities can reduce gaps across ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic lines in the civic engagement and dispositions of young people.

Preparing Students with Disabilities for Civic Engagement Diana M. Owen, Georgetown University

Providing robust civic education for all students is a viable mechanism for instilling a commitment to democracy and confronting retrenchment. At present, there are vast disparities in the availability and quality of civic education, especially for high-need students. The civic education experience for students with disabilities (SWD) has been given far less attention than that of other high-need student populations, such as students living in poverty, even in studies that seek to be inclusive of diverse populations. SWDs are not only marginalized in schools, they also are sidelined in civic education research. The dominant theoretical models of civic education do not readily accommodate students with disabilities. They assume a restrictive notion of citizenship based on conformity to limited conceptions of intellectual ability, communicative competence, social independence, and behavior. When they are not entirely excluded, students with disabilities are relegated to lower-level civic learning opportunities which have deleterious consequences for their civic capacity. They are less likely to have the chance to participate in class discussions of issues where they can gain skills in deliberation. They develop fewer self-advocacy skills and are less inclined to make decisions for themselves. They are left out of the planning process for community engagement projects and are given perfunctory tasks when they volunteer. As a result, students with disabilities are less likely to follow local and national politics or to participate in the full range of citizen actions. They have lower voter registration and voter turnout rates than their non-disabled peers. This study addresses the core research question: How can students with disabilities be prepared for democratic engagement through civic education? It uses data collected on teachers and students who received the Center for Civic Education’s We the People curriculum intervention that was adapted for SOWs.

Race Relations, Civics, and the Post-truth Soulcrafting of Young Americans Tyson D. King-Meadows, University of Massachusetts Boston

This study leverages the concept of “soulcraft” to examine the limitations of civics education in early 21st century America by unpacking how social identity, socialization agents, and structural inequality shape the civic understandings of young people on the precipice of enfranchisement. Studies on young Americans over the past decade indicate a loss of faith in democracy due to, among other things, disillusionment over political polarization, racial tensions, media bias, and class inequality. Similar forces have impacted public confidence in science and in scientific expertise. However, studies examining civic proficiency and civics education often neglect to critically examine how formal and informal learning about democracy happens, and often neglect to critically examine what these informal and formal lessons about democracy signal about the promises and pitfalls of voting. This project overcomes those limitations by examining multiple data, including federal data on the civic proficiency scores of young Americans (in the 8th and 12th grades) and original public opinion data from the youth sample of the 2020 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey (CMPS), a nationally representative public opinion survey of youth aged 16 – 17 years old. Findings from these data illuminate how lessons about racial groups could correlate with perceptions about those groups, correlate with perceptions about inclusive democracy, and correlate with participation. Findings from this project offer insights into three things: (1) the cognitive and emotive dimensions of civic empowerment and of civic proficiency; (2) the differences between civic empowerment and civic proficiency; and (3) why shifting civics instruction and learning away from civic proficiency to civic empowerment could reinvigorate faith in democracy. The implication of the findings is that the forces shaping the social studies curricula affecting civic inquiry-based instruction about racial groups perform similarly to those forces shaping the formal science curriculum affecting scientific inquiry-based instruction. Results therefore also suggest analogous parallels between ways to combat misinformation and skepticism in the political and scientific arenas. The study concludes by describing the benefits of a renewed focus on improving inquiry-based scientific knowledge. I assert that doing so can help young people navigate the post-truth era; can reduce racial/ethnic disparities in political participation; can reinvigorate the faith of young people in democracy; and can bring forth a more imaginative democratic politics.

Preparing Democratic Citizens in Higher Education

Thursday, September 5, 4:00pm – 5:30pm Roundtable

Participants : (Chair) Abhishek Raman, American Academy of Arts and Sciences (Presenter) Sarah Surak, Salisbury University

Session Description: Preparing college and university students to be informed and engaged citizens is imperative for a healthy American constitutional democracy. Students are navigating an increasingly polarized landscape where they feel isolated and disconnected from our democratic institutions and civic culture. Moreover, partisanship impedes their ability to address key public policy issues and be fully engaged citizens. By pursuing opportunities to work together, they can gain a new sense of civic agency and new capacity to solve problems across lines of difference. Current efforts in higher education to prepare good citizens for participatory democracy are often relegated to a single campus initiative or primarily on voter registration efforts.

Prioritizing the development of skilled democratic citizens as central to their mission and implementing this institutional priority by holistically engaging their campus ecology, colleges and universities can inspire a culture of commitment to American constitutional democracy and foster civic learning and democratic citizenship for the 21st century.

The American Academy of Arts and Sciences’ report, “Our Common Purpose,” outlines six strategies and 31 recommendations to reinvent American democracy. A central theme of the report is the theory of change that improvement of our civic culture and of our political institutions must go hand in hand to restore citizens’ confidence in American constitutional democracy and renew the practice of democratic citizenship. In 2023, a group of higher education stakeholders developed a comprehensive guide and associated resources on the models, mechanisms, and measurements for preparing skilled and informed democratic citizens in higher education. This guide offers principles, best practices, curricular and co-curricular models, and assessment rubrics for colleges and universities to contextualize their strategies to prioritize the development of democratic citizens and implement them with a holistic campus ecology in mind.

Through this roundtable focused on the Academy’s publication on developing democratic citizens in higher education, we aim to engage conference participants to build commitment and capacity among two-year and four-year colleges and universities to make the development of skilled democratic citizens an institutional priority and central to their mission.

The following questions will guide the roundtable discussion:

• What knowledge, skills, and dispositions do members of a campus community need to embody to bridge across lines of difference and collectively solve public challenges through the political process in our constitutional democracy?
• How can colleges and universities contribute to reforming our civic culture by drawing people together in civil discourse that is grounded in their institutions’ civic purpose?
• How, at a time of toxic public discourse, can we help students acquire the civic virtues of listening and learning, persuading and being persuaded, in the company of those with whom they disagree?
• How can colleges and universities undertake deep change in institutional culture to create conditions for sustained democratic citizenship?
• What curricular models can be introduced to help students to develop civic competencies and the ability to critically evaluate problems, policies, and processes?
• What meaningful opportunities can universities offer to foster a universal expectation of service on campus and beyond?

Civic Learning on Campus: Bringing Political Science In Mini-Conference II

Post-secondary civic education today: reports from the field.

Friday, September 6, 8:00am – 9:30am Roundtable

Participants : (Chair) Stephen Macedo, Princeton University (Presenter) Josiah Ober, Stanford University (Presenter) Simon Gilhooley, Bard College (Presenter) Jenna Silber Storey, American Enterprise Institute (Presenter) Minh Vy Ly, University of Vermont (Presenter) Jed William Atkins, Duke University (Presenter) Nathan John Pinkoski (Presenter) Jacqueline Arthur-Montagne, University of Virginia

Session Description: In the early and middle 20th century, in the wake of the 19th Amendment and historically high levels of immigration, American colleges and universities often took the education of democratic citizens (actual and potential) as central to their mission. Many schools designed mandatory curricula accordingly. Today, after a long hiatus, civic education is again a live issue in a growing number of post-secondary institutions. In the context of intensifying criticism (especially, but not only from the Right) of the direction of American universities; of questions about the purpose and value of higher education, of fierce debates about immigration, naturalization, and citizenship; and of increasing concern about the future of democracy, politicians, administrators, and faculty have become involved in designing and implementing civics curricula imagined as appropriate for the 21st century.

The impetus for the new programs comes in some cases from elected officials (state governors, legislators). It sometimes takes the form of legislative mandates for public universities, especially in red states. In other cases, however, it is line faculty who are leading the effort to restore a focus on civic education. Post-secondary civics programs that are newly instituted, in-preparation, or still in preliminary planning stage vary dramatically in form and content. Large and small, public and private, well-resourced and financially challenged institutions face very different sets of issues. Programs vary substantially in ideological focus. Yet there are several issues that appear to be common across a range of the new civics initiatives: These include a perceived need to address questions of academic freedom and freedom of expression; the desirability and difficulty of fostering civil discourse among students with different social identities, life experiences, and value commitments; and the imperative of honoring viewpoint diversity. How do all that, while avoiding devolving into mere indoctrination, in a context of increasing political polarization, omnipresent social media, and a general decline of trust in institutions? That is a set of primary challenges faced by every 21st century civics program.

Our panel features instructors at different career stages. They teach at public and private institutions, varying widely in size and resources. Each of our panelists is involved in planning and/or implementing civics programs. Those programs, and the faculty and administrators most responsible for them, have ideological profiles that may reasonably be identified as ranging from liberal/progressive to conservative. But those programs are also publicly committed to presenting an education that rejects ideological posturing and proselytizing.

All panel participants will have participated in a preliminary in-person workshop, to be held at Stanford in April 2024. The attendees at the workshop are motivated, first, by a shared belief that there is indeed a growing interest in post-secondary civic education among faculty, administrators, alumni, legislators, and ordinary citizens – as well as on the part of many students. And by a conviction that the interest in civics needs to be addressed, both by courses and by experiential learning. Next, we share an awareness of pluralistic diversity: civic education programs at four-year post-secondary institutions will necessarily be different, in form and content, at different kinds of post-secondary institutions and in different parts of the country. Finally, we are motivated by the hope that, despite those manifold differences, there may be some areas of agreement, such that faculty sincerely committed to the higher education of democratic citizens could commit to certain core principles. We hope that the Stanford workshop will result in a preliminary draft of shared principles – or alternatively a clearer idea of why agreement could not be reached.

The panel will feature brief statements from each participant, describing civic education-relevant developments at their institution, sketching accomplishments, but also noting problems and impediments. We will report on progress (or lack thereof) in developing shared principles that could be adopted at different institutions. The bulk of the session will be devoted to Q&A, among the participants and the audience. The goal of the panel is to present a (necessarily partial) picture of the state of civic education programming at four-year colleges and universities, highlighting diversity of approaches and common themes; and both approaches that have been so-far successful approaches and those that have encountered roadblocks.

Centers of Civic Engagement: Supporting Campuses for the 2024 Elections

Friday, September 6, 10:00am – 11:30am Roundtable

Participants : (Chair) Elizabeth C. Matto, Rutgers University, New Brunswick (Presenter) Laurel Elder, Hartwick College (Presenter) Karen M. Kedrowski, Iowa State University (Presenter) Mary A. McHugh, Merrimack College (Presenter) Judithanne Scourfield McLauchlan, University of South Florida (Presenter) Leah A. Murray, Weber State University (Presenter) J. Cherie Strachan, The University of Akron

Session Description: Conditions surrounding the 2024 presidential contest for president and elections nationwide highlight the great challenges currently facing America’s democratic system. At the same time, centers and institutes of politics and civic engagement offer a promising route for colleges and universities focused upon equipping and encouraging their students to participate in next year’s election. Centers and institutes of civic engagement and politics link the study of politics with the practice of politics, and their emphasis on applied research and practice set them apart from departments of political science. For students seeking civic learning and engagement opportunities that help them better understand contemporary American politics and their role in it, centers and institutes meet critical civic teaching and learning needs facing higher education.

This roundtable discussion brings together directors of centers and institutes of civic engagement and politics from a variety of colleges and universities across the country. Roundtable participants will share the mission and role of their center/institute on their college campus, highlight the ways in which their units can support students and campus communities in relation to the upcoming election, discuss the unique strengths but also the challenges faced by centers and institutes, and offer guidance on how to engage with centers and institutes on your campus. This roundtable discussion builds upon research published in the APSA edited volume Teaching Civic Engagement Across the Disciplines (2017) and promises to serve as a unifying effort to confront the democratic challenges our campuses and country likely will face this election.

Civic Learning on Campus: Bringing Political Science In Mini-Conference II: Political Science’s Role in the Educating for American Democracy Roadmap

Friday, September 6, 12:00pm – 1:30pm Roundtable

Participants : (Chair) Shawn Paul Healy, State Policy and Advocacy (Presenter) Paul O. Carrese, Arizona State University (Presenter) Peter Levine, Tufts University

Session Description: The Educating for American Democracy (EAD) Roadmap reimagines K-12 civic education and requires alignment with the higher education community, political scientists in particular. A viewpoint diverse national network of scholars, educators, and practitioners synthesized expert judgment from the fields of history, political science, law, and education about the content and instructional strategies needed for excellent history and civic education for all learners. The EAD Roadmap guides state and federal policy advocacy efforts to strengthen K-12 civic education and will ultimately influence the civic development of the nation’s high school graduates and future college attendees. This requires vertical alignment with undergraduate political science courses and developing stronger political science content knowledge among collegiate preservice teachers. This session will provide an overview of the EAD Roadmap and discuss how political scientists can help fuel its implementation for the sake of the strength and sustenance of our constitutional democracy.

Speech under FIRE: Strengthening Free Expression in Higher Education

Friday, September 6, 2:00pm – 3:30pm Roundtable

Participants : (Chair) Robert Maranto, University of Arkansas (Presenter) Jonathan Zimmerman, University of Pennsylvania (Presenter) Greg Lukianoff, FIRE (Presenter) Wilfred Reilly, Kentucky State University (Presenter) Matthew Woessner, United States Army War College (Presenter) Cory Clark, University of Pennsylvania (Presenter) Elizabeth Weiss, San Jose State University

Session Description: In the wake of pro-Hamas protests following the October 7th Hamas attack on Israel, the leaders of MIT, the University of Pennsylvania, and Harvard University braved a hostile December 5th congressional hearing on antisemitism on their campuses. When pressed on whether calls for committing genocide against Jews violated their university policies, all claimed vigorous protections for controversial speech, replying with variations of “context matters” (Jussim, 2023; Mounk, 2023).

This was the technically correct response, because unless speech calls for imminent violence directed at a specific person (e.g., “let’s kill Bill”), their policies protect it, and arguably should, since university students and professors must feel free to consider a wide range of ideas in seeking truth (Whittington, 2018).

The problem was not that the three leaders espoused the wrong policies; it was that all three institutions (but especially Harvard) have poor records defending faculty engaging in speech far less controversial than calls for genocide. In this way, universities may sometimes undermine pluralism. For example, Harvard effectively ousted a biology professor for claiming that sex was biological and mainly binary. Penn spent two years investigating Amy Wax, seemingly for the purpose of revoking her tenure because of her criticisms of affirmative action and controversial arguments against immigration from non-Western societies. MIT cancelled a talk on exoplanets (planets beyond our solar system) by University of Chicago Geophysical Scientist Dorian Abbot because in an unrelated Newsweek essay he advocated using academic merit criteria (Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023, 74-6; 205-7; Maranto & Reilly, 2022).

These are hardly isolated incidents. Just months before the infamous congressional hearing, Harvard earned the worst Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) rating for free speech ever recorded, coming in dead last at 248th in the U.S., just behind Penn’s 247th (Stevens, 2023). MIT ranked far higher (136th), but still well below the robust protections for speech and academic freedom professed by its president before Congress. (FIRE uses a combination of formal policies and student surveys.)

Quite simply, many professors and students are afraid to say what they think. This undermines research, teaching, and even democracy, which as the conference invitation points out, requires cultures of “deliberation, negotiation, and compromise.” As a professor at one of these institutions complained privately, for fear of speaking in public, their university “is worse than the FIRE rating since many professors are punished for their findings. And this is kept under the radar. It’s common for deans to tell professors they are fired, the professor says they will go public, so then the university pays them to go away.” (October 16, 2023)

Seemingly, many U.S. colleges and universities, and particularly the most prestigious, are using bureaucratic enforcers to create the climates of fear more typical in hierarchical corporations or even authoritarian political systems, albeit without physical violence (Corn-Revere, 2021; Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018). Research, teaching, and democratic governance cannot work well in such climates. If we fail to tell these stories and hold leaders accountable, then behaviors which undermine teaching and research will continue to metastasize.

So, what is to be done? We have assembled a panel of professors and other intellectuals to discuss ways to improve the climate for free speech and (relatedly) free inquiry at U.S. universities. Their initial ideas include restricting the scope of higher education bureaucracies which tend to reduce free speech, encouraging departments and whole institutions to adopt versions of the Chicago Principles on free expression and the earlier Kalven Report on institutional neutrality (which enables professors and students to speak independently of their institutions), developing courses and orientation programs on the history and importance of free expression, having regular campus debates to familiarize students with cultures of productive disagreement, reforming K-12 civics education to teach how First Amendment rights enable diversity, and developing free speech oriented faculty and student groups as happened at Harvard in early 2023 in reaction to administration actions there. Ideally, reforms will come from inside higher education rather than being imposed by outsiders.

References available on request.

Elephants in the Room: Civic Education Mandated by Red-State Legislatures

Friday, September 6, 4:00pm – 5:30pm Roundtable

Participants : (Chair) Jenna Silber Storey, American Enterprise Institute (Presenter) Lee John Strang, University of Toledo College of Law (Presenter) Paul O. Carrese, Arizona State University (Presenter) Joshua M. Dunn, University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Session Description: In the last few years, red-state legislatures have launched the most ambitious projects in university-level civic education that our country has seen in decades. The model for this mode of reform is Arizona State University’s School of Civic Thought and Leadership, founded in 2017 through the efforts of Governor Doug Ducey and the Arizona state legislature, and developed under the directorship of political philosophy professor Paul Carrese. Since 2021, similar schools have been mandated in public universities in Florida, Texas, Tennessee, North Carolina, Mississippi, Utah, and Ohio, with more likely to come. Together these schools constitute a significant innovation in higher education that needs to be more broadly understood. This panel brings together several directors of these new projects to engage with each other and audience members, with the goal of bringing about a greater understanding of the aims of these new schools in the political science community.

I will pose questions such as the following: Is it legitimate for state legislatures to establish new academic units at public universities? What are the appropriate boundaries of political influence on public universities? What do state politicians see as the perceived need for such schools? What do the academic leaders of these programs see as the need for new schools? What constitutes an appropriate university-level civic education? How do the academic leaders see the relation of the programs of teaching and research that they will support to the political impetus that launched them? How will these new schools engage with existing schools and disciplines on campus? What is the long-term ambition for these schools?

Civic Learning on Campus: Bringing Political Science In Mini-Conference III

The trouble with facts: reimagining the role of information in democracy.

Saturday, September 7, 8:00am – 9:30am Full Paper Panel

Participants : (Chair) Rachel Lee Wahl, University of Virginia

Session Description: The effort to combat misinformation and disinformation is at once crucial to a robust democracy and yet also at odds with some of its central tenets. People need to know what is true about the conditions of our shared society in order to make reasonable judgments on what to do; it is for good reason that Thomas Jefferson stated, or even more tellingly is widely quoted as stating, that a “well-informed electorate is a prerequisite to democracy.” And Hannah Arendt, who against the grain of many theorists of deliberation insisted that public discourse is not about abstracting out of personal opinion but rather seeking to understand the opinions held by others, nonetheless emphasized that there must be a world in common about which to hold differing opinions. False information, whether deliberately falsified or not, threatens the world in common and the sound basis by which citizens make decisions.

Yet also liberal democracy is premised on the idea that nobody has truth in the bag. Indeed, Mill’s conviction that epistemic excellence requires an open field in which competing ideas come into contact has become a foundation upon which this form of society is built and justified. As well, partly for this reason but also to protect the rights of the individual, liberal democracies protect free expression. Especially in the United States this right has been robust and widely protective. In particular according to this premise, governing authorities and other elites should not control the ideas people can express, even if they are sure that those ideas are misguided.

While campaigns to combat mis-and dis-information seem caught on the horns of this dilemma about competing requirements for democracy, these efforts also tend to rest on a less acknowledged assumption. The refrain that ‘if only people had the facts, they would agree with me’ is as seductive as it is untrue. People tend to assume that they see the world correctly, and so when they look to agreement on the facts as a solution to political divisions, they often tacitly imagine that this will involve others coming to agree with them. In contexts of deep division, however, this insistence is likely to deepen divisions rather than bridge them, and so campaigns to spread the ‘right’ information are less about finding agreement and more about getting others to agree with “us.”

This panel calls into question the premise that a central problem of democracy is the spread of incorrect information. The papers instead examine the social processes that shape whether and how people come into contact with information, and what they do with information when they learn it. The panel examines too the implications of these social processes for efforts to communicate across epistemic divides. Then, the papers consider the implications for educational efforts to strengthen democracy.

The panel papers tackle different dimensions of this central set of dilemmas. Ben-Porath examines the macro-level context of how and why political polarization extends beyond division over ethical-political decisions to include the kind of evidence deemed relevant to these decisions. Wahl explores how this process takes shape on a micro-level, drawing on in-depth interviews with polarized college students to understand how their interpretive communities shape to which facts they give emotional attention and weight. Finally, Laden assesses the social landscape of trust at the root of these distinctions and how educators might begin to ameliorate the abyss of trust between political communities.

In keeping with the panel’s emphasis on dialogue, the panel will strive to move beyond the typical monological format. Panelists will ask the audience to think of the paper presentations as provocations for discussion. At the conclusion of the paper presentations, rather than take discrete questions, the floor will be opened for a seminar-style discussion in which audience members will be encouraged to talk with each other as much as with the panel.

Papers : Evidence in Polarized Democracies Sigal R. Ben-Porath, University of Pennsylvania

Ben-Porath’s paper will consider the effects of polarization on evidentiary practices. Professional standards of research and evidence are stressed by contemporary realities of polarization. For example, the resurgence of white nationalism is accompanied by a parallel rise of studies that aim to resurrect ‘race science’ studies attesting to innate racial differences. These ‘ghost disciplines,’ which continue to circulate no matter how often their premises are refuted, challenge the capacity of scholarly endeavors to expose and ground true findings. Given that our emotions influence our perceptions and sometimes our capacity to be persuaded by evidence and given that political emotions run high in polarized times, evidentiary practices need to be reassessed to preserve their professional and epistemic quality.

Trust in Polarized Democracies Anthony Simon Laden, University of Illinois, Chicago

Laden’s paper starts by drawing a distinction between facts and information: whereas what counts as a fact is not dependent on an agent, what she counts as information is. A person counts as information material that derives from a source that she regards as reliable and uses it as information with which to think when she trusts that source. It then argues that democratic deliberation falters when citizens trust different sources of information, and especially when they disagree about the grounds for regarding sources as trustworthy. This isolates people on cognitive islands and makes them unable to genuinely talk to one another. Since the ground of this difficulty lies in what and how various citizens come to trust sources of information, the solution lies in working out grounds of trust that can bridge the gaps between cognitive islands. The paper argues that an informational trust network that rests on an ideology of open-mindedness can serve this purpose in a way that a network that rests on a broadly scientific ideology cannot. While both can regard the products of science done well as trustworthy, the former does not succumb to the temptation to believe that the problem is merely that other people do not believe in facts or science and so need to be ignored or converted.

Empathy in Polarized Democracies Rachel Lee Wahl, University of Virginia

Wahl’s paper explores how the communities within which people interpret information shape what they do with the information they encounter, with particular attention to the cultivation of “imaginative empathy,” or the inclination to imagine the suffering of another. Drawing on in-depth interviews with university students who participated in dialogue across political divides, Wahl argues that among other functions, interpretive communities shape which information is dramatized into an imagined first-person experience. Whose suffering do we learn of but pass by, and with whose suffering do we enter into in an imagined experience that dramatizes moral and emotional stakes? Due to the way in which interpretive communities cultivate imagined empathy, Wahl argues, at issue in political divides is often not whether one agrees with a set of facts or principles but rather whether someone has been led to care about something or someone else more. It is often a matter of caring more about someone or something else, than it is about failing to see the principle underlying a position. This makes dialogue limited in its persuasive power. However, it also means that dialogue can deepen the commitments of people who have already strained to imagine the experiences to which their interpretive communities have directed them, as well as, in keeping with the hope of theorists such as Danielle Allen, begin to imagine the inner lives of people outside their circle of concern.

Local Political Institutions and Citizen Engagement across Cases

Saturday, September 7, 10:00am – 11:30am Co-sponsored by Division 30: Urban Politics Full Paper Panel

Participants : (Chair) Matthew Gabel, Washington University in St. Louis (Discussant) Tyler Simko, Harvard University (Discussant) Sara Constantino, Northeastern University

Session Description: Differences in local political institutions have led to variation in key aspects of political life across neighborhoods, cities, and counties. Through an investigation of citizen engagement (e.g., public comments and voter turnout) and local political institutions (e.g., municipal incorporation status, administrative boundaries, and organizational structure), this panel explores how various aspects of local governance influence political participation, representation, and equity in policy outcomes within and across cities and unincorporated areas.

Papers on this panel use a range of methods to scrutinize different elements of local governance and citizen engagement in cities across the United States, with an additional example from Brazil. Simko et al. assess how variation in institutional design shapes issue attention at school board meetings in the U.S. by examining public comments, with over 130,000 transcripts and videos spanning a decade. Sahn explores voters’ evaluations of local incumbents (city councilor or mayor) by analyzing public comments about housing project approvals in the U.S. and discusses the electoral implications. Donaghy focuses on another element of housing policy: the impact of local institutions on the ability of community land trusts to incorporate the voices of low-income citizens in cities in the U.S. and Brazil. The final two papers focus on the equity implications of municipal boundaries and political fragmentation in the U.S. Carr and Van Hulle study how municipal boundaries affect equity in land-use, tax, and economic development policy, with a focus in Cook County, Illinois. Trojahn et al. also analyze how city limits – and changes in their boundaries through annexation or municipal underbounding – are associated with demographic change, environmental conditions, and voter turnout, with quantitative and qualitative data from Texas.

The papers on this panel show how local institutional design affects whose voices are heard and represented in – or excluded from – key outcomes such as public service provision, education, housing, infrastructure investment, climate change adaptation measures, land-use, taxes, and economic development policies, with implications for urban politics and civic engagement across the Global North and South.

Papers : Issue Attention in US Local Education Policy-Making Tyler Simko, Harvard University; Rebecca Johnson; Soubhik Barari, Harvard University

The vast majority of education policy decisions in the US are taken by local school district officials in public meetings. Yet, these discussions are difficult to study at scale due to a lack of centralized meeting data. We extend recent work by Barari and Simko (2023) to create DistrictView, a dataset of over 130,000 school board meeting transcripts and videos from more than 1,500 school districts across the country. Our sample spans over a decade and represents about 1 in 8 districts nationwide. Here, we describe the computational pipeline used to create DistrictView, which relies on the YouTube API, manual validation, and text analysis. We present results on how local school districts and public commenters devote discussion time to issues in public meetings. Further, we analyze how these trends differ between policy areas, across places, and over time. Finally, we explore how institutional design of local school districts shapes the dynamics of issue attention.

More Bark than Bite: Prospective Threats and Retrospective Views Alexander Laurence Sahn, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Re-election seeking politicians are concerned with the threat of voters throwing them out of office based on policy decisions they have made. Voters and interest groups may prospectively signal that a proposed policy they do not like will trigger negative retrospection and risk-averse politicians, unable to observe counterfactual scenarios, may be inclined to oppose the policy. How much of these prospective signals are cheap talk? I investigate this question using public comments made by voters on approvals of development projects at public meetings on projects that have since been completed. Comparing voters who commented on housing approvals to nearby voters who did not, I establish: 1) whether commenters recall their participation, the stance they communicated, and the reasons they provided, 2) whether they noticed the completion of the project they commented only and whether they believe it had the effects they anticipated in their comment, and 3) whether they have changed their evaluation of their city councilor or mayor and their vote intention.

The Impact of Local Institutions and Organizations on Community Land Trusts Maureen M. Donaghy, Rutgers University, Camden

Community land trusts (CLTs) emerged in the United States during the Civil Rights Era as mechanisms to enable communal land holding and community building among residents who were previously excluded from both land ownership and local structures of political power. In the decades since, CLTs have become more common as remedies to the housing affordability crisis in U.S. cities as well as instruments to bring communities together to improve blighted neighborhoods. In this paper I ask how local institutional and organizational environments contribute to the creation, democratic structure, and ideological goals of CLTs. In addition, as CLTs become more ubiquitous I ask how the original intention to challenge local power structures and promote empowerment of residents has evolved, particularly in the search for urgent solutions to the crisis of affordability of shelter within our cities. As CLTs are now spreading to more diverse parts of the world than ever before, including communities in Brazil, the answers to whether and how the local institutional and organizational environments shape the role of CLTs to incorporate the voices of low-income citizens and transform urban governance have great implications. This paper assesses the context of cases in the U.S. and Brazil, drawing lessons across the Global North and South.

Changing City Limits: How Annexation Shapes Social and Political Outcomes Kyle Anthony Trojahn, The University of Texas at Austin; Sara Constantino, Northeastern University; Alicia Dailey Cooperman, George Washington University; Manuela Muñoz Fuerte, Texas A&M University

City limits shape daily life: local political boundaries in the US affect taxes, zoning, service provision, emergency management, and more. Cities often have more taxes and restrictions but offer their residents more services than unincorporated (county) areas, but these boundaries are not fixed. The annexation of neighborhoods into cities has created a patchworked geography and complex governance system that includes “donut holes” – unincorporated areas surrounded by incorporated areas and managed by a mix of municipal, county, and special district actors. We begin with a descriptive analysis of incorporated and unincorporated areas, including demographics (race, income) and environmental conditions (flood risk). With longitudinal data on changes in annexation from 2010-20 in Texas merged with Census block and precinct turnout data, we ask how annexation is associated with changes in local demographics and political participation. We expect that residing in an area that is annexed into city limits increases the salience of political issues and thus increases voter turnout, especially in elections for local and state offices. We incorporate qualitative data from case studies of counties on the Gulf Coast with different social and political demographics: Galveston County outside of Houston and Cameron County on the Mexican border. This mixed-methods study provides insight into the interaction of political institutions and political behavior and explores the impact of city limits on accountability, representation, and gentrification.

Do Political Boundaries Generate an Inequitable Distribution of Public Goods? Jered B. Carr, University of Illinois at Chicago; Michael Van Hulle, University of Illinois, Chicago

In his influential 2000 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory paper, David Lowery argued that the fragmentation of political authority among myriad local governments thwarts the equitable and efficient provision of public goods and policies across metropolitan regions. These government boundaries, already seen as reinforcing racial and economic segregation, also exacerbate political inequities because communities most in need of public goods and services lack a shared political venue with resource-rich communities, separating problems from the resources needed to solve them. This division of problems from the resources needed to solve them also increases the cost for underprivileged communities to acquire needed public goods and policies because they must turn to either regional organizations or intergovernmental agreements to meet their political needs. Lowery (2000) asserted that these factors transform region-wide allocation problems into inter-community redistribution problems, which are politically difficult for communities to address. Given that the challenges faced by low resource communities generate negative region-wide externalities, he proposed there is an inefficient supply and allocation of policies that facilitate economic development and regulate land use. Regional consolidation, he argued, was the solution to this undersupply of public policies and services by reframing distribution problems into more readily resolved problems of misallocation. Moreover, consolidation would reduce transaction costs because there would be a region-wide political forum where all communities’ voices could be heard. Lowery’s (2000) claims have intuitive appeal but have not been empirically verified. We address this gap by analyzing patterns of the allocation of public policies and services, specifically land use and development regulation, in Cook County, Illinois. Cook County provides an excellent to examine Lowery’s propositions because it is bifurcated into the City of Chicago and over 100 suburban municipalities. To evaluate Lowery’s (2000) assertion that land-use and economic development policies are undersupplied in fragmented political regions, we evaluate how Chicago, and its surrounding suburban communities, utilize land-use and development policy tools. While these policies, such as provision of property tax incentives for economic development or property classification decisions for taxing purposes, are available to all municipalities in the county, they are adopted at the municipal level by municipal governments and only administered by the county. Based on census data, we then calculate the optimal distribution and use of these policies, such as tax incentives, and subsequently evaluate whether Chicago—a unified municipality—better achieves this optimal distribution than the fragmented municipalities that govern the remaining half the population of Cook County. Our results provide important evidence about the effect of political fragmentation or consolidation on the efficient supply of public services and policies.

Political Theorists on Civic Education

Saturday, September 7, 12:00pm – 1:30pm Full Paper Panel

Participants : (Chair) Peter Levine, Tufts University (Discussant) Joshua M. Dunn, University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Session Description: The panelists will explore four major political theorists’ perspectives on civic education. The papers and discussion will suggest insights about the mini-conference theme of “Civic Learning on Campus: Bringing Political Science In.”

Papers : A DuBoisan Approach to Civic Education Matthew D. Nelsen, University of Miami

This paper presents a DuBoisian approach to civic education. The paper first situates W.E.B. Du Bois as a central figure in discussions of civic education in the United States by highlighting his work that explicitly engages with questions surrounding democratic education for African Americans. Du Bois’ writings demonstrate that he understood the importance of inclusive curricula and meaningful conversations about politics within processes of political socialization, a finding reflected in more recent work aiming to revitalize civic education in the United States. He also recognized the importance of educational institutions that primarily serve Black students within processes of political learning. Drawing from these insights, the paper presents analyses from a nationally representative survey of Americans to assess whether the tangible pedagogical techniques and learning outcomes promoted by Du Bois are able to win favor with important subsets of Americans. As Republicans weaponize debates over educational content to mobilize their base and Democrats struggle with how to respond, a DuBosian approach to civic education may provide a meaningful path forward for those hoping to revitalize civic education in the United States.

Tocqueville on America’s “Reflective Patriotism” and Lessons for Civic Education Paul O. Carrese, Arizona State University

Tocqueville argues in Democracy in America (1835, 1840) that Americans have a new kind of “public spirit” – a “reflective patriotism” that arises as much from a citizen’s rational consideration of the self-interested benefits for self, family, and friends of being American and of undertaking self-government and civic service as it does from sentiments of love of native country, and pride in country. Tocqueville notes the strong contrast to Old World patriotism, which is entirely sentimental – of passionate attachment to native soil, history of one’s community, and tradition. One new characteristic of this reflective (also translated “considered” or “rational”) patriotism is that the Americans are argumentative. Their patriotism arises from a view of natural rights that the government should guarantee, thus they want to argue about the government and politics, the meaning of America, and with each other. That said, Tocqueville notes that the traditional, sentimental elements remain along with the new, rational ones: Americans are proud of America, testy when foreigners criticize America, and have genuine love of both their particular states and of the American federal republic as a real nation. In the 21st century crisis of American civic culture, which at least correlates with a crisis of civic education, Tocqueville’s view of a complex and enlightened, rational patriotism offers important resources for understanding why America’s civic culture is disintegrating into loss of confidence in all national institutions and professions, and into angry polarization; and why we also are suffering serious deficits of civic knowledge and of civic attachment or patriotism, especially among younger age cohorts. Tocqueville does qualify his main account of “reflective patriotism,” offered midway through Volume One of Democracy, in later sections of the work; he worries that rational self-interest is not an adequately strong basis for a sustainable patriotism, and that patriotism is necessary for sustaining any form of government. He also argues that America’s foundational religious culture is a crucial foundation for its rational patriotism; that the Americans may tell themselves they are patriotic and undertake civic duties out of rational self-interest but, in fact, they undertake altruistic, magnanimous acts as much as other peoples or cultures do. Tocqueville thus notes the Americans honor their rational, calculating philosophy more than themselves. One lesson for current debates about American civic culture and civic education is that, given our strong culture of free speech and argumentation, this account of a rational, reflective patriotism is an important resource for a theoretical understanding of what a healthy American civic culture could be as well as a practical resource for university educators, K-12 school educators, and others undertaking civic education. Second, his strong emphasis on patriotism – from the Introduction to Democracy through passages in Volume Two – itself offers a lesson to university educators, that patriotism is an important subject for public universities at least but arguably also for private universities and colleges; given that the latter claim to be educating leaders for American society and receive in return substantial federal funding and public status. Third, the decline in religious beliefs among Americans – studied in Putnam & Campbell, American Grace (2012) and more recently in other works and reports – indicates a serious challenge for reviving a reflective patriotism, given Tocqueville’s view that religious belief is a crucial foundation for the rational patriotism and enlightened self-interest of the Americans. Their confidence that if they invest in civic duties and service for local, state, or national communities, in fact it will redound to the benefit of themselves, family, and friends, rests on ontological confidence from a metaphysical view of the human soul and the cosmos. This is why in Volume Two of Democracy Tocqueville urges statesmen and other leaders to indirectly encourage religious belief in the citizenry, to counteract the corrosive effects he can already see of materialism, rationalism, and individualism arising from America’s democratic, egalitarian, prosperity-driven culture. Given the calamitous decline in confidence in all American institutions and professions, and the recent struggle to recruit young people to serve in the American military, educators must more emphatically discuss such root causes of these problems. Fourth, several recent works, including Steven Smith, Reclaiming Patriotism (2021) and Richard Haass, The Bill of Obligations (2023), as well as the national report on K-12 civics and history education Educating for American Democracy (2021), provide confirmation of the salience of Tocqueville’s insights, and how research and curricula might be adjusted to redress the severe crises of civic culture and civics that America now faces.

Revisiting Elinor Ostrom’s Presidential Address Peter Levine, Tufts University

In her 1997 APSA presidential address, Ostrom called for civic education that was less about the nation-state and more about sharing the practical knowledge necessary to form and maintain voluntary associations. For her, “bringing political science in” meant tapping political scientists’ expertise in the Tocquevillian “arts of association.” She spoke at a time of concern about declining social capital and confidence–or even complacency–about the US constitutional order. Today, democracy appears at risk, and there is renewed attention to civic education about (and in service to) the nation-state, as epitomized by the recent Educating for American Democracy project. But is Ostrom’s vision still relevant?

Addressing Democratic Backsliding through Innovative Youth Engagement

Saturday, September 7, 2:00pm – 3:30pm Full Paper Panel

Participants : (Chair) Jonathan Collins, Teachers College, Columbia University

Session Description : How can K-12 civics education respond to democratic backsliding? Ample literature in political science now documents the American public’s persisting decline in trust in government and over two decades of deep partisan polarization. Beyond the implications for current politics, these trends raise alarming questions about America’s next generation. Are kids being socialized into a society of declining democratic norms? If so, civics education is the one widely accessible practice that can counteract it, but to what extent can a civics model deepen kids’ faith in democracy and empower them to participate in politics? This session brings together papers that offer conceptual models and empirical research designs that collectively explore this question.

Papers: Connecting K-12 Classrooms to Congress Kevin M. Esterling, University of California, Riverside; Michael Neblo, Ohio State University; Jonathan Collins, Teachers College, Columbia University; Joseph Kahne, University of California, Riverside; William Minozzi, Ohio State University

Participatory Redistribution: A Theory and Test of a Democratic Model of Urban School Reform Jonathan Collins, Teachers College, Columbia University

Educating for American Democracy Joseph Kahne, University of California, Riverside; Benjamin T. Bowyer, University of California-Riverside- Graduate School of Education

Non-partisan and No-Blame: A Civic Education Resource to Meet the Moment

Saturday, September 7, 4:00pm – 5:30pm Roundtable

Participants : (Chair) Rogers M. Smith, University of Pennsylvania (Presenter) Erin E. Richards, Cascadia Community College (Presenter) Jasmine Noelle Yarish, University of the District of Columbia (Presenter) Joanna Kenty (Presenter) Stephanie Lynn Williams, University of South Florida

Session Description: At this roundtable, participants will hear about how nonpartisan teaching tools from The Citizens Campaign have been implemented in college courses at two different institutions – a West Coast community college and an East Coast HBCU – and will generate ideas about how they could adapt this program to their own home institutions. The Citizens Campaign has developed nonpartisan training tools to help citizens learn to engage in public decision-making on the local level using a pragmatic No-Blame© approach. In political science courses, these teaching tools have helped students to focus on advancing evidence-based solutions in their local communities, strengthening their civic self-image as potential leaders and sense of civic connectedness to place.

This approach is particularly valuable in the present moment, as critics of higher education are claiming that colleges and universities fail to foster useful skills and instead engage in political indoctrination. Though many states are adopting new civic literacy requirements, many forms of civic education are also being criticized for allegedly encouraging radical student activism or simply cynicism. No-Blame Problem Solving offers a positive ethos and a practical roadmap for constructive participation through accessible, impactful local opportunities, which helps students to move past cynicism or negative preconceptions about political participation. The Citizens Campaign has based their training on the strategies of successful practitioners, rooted in the belief that citizens must work together with government officials to find solutions to the problems we face in our communities. Students learn how to research existing solutions to civic problems, how to deliberate on possible solutions collaboratively and constructively, and how to engage with local decision-makers to get things done, rather than to give in to despair or scapegoating. A self-paced online certificate course from The Citizens Campaign serves as an open-access multi-media textbook and roadmap for retrenching democratic literacy in an age of expanding authoritarian politics and decreasing trust in government. It is also offered as a non-credit micro-credential for continuing education.

Chaired by Rogers Smith, this panel explores multiple best practices for integrating this resource into political science, general education, and continuing education offerings. Jasmine Noelle Yarish of the University of DC will discuss her experience using the self-paced online course in a general education civics course. Erin Richards of Cascadia College will address how she helps students to identify a problem in their community that they want to fix, and then apply the No-Blame Problem Solving approach to crafting a solution to that problem which is then presented to elected officials at the end of the term. This project-based, High-Impact approach helps students to reimagine their role as democratic citizens and recognize their own civic agency, even if they are non-citizens or too young to vote in national elections. Students learn by experience that solutions to what seem like small local problems can actually have large impacts. Finally, Joanna Kenty from The Citizens Campaign will review the training tools from The Citizens Campaign and how they can be used in undergraduate coursework, for campus groups, and for community members or partners via continuing education platforms.

Congressional Fellowship Program (CFP) Mini-Conference

Sponsored by APSA’s Congressional Fellowship Program.

Learning from Global Democratic Challenges and Innovations Mini-Conference I

Countering illiberalism in liberal democracies i: constitutional perspectives.

Thursday, September 5, 8:00am – 9:30am Co-sponsored by Division 11: Comparative Politics Full Paper Panel

Participants : (Chair) Kim Lane Scheppele, Princeton University (Discussant) Jacob S. Hacker, Yale University (Discussant) Robert R. Kaufman, Rutgers University, New Brunswick

Session Description: The literature on the current crisis of liberal democracy focuses on the rise of illiberalism and populism as well as on the erosion of democratic rights and institutions; less systematic attention has been paid to how pro-democratic actors can counter illiberalism. The scholarship on responses to illiberalism is scattered across different subfields, including analyses of legal and judicial restrictions on extremism, studies of party organization and competition, works on civil society organizations and social movements, and analyses of voting behavior. This panel and its companion panel “Countering Illiberalism in Liberal Democracies II: Political and Civil Society” are part of a collective project that brings together scholars from different subfields to analyze the conditions of viability and effectiveness of strategies that governments, parties, civil society actors, and voters can enact to prevent the rise, contain the influence, and – if illiberal forces attain control of the executive– resist the power of political illiberalism in democracies.

Papers : Countering Illiberalism in Liberal Democracies: Actors, Strategies, Temporalities Giovanni Capoccia, University of Oxford

Most literature on democratic backsliding in liberal democracies focuses on the erosion of democratic rights and institutions. Less systematic attention has been paid to how pro-democracy actors can respond to illiberal threats, especially in the short-term. This paper lays the foundations for a research agenda on the conditions under which illiberals can be successfully countered. It discusses the use of formal, informal, and mobilization strategies in different scenarios, with illiberals in power (resistance) or in opposition (containment and prevention), focusing on how the timing of intervention against illiberals exposes pro-democratic actors to different tradeoffs and dilemmas. It articulates how early intervention against illiberals may have a higher chance of success in different scenarios and diffusion can make the related tradeoffs easier to navigate in some circumstances. Finally, the paper outlines specific priorities for future empirical research and lays out how they are addressed in the articles in this volume.

Defending Parliament: Responses of Mainstream Parties to Parliamentary Erosion Isabela Mares, Yale University

Historically, extremist parties have engaged in a process of parliamentary disruption, violating the rules of interaction, and slowing down the legislative process. How can democratic parties respond to these strategies and counter parliamentary erosion? This paper examines the political reforms adopted in Third Republic France and Weimar Germany which sought to defend parliamentarism. I propose a typology of the policies of parliamentary defense and an explanation of partisan demand for different policies that target individual or collective groups of legislators. I document that French legislators took a much more decisive approach in the defense of parliamentary institutions as compared to German lawmakers and show that this difference can be attributed to the more proactive position of the French Socialist party. While existing research on democratic erosion has highlighted the role of center-right parties in explaining regime breakdown, this paper demonstrates that in explaining parliamentary erosion, we need to consider the strategies of all mainstream parties and not just parties on the right.

Democracy-Reinforcing Constitutional Hardball David Alexander Bateman, Cornell University

The threat of democratic backsliding has prompted growing interest in political “hardball”: the pursuit of legal and constitutional changes with the intended purpose of biasing outcomes in favor of one party or set of outcomes over others. Such actions can be construed as constitutional and within the basic rules of the democratic game. But they are in deep tension with a broader concern that these rules ought to be insulated from the political contest for power. This paper provides a new definition of what I call democracy reinforcing hardball, and a framework for thinking about when it might be successful. I first provide a critical overview of the growing empirical literature on averting democratic backsliding, highlighting how many of the proposed reforms ultimately take for granted conditions that no longer exist. I outline the conditions under which hardball might be democracy-reinforcing and examine three historical cases in which it had the long-term effect of re-stabilizing a democratic political order.

Institutional Responses to Illiberalism in Greece Antonis A. Ellinas, University of Cyprus

The growing political prominence of illiberal actors in liberal democratic polities has added urgency to an ongoing debate about how democracies respond to illiberalism. Much of this discussion has focused on structural facilitators of democratic defense, underestimating the political dynamics driving institutional responses to illiberalism. This article develops a dynamic model to capture the factors driving change from institutional tolerance of, to defense against, ascending illiberalism. The model considers the tactical dilemmas over the use of institutional measures against ascending illiberals. Documenting the “tactical oscillation” of moderate actors, the article shows how democratic defense is integral to the competitive dynamics between the government and the opposition and between ideologically proximate and distant actors to the illiberals. Leveraging empirical evidence from Greece, the article documents the tactical dilemmas of moderate actors over the treatment of one of the most illiberal actors in Europe, the Golden Dawn. It then shows how the resolution of these dilemmas helped bring about a major shift from democratic tolerance to militancy. The analysis highlights the temporal specificity of institutional responses and casts new light on the tactical incentives of moderate actors, especially those most ideologically proximate to the illiberals, to repress them.

Countering Illiberalism in Liberal Democracies II: Political and Civil Society

Thursday, September 5, 10:00am – 11:30am Co-sponsored by Division 11: Comparative Politics Full Paper Panel

Participants : (Chair) Giovanni Capoccia, University of Oxford (Discussant) Lucan A. Way, University of Toronto (Discussant) Kurt Weyland, University of Texas, Austin

Session Description: The literature on the current crisis of liberal democracy focuses on the rise of illiberalism and populism as well as on the erosion of democratic rights and institutions; less systematic attention has been paid to how pro-democratic actors can counter illiberalism. The scholarship on responses to illiberalism is scattered across different subfields, including analyses of legal and judicial restrictions on extremism, studies of party organization and competition, works on civil society organizations and social movements, and analyses of voting behavior. This panel and its companion panel “Countering Illiberalism in Liberal Democracies I: Constitutional Perspectives” are part of a collective project that brings together scholars from different subfields to analyze the conditions of viability and effectiveness of strategies that governments, parties, civil society actors, and voters can enact to prevent the rise, contain the influence, and –if illiberal forces attain control of the executive– resist the power of political illiberalism in democracies.

Papers : Coordinating against Authoritarian Power Bids Ivan Ermakoff, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Issues of collective agency in times of authoritarian challenges underscore the need to prevent coordination problems both within and across groups committed to the preservation of a democratic regime. Doing so requires three lines of action. The first pertains to the ability to name and assess the nature of the threat posed by an authoritarian challenger. The second line of action relates to the need to overcome democratic groups’ propensity for equivocation and paralysis when faced with sudden bids for state power in the service of an authoritarian agenda. The third line of action establishes regular venues for communication across democratic groups for the purpose of devising strategies of democratic consolidation at different phases of an authoritarian challenge. The paper analyzes the success and failure of coordination strategies from a comparative and historical perspective.

Asymmetric Mass Mobilization and the Vincibility of Democracy in Hungary Laura Jakli, Harvard University; Jason Wittenberg, University of California, Berkeley; Bela Greskovits, Central European University-Budapest

Using an original dataset of partisan protest events (n=4,868) in Hungary (1989-2011), we argue that left liberal parties’ neglect in cultivating civil society during the post-communist period had deleterious downstream effects on Hungarian liberal democracy. First, it enabled the growth of an illiberal, right-wing civil society that facilitated Fidesz-KDNP’s 2010 landslide electoral victory. Second, it deprived the left liberals of mobilization resources that might have been used for contentious collective action to counter Fidesz-KDNP’s early maneuvers at democratic backsliding, in particular their constitutional overhaul. Hungary is an object lesson in the dangers of minimizing anti-system threats during the prevention and containment periods.

Ethnic Parties and Democratic Backsliding: The Case of the United States Robert C. Lieberman, Johns Hopkins University; Daniel Schlozman, Johns Hopkins University

Accounts of democratic fragility and resilience in the United States have focused heavily on partisan polarization, the rise of partisan extremism, populism, and conflict over the boundaries of membership in the polity. Many of these threads have come together in the contemporary Republican Party, which we suggest is increasingly behaving like an “ethnic party,” with risky consequences for American democracy. While some recent literature considers ethnic parties in divided societies to be a stabilizing force in democratic politics, an alternative approach suggests that ethnic parties can exploit and widen societal cleavages to gain power, and we argue that the Republican Party has followed the latter model. Ethnic parties are generally understood to represent minorities in fragmented societies. The Republican Party, by contrast, increasingly represents an ethnically defined group that a) remains a majority in the United States, but b) fears that its dominant status in American politics is threatened. Under these conditions, we find that the “ethnicization” of the Republican Party has substantially contributed to the decay of American democracy. We consider both the history of the Republican Party in recent decades and contemporary data about both voting patterns and patterns of party nominations and leadership to chart the growing prominence of white racial identity as a key pillar of Republican politics. Considering the Republican Party as an ethnic party in comparative perspective, we suggest, can both help account for the distinctive patterns of democratic fragility in the United States and refine our understanding of the role of ethnic and racial politics in democratic backsliding and resilience.

Building Tolerance for Backsliding by Trash-Talking Democracy in Mexico Lautaro Cella, University of Chicago; Ipek Cinar, University of Chicago; Susan C. Stokes, University of Chicago; Andres Uribe, University of Chicago

When aspiring autocrats erode their democracies, why do voters not necessarily turn against them? A prominent answer focuses on the advantages to these leaders of electorates that are polarized along partisan lines. We offer another answer. Aspiring autocrats can also maintain popular support by degrading their democracies in the eyes of their citizens. If voters can be induced to believe that their democracy is already broken, then the leader’s attacks matter less. This is the logic behind backsliders’ strategy of trash-talking democracy. Using text-as-data methods, we distinguish polarizing statements from democracy-denigrating ones in the rhetoric of one contemporary aspiring autocrat, Mexico’s Andrés López Obrador. We report on a survey experiment, being piloted in Mexico, that allow us to assess the effectiveness of democracy denigrating speech on the public’s tolerance of democratic erosion.

Social Norms, Preference Falsification, and the Supply of Exclusionary Policy Vicente Valentim, Nuffield College, University of Oxford

Individual-level support for democracy is often regarded as a safeguard against backsliding. I argue that this argument conflates two states of the world. In one, citizens are sincere democrats who genuinely support democracy. In another, they are staged democrats, who falsify a democratic preference to avoid social costs. In both states of the world, citizens do not overwhelmingly act against democracy. The crucial difference between the two states is that staged democratic support is not a stable safeguard against politicians with norm-breaching views. If they perceive that their policies have more private support than meets the eye, these politicians will be more likely to put forward policies at odds with democratic values. To test these expectations, I leverage a unique setting in Switzerland where referendum results provide information shocks about the private preferences of citizens. Using a dataset of referendum results linked to public opinion surveys and data on party’s positions, I show that when referendums suggest that radical right positions are more popular than indicated by surveys, radical-right parties become less positive of minorities in the subsequent election. The results suggest that one reason why many citizens do not punish violations of democratic values is that they may not truly support those values.

Author Meets Critics: “Varieties of Nationalism: Communities, Narratives, Identities” by Harris Mylonas and Maya Tudor

Thursday, September 5, 12:00pm – 1:30pm Author Meets Critics

Participants : (Chair) H. Zeynep Bulutgil, University College London (Presenter) Bart Bonikowski, New York University (Presenter) Aram Hur, The Fletcher School, Tufts University (Presenter) Eun A. Jo, Cornell University (Presenter) Harris Mylonas, George Washington University (Presenter) Oxana Shevel, Tufts University (Presenter) Maya Jessica Tudor, Oxford University (Presenter) Andreas Wimmer, Columbia University

Session Description: Nationalism is the most powerful political ideology of the modern age. Nationalism has been intrinsically linked with the horrors of World War II, but also the decolonization movements following World War II. Today, no other political doctrine commands such global popularity as that a people should be self-determined and sovereign. Nationalism has come to define modernity both by shaping the international system of nation-states and by regulating individual loyalty and solidarity within the confines of a nation. This “Author(s) Meets Critics” roundtable on Harris Mylonas and Maya Tudor’s recently published “Varieties of Nationalism: Communities, Narratives, Identities” (Cambridge University Press, 2023) will delve into a discussion on the causes, varieties, and consequences of nationalism.

This book challenges conventional dichotomies by scrutinizing the multifaceted nature of nationalism, transcending oversimplified characterizations of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ nationalisms.

The book also reframes our understanding of nationalism by dissecting its components through an analysis of three pivotal questions: a) Does a national community exist? b) How do national narratives vary? and c) When do national narratives matter? By approaching nationalism along these lines, the authors unveil five key dimensions that bring about a multitude of varieties: Elite and popular fragmentation of national communities; ascriptiveness and thickness of national narratives; and salience of national identities.

Chaired by Zeynep Bulutgil (UCL), this discussion will feature an array of esteemed critics: Bart Bonikowski (NYU), Aram Hur (Tufts University), Eun A Jo (Cornell University), Oxana Shevel (Tufts University), and Andreas Wimmer (Columbia University). The panelists will critically engage with these dimensions and scrutinize the conceptual framework presented in the book. They will also assess the implications of this framework for nationalism studies.

Once the presenters have commented on the book, the authors – Harris Mylonas (George Washington University) and Maya Tudor (University of Oxford) – will respond, and a Q&A will follow.

This author meets critics panel promises an intellectually stimulating session, consolidating our knowledge on nationalism, and highlighting its significance in contemporary political developments.

The Political Economy of Democratic Decline

Thursday, September 5, 2:00pm – 3:30pm Co-sponsored by Division 62: South Asian Politics Roundtable

Participants : (Chair) Adnan Naseemullah, King’s College London (Presenter) Nandini Deo, Lehigh University (Presenter) Aseema Sinha, Claremont Mckenna College (Presenter) Sunila S. Kale, University of Washington (Presenter) Noaman G. Ali, University of Bath (Presenter) Navine Murshid, Colgate University

Session Description: Democracy in South Asia is in a period of decline. In India the focus of most scholarship has been on the ruling government’s hostility to religious minorities, but the government has also reduced political competition through the introduction of electoral bonds and suppressing dissent. In Bangladesh and Sri Lanka ruling parties have used state agencies and courts to restrict political competition, a pattern possibly halted by the latter’s economic crisis. Pakistan is in a moment of turmoil with charges of corruption against civilian politicians threatening to undermine its fragile electoral democracy. In this panel we consider the role of economic interests in enabling/driving/slowing democratic decline in South Asia.

The Chair, notes that both India and Pakistan have experienced recent, right-wing populist politics that, in India, led to the consolidation of elected authoritarianism and in Pakistan, to the rupture of the populist project and more uncertain outcomes. How might we understand populist convergence and subsequent regime divergence in political economy terms? He argues that the answer is to be found in the differences in interests between big business and small and medium enterprises. This suggests that party-business elite linkages represent a significant factor in the outcomes of populist mobilizations.

One participant will discuss how the 2013 Companies Act pressed corporations and NGOs into collaborations in the development sector. The introduction of grant cycles, impact assessments, award competitions, and accounting requirements by corporate boards to civil society organizations led to rapid shifts in how CSOs operate. The incentives to grow their institutional capacity and formalize their operating processes along with disincentives to be critical of corporate led economic growth are constraining India’s discourse about economic development and social inclusion. What is described as the corporatization of civil society is undermining India’s ability to imagine and create alternatives to corporate dominance.

Another participant will focus on a single sector, mining, where negative externalities for local communities and the environment are immense and the benefits tend to be concentrated in the hands of a few corporate actors. She argues that over the last two decades the avenues for democratic participation first expanded significantly from 2004-2014 but subsequently have eroded in the post-2014 period. Under the BJP governments in power since 2014, we have seen a return of mining governance to a opaquer and more restricted domain, and an increase in the power of mining companies to self-regulate. The political economic form this takes is less pro-business than it is partisan business, with the benefits accruing to a handful of government-aligned corporate houses.

A third panelist enquires into how the international political economic context shapes democracy in Pakistan. He suggests that political power in Pakistan is exercised not merely by domestic ruling classes, but in alliance with sometimes conflicting and sometimes cooperating international actors: foreign states, corporations, and finance. Broadly, he argues that Pakistan is a semi-colonial and dependent country, whereby international investors and financial institutions play the roles of spoilers in democratic consolidation by supporting a ruling class coalition that transcends narrow military vs. civilian divides.

A fourth panelist will discuss how the active separation of the political and economic spheres in Bangladesh has allowed for vast economic gains, lauded globally, alongside democratic backsliding in the last decade or so. She will discuss how the ruling party effectively consolidated power in this period through a multi-pronged effort. Domestically, it involved gaining control over public institutions, the curtailing of free speech, mass arrests and forced disappearances, and the fashioning of an Islamist threat that parallels Islamophobia in India despite it being a Muslim-majority country, all the while touting a variety of development projects. Internationally, it meant garnering support from the regional hegemon, India.

The last participant asks, what are the sources of democratic change? She argues that we need a theory of effective democratic practices to understand the sources of and nature of democratic change in India. She argues there are three sources: Majoritarian nationalism, corporate power, and state power underpinned by new developmentalism. By exploring the multiple sources of one common concept—effective practices of democracies—this author furthers and develops the theory of change and democratic backsliding in one of the most celebrated democracies of the world, contributing towards a framework and new empirical insights.

Can Democracy Work? Theory/Practice of Deliberative Negotiation: Congress & EU

Thursday, September 5, 4:00pm – 5:30pm Co-sponsored by Division 2: Foundations of Political Theory Roundtable

Participants : (Chair) Jane Mansbridge, Harvard Kennedy School (Presenter) Jane Mansbridge, Harvard Kennedy School (Presenter) Mark E. Warren, University of British Columbia (Presenter) Frances E. Lee, Princeton University (Presenter) James M. Curry, University of Utah (Presenter) Bettina Poirier, American University (Presenter) Christopher P. Bertram, Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies (Presenter) Bruce M. Patton, Harvard Negotiation Project

Session Description: In the wake of a recent kindling of interest among theorists on the topic of negotiations in Congress (e.g., Compromise: NOMOS LIX, NYU Press 2018 and Melissa Schwartzberg and Jack Knight, Democratic Deals, Harvard U. Press 2024), it has become clear that most political theorists and political scientists still think of the options in negotiation as “finding common ground,” “compromise,” and pure “bargaining.” They rarely consider in depth a major component of deliberative negotiation: “integrative negotiation,” which negotiation specialists consider a “mainstay” of negotiation theory and practice (Sebenius 2015). Integrative negotiation “creates value” and “expands the pie” through the two central techniques of moving from the announced positions to the underlying interests and identifying and trading off issues that are relatively low cost to one party and high gain to the other party. That process often requires creativity. This roundtable has two aims: 1) to bring the important concept of integrative negotiation into political theory and the empirical study of Congress and other legislative bodies and 2) to bring a deeper sense of realism into the understanding of Congressional and EU negotiators’ motivations. In line with the new recommendations in methodology of combining normative theory, practitioner expertise, and empirical political science (Ackerly et al., 2021), the roundtable brings together Mark Warren and Jane Mansbridge, the two lead co-authors of the theoretical article, “Deliberative Negotiation” (2013, 2016); Bettina Poirier and Chris Bertram, two former long-term staff members in Congress (Poirier, a Democrat, former Staff Director and Chief Counsel for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and Bertram, a Republican, former Staff Director for the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure) who have co-founded American University’s Program on Legislative Negotiation, teaching seminars for both students and high-level Congressional staff on the fundamentals of effective negotiation; Frances Lee, author of Insecure Majorities (2016) and other books on Congress, and editor (with Eric Schickler) of The Oxford Handbook of the American Congress (2011); James Curry, author of Legislating in the Dark (2015) and other works on Congress; Daniel Naurin, author of several works on negotiation in the European Union Council of Ministers; and Bruce Patton, co-founder of the Harvard Negotiation Project and the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School and co-author of the seminal Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (3rd ed. 2011, more than 15 million copies sold in 36 languages). The panelists will examine the process of deliberative negotiation and the character of integrative solutions both in theory and specific cases. They will also discuss motivations for members of Congress and the EU Council of Ministers in reaching these deals, refusing to consider motivations non-researchable and adopting, in contrast to the mere self-interest of what has frequently been termed “realism,” a more thorough realism that encompasses the full spectrum of actual human motivations.

Learning from Global Democratic Challenges and Innovations Mini-Conference I I

Author meets critics on “geopolitics and democracy: the western liberal order from foundation to fracture”.

Friday, September 6, 8:00am – 9:30am Co-sponsored by Division 43: International History and Politics Author Meets Critics

Participants : (Chair) G. John Ikenberry, Princeton University (Presenter) Brian Burgoon, University of Amsterdam (Presenter) Catherine E. De Vries, Bocconi University (Presenter) Jeffry A. Frieden, Harvard University (Presenter) Liesbet Hooghe, UNC – Chapel Hill (Presenter) Daniel H. Nexon, Georgetown University (Presenter) Kori Schake, American Enterprise Institute (Presenter) Peter Trubowitz, London School of Economics

Session Description: Peter Trubowitz and Brian Burgoon’s “Geopolitics and Democracy: The Western Liberal Order from Foundation to Fracture” (Oxford 2023) argues that the current anti-globalist backlash against the Western-led liberal international order can be traced to the 1990s, when Western governments encouraged globalization at the expense of social and economic protections at home. Drawing on a wide variety of cross-national data, they find that this combination of policies succeeded in expanding the Western liberal order’s reach, but at the cost of generating popular discontent and division in one democracy after another. Arguing that Western governments cannot close this “democratic legitimacy gap” with their voters by retrenching and turning inward or by replaying the Cold War, “Geopolitics and Democracy” challenges us to consider how today’s leaders might strike a new balance between international openness and economic security. This authors-meet-critics roundtable brings together leading experts of international and comparative politics to evaluate Trubowitz and Burgoon’s arguments about the international and domestic causes of today’s anti-globalist backlash, and the possibilities for renewing popular support for liberal internationalism in Western democracies going forward.

The Weimar Republic as a Source of Lessons for Democracy

Friday, September 6, 10:00am – 11:30am Co-sponsored by Division 7: Politics and History Roundtable

Participants : (Chair) Ludvig Norman, Stockholm University (Presenter) Amel F. Ahmed, University of Massachusetts, Amherst (Presenter) Peter D. Breiner, SUNY, University at Albany (Presenter) Clara Maier, Columbia University (Presenter) Anthoula Malkopoulou, Uppsala University (Presenter) Jan-Werner Mueller, Princeton University (Presenter) William E. Scheuerman, Indiana University, Bloomington

Session Description: The political lessons drawn from the collapse of the Weimar Republic are often invoked to understand contemporary threats to democracy. Weimar casts a long shadow over post-war political thought. As an image of social, economic, and political instability, democratic breakdown and the precursory to the rise of Nazi totalitarianism, Weimar has served as the paradigmatic historical lesson of the post-war era. It is a source of lessons and analogies to make sense of democratic retrenchment and autocratization and it underpins prevalent perspectives on how democracy may be defended.

This roundtable brings together leading scholars on the Weimar republic, democratic theory, and post-war political thought to take stock of the wide variety of lessons drawn from Weimar. Participants will address questions regarding the underlying assumptions of prevalent Weimar lessons and discuss the extent to which they provide useful starting points for identifying and dealing with contemporary challenges to democracy.

What Is Democratic Resilience? Defining and Applying a Novel Concept

Participants : (Chair) Selen A. Ercan, University of Canberra (Presenter) John S. Dryzek, University of Canberra (Presenter) Jennifer McCoy, Georgia State University (Presenter) Cassandra V. Emmons, International Foundation for Electoral Systems (Presenter) Petra R. Guasti, Charles University (Presenter) JK Sass, Australian National University

Session Description: As democracies face increasing threats from a variety of directions, the concept of democratic resilience has achieved sudden prominence, as reflected in the number of recent articles with the concept in their title. Perhaps not surprisingly for such a novel concept, there is so far no consensus concerning its meaning. It is tempting to borrow from the way resilience is treated in disciplines such as ecology, psychology or even engineering where the idea is more entrenched, but that risks failing to do justice to the particular circumstances of democracy, including the contested nature of what constitutes the essence of democracy. Alternatively, democratic resilience can repackage familiar ideas concerning how democracy may flourish, persist, or retreat. This roundtable will examine diverse definitions and applications of democratic resilience, with the view to advancing the conversation concerning what a distinctively democratic and distinctively resilient conceptualization of democratic resilience will look like. The contributions will draw on both political theory and comparative empirical inquiry concerning how democracies have responded to a variety of threats, The shocks in question might involve civil unrest, ethnic conflict, invasion, assassination, economic crash, violent attacks, ecological collapse, attempted coup, or the rise of authoritarian leaders and extremist parties. The roundtable participants are all prominent among political scientists who have used the concept of democratic resilience in their recent work.

Adopting and Adapting Power-Sharing Settlements

Participants : (Chair) Allison McCulloch, Brandon University (Presenter) Neophytos Loizides, University of Warwick (Presenter) Edward Morgan-Jones, University of Kent (Presenter) Laura Sudulich, University of Essex (Presenter) Kamaran Palani, Brandon University (Presenter) Cera Murtagh, Queen’s University Belfast (Presenter) Tamirace Fakhoury, Tufts University (Presenter) Megumi Kagawa, Waseda University (Presenter) Adam Fagg, University of Kent

Session Description: The diplomatic history of the last 30 years is replete with broken-down peace processes where elite pacts have fallen apart due to their inability to secure sufficient support at the grassroots level. This is suggestive of a dual problem of adoption and adaptation, that is, the contention that because majorities and minorities will bring divergent institutional preferences to any negotiation on the contours of the state, they will be unable to reach an enduring institutional settlement in the first instance and will be unable to revise and reform such arrangements over time. Determining the sticking points between parties as well as the capacity of elites to negotiate agreements that can be convincingly communicated to the wider community is key to overcoming the ‘adoption and adaptation’ problem.

This roundtable seeks to explore the conditions under which power-sharing comes to be seen an acceptable arrangement for resolving collective disputes, the role of domestic and international actors in the search for agreement, as well as the impact that citizens can have on the negotiation, design, and reform of power-sharing settlements. Particular attention will be devoted to three key elements:

• the process by which settlement are negotiated and agreed;
• the content of the agreement, particularly in relation to institutional design; and
• the process by which power-sharing reforms are discussed and negotiated, including the interaction among citizens and elites.

When the People Rule: Popular Sovereignty and Liberal Democracy

Friday, September 6, 4:00pm – 5:30pm Co-sponsored by Division 1: Political Thought and Philosophy Roundtable

Participants : (Chair) David Alexander Bateman, Cornell University (Presenter) Ewa Atanassow, Bard College Berlin (Presenter) Julia Rezazadeh Azari, Marquette University (Presenter) Ronald Kassimir, Social Science Research Council (Presenter) Matthew Longo, Leiden University (Presenter) Nicole Mellow, Williams College (Presenter) Elizabeth Markovits, Mount Holyoke College (Presenter) Carol Nackenoff, Swarthmore College (Presenter) Andrew J. Perrin, Johns Hopkins University (Presenter) Oranit Shani, University of Haifa (Presenter) Thomas Bartscherer, Bard College

Session Description: The ideal of popular sovereignty, which has served to ground the liberal-democratic order and legitimize power in the modern world, has come under increasing pressure in recent decades. On the one hand, the rise of populist parties and movements, often illiberal or authoritarian, has eroded constitutional checks on the exercise of power. On the other hand, the expansion of international institutions and greater reliance on the market, courts, and non-governmental organizations have gradually insulated large areas of policymaking from democratic contestation and popular control. Together these developments cast doubt on the viability and the very coherence of liberal democracy as a constitutional model.

“When the People Rule: Popular Sovereignty in Theory and Practice,” a new interdisciplinary open-access volume that came out last November as part of the SSRC/Cambridge “Anxiety of Democracy” series, contends that comprehending the political crises of our time and ensuring the prospects for government that is both genuinely democratic and committedly liberal requires a radical rethinking of popular sovereignty. To be fruitful and effective, such rethinking must grapple with the long history and contested theory of popular rule and learn from the diversity of institutional and civic practices it has spawned in different contexts.

This roundtable would convene the editors and several contributors of the volume alongside one of its institutional architects for a discussion scrutinizing the work’s core findings. Staging ‘live’ as it were the scholarly and civic conversations comprised in the book, the event would be an opportunity to reconsider from a variety of disciplinary perspectives how to preserve and revitalize liberal democracy in an increasingly volatile world. In addition to discussing the theory and practice of popular sovereignty across time and political cultures, and its relevance today, the roundtable would also raise questions about the current state of political science research, its institutional architecture, and how to make its work more socially meaningful and civically engaged – a task, for which the volume sought to serve as a model.

The roundtable would proceed as a free-flowing conversation pivoting around three main topics. It would begin with presenting the questions and findings of the volume grouped around six themes: ‘legitimacy,’ ‘peoplehood,’ ‘fiction,’ ‘populism,’ ‘practices and institutions,’ ‘liberalism vs. democracy’; and probe the book’s contention that popular sovereignty is a valuable heuristic for understanding political phenomena both historical and contemporary. The conversation would proceed by bringing these findings and contentions to bear on this year’s APSA topic “Democracy: Retrenchment, Renovation, & Reimagination,” by considering the current status and future prospects of popular self-rule. It would conclude with discussing the promises and challenges of collaborative research and pedagogy, and their role in promoting civic conversations and educating democratic citizens for the 21st century.

Learning from Global Democratic Challenges and Innovations Mini-Conference III

Criminal politics in violent democracies.

Saturday, September 7, 8:00am – 9:30am Co-sponsored by Division 21: Conflict Processes Full Paper Panel

Participants : (Chair) Lucia Tiscornia, University College Dublin (Discussant) Enrique Desmond Arias, Baruch College, CUNY

Session Description: In contrast to previous eras characterized by predominantly rural insurgencies, contemporary security threats in numerous “violent democracies” are primarily driven by organized criminal groups operating in both rural and urban areas. These entities, involved in both criminal violence and governance, pose a significant challenge to the stability of these democracies. They engage in fierce territorial battles, not only among themselves but also against state forces, vying for control and dominance at the local level. This dynamic interaction involves complex relationships with state representatives, where collusion can either contribute to stability or exacerbate violence. The impact of these organizations extends beyond mere criminality, as they intricately engage, violently and non-violently, with the communities in which they operate. Consequently, they emerge as pivotal forces that actively shape the political and social landscapes of crime-affected areas.

While political scientists have increasingly delved into the “politics of crime,” with a specific focus on governmental policies to control criminal activities, crucial aspects remain unexplored within this burgeoning literature. Key questions persist, such as the motivations behind some drug-trafficking organizations opting for violence and the reactions of communities to this violence. Why do some groups use violence and others show restraint? Which social responses are triggered, by which forces, and to which effects? Finally, exploring public support for alternative governmental responses is also paramount: what contributes to greater backing for specific approaches? Is there room for moving away from militarization and iron-fist enforcement? Addressing these gaps is essential to comprehensively understand the intricate dynamics surrounding organized crime, politics, and society.

This panel brings together a cohort of early and mid-career scholars. The four papers showcased delve into pressing questions, providing fresh insights that contribute to bridging current research gaps. Although the papers focus on a selection of countries profoundly impacted by criminal violence Brazil, Mexico, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, and El Salvador- the importance of these issues has implications for various urban areas across the developing world and beyond.

In the first paper, Laura Blume (University of Nevada, Reno) presents an innovative theory examining the strategic decisions made by drug-trafficking organizations and their consequent impact on their use of violence against specific sectors of the population, encompassing politicians, activists, media workers, and judicial officials.

Rebecca Bell-Martin (Tecnológico de Monterrey, Mexico) and Abby Cordova (University of Notre Dame) redirect the focus to how social actors respond to such violence. Delving into noteworthy cases within Mexico’s “war on drugs,” Bell-Martin explores the dynamics of empathy for victims of criminal violence, investigating how this emotion serves as a catalyst for political mobilization, and how political leaders and human rights advocates strategically use empathy to influence societal reactions to violence.

Cordova, focusing on El Salvador, further explores social responses to violence, investigating whether public attitudes towards victims are sensitive to the characteristics of the victim, of the perpetrator, and of the violence itself, with a particular focus on gender dynamics.

Concluding the panel, Davide Morisi (University of Southern Denmark) and Juan Masullo (Leiden University) shift the focus toward public support for alternative approaches to addressing criminal violence. Focusing on Brazil, they show that public support for approaches that move away from unconditional crackdowns on all criminal groups is stronger than what scholars and policymakers commonly assume. They delineate the primary correlates of support and explore policy goals and frames capable of mobilizing public endorsement for alternative responses to criminal violence.

The limitations in this expanding literature largely stem from insufficient data on the subject and the challenges associated with obtaining reliable information. In response to these obstacles, the researchers in this panel have adopted diverse data sources and innovative techniques for data collection and analysis, such as ethnographies, qualitative content analysis, in-depth interviewing, and survey experimental methods. Consequently, this panel embodies the essential interdisciplinary and methodological pluralism that has characterized this intricate and evolving research sub-field.

Desmond Arias (CUNY) and Lucia Tiscornia (University College Dublin), distinguished scholars who have not only pioneered but also expanded the frontiers of this research agenda, will serve as the Chair and Discussant for the panel.

Papers : The Art of Trafficking: How Politics Influences Narco-Violence Laura Blume, University of Nevada Reno

Why does drug trafficking sometimes result in high levels of violence, but other times occur relatively peacefully? Drawing on over two years of ethnographic fieldwork conducted between 2017 and 2020 in key trafficking and transshipment hubs along the Caribbean coast of Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Honduras, this project advances an original theory of the strategic choices that traffickers make and the implications of these strategies in terms of trafficking-related violence. The theory works across scales of governance to show how international policies, national-level institutional contexts, and local-level factors can either incentivize or restrain narcotraffickers in Central America from engaging in lethal violence. In this paper, I not only show how levels of trafficking violence vary, but also that geographic patterns, nature of targets, and visibility of violence vary depending on traffickers’ strategies. To do so, I draw on my ethnographic fieldwork, an original dataset on massacres between 2012-2022, and data from the Violence Against Public Figures (VAPF) project which tracks assassinations of public figures (politicians, activists, media workers, and judicial officials) in Central America from 2008 – 2022. Including VAPF data, as well as a novel dataset on massacres, enables me to paint a far more nuanced picture of violence in the areas where I did fieldwork. For instance, while Nicaragua has the lowest national homicide rate, both autonomous regions on the Caribbean coast where I focused my work have homicide rates above the national average (although still below rates of violence in my other field sites). Most of the violence in Nicaragua is not related to trafficking, but rather is violence perpetuated against opposition activists and Indigenous land defenders. The Costa Rican province of Limon has far lower levels of violence against public figures, despite having a higher homicide rate. In fact, given traffickers’ reliance on evasion strategies, very few public figures are killed in Limon because such acts tend to result in increases in checkpoints and policing in the province — something that traffickers seek to elude. While Honduras overall has the highest level of violence towards activists, journalists, politicians, and judicial officials, Gracias a Dios reflects lower levels of this kind of violence. Moreover, two of the politicians from Gracias a Dios who have been killed in the last ten years were murdered outside the department, further illustrating a broader geographic pattern. While in the field, I learned that most violence impacting this Honduran department and committed against its inhabitants occurs outside the department – meaning it is not reflected in subnational homicide data. In addition to illustrating important differences in violence that result from traffickers’ distinct strategies, this chapter challenges us to move beyond homicide rates in understanding patterns of violence in Latin America.

States, Human Rights and Empathy-Based Political Mobilization during Violence Rebecca Bell-Martin, Tecnologico de Monterrey

In violent contexts, research suggests that empathy for victims of violence motivates pro-social behaviors like civic engagement, political participation, and helping migrants and refugees. This suggests empathy may be an important source of political mobilization. How do political leaders respond? In what ways do they leverage empathy to influence citizen political engagement around violence? I investigate this question through one important case of contemporary conflict, Mexico’s “drug war,” and the political strategies of two key actors: the state and human rights advocates. I argue that human rights advocates should attempt to persuade the public by appealing to its sense of empathy. This is so because human rights advocates aim to motivate public engagement around victims’ rights and justice processes and thus benefit from marshaling citizens’ empathy for drug war victims. States, on the other hand, should discourage citizens’ empathy for victims to minimize public complaints and foster support for state security policies. I test this theory through qualitative content analysis of states’ and human rights advocates’ public statements surrounding four cases of organized crime violence in Mexico: (i) the Sabino Gordo massacre; (ii) the Café Iguana shooting; (iii) the disappearance of 43 students in Ayotzinapa; and (iv) the Tlatlaya massacre. I pair this with interviews with state officials, human rights representatives, and media deputies. Across the cases, I find that the state consistently uses language discouraging empathy with victims. Human rights advocates, meanwhile, use empathy-generating language only intermittently. I then interrogate why advocates leverage empathy in some – but not all – political campaigns. This research advances knowledge about the conditions for broad-based citizen action against violence and about the emotional foundations of political mobilization. While we know much about how political leaders manipulate emotions like anger, fear, and resentment to mobilize followers, the mobilizing power of empathy remains underexplored.

Citizen Responses to Gender and Non-gender Based Violence in Criminal Wars Abby B. Cordova, University of Notre Dame

Across the world, the spread of organized crime and governments’ militarization of public security have resulted in numerous accounts of gendered and non-gendered crimes committed by both criminal and state armed actors, particularly in territories known for organized criminal groups’ control. Citizens’ support for all victims of violence, and thus willingness to stand for victims’ human rights, is quintessential for promoting democratic societies sustained in the rule of law. However, previous research shows that citizens are not favorable to all victims but decide their level of support selectively depending on perceptions of victims’ innocence and personal experiences with crime. This study builds on the findings of previous scholarship by examining experimentally the extent to which attitudes toward victims in the context of criminal wars depend on four largely understudied characteristics: victims’ gender (men or women), perpetrators’ identity (criminal or state armed actors), the type of violence suffered (gender or non-gender based), and salience of organized criminal groups’ territorial control. The findings contribute to research examining the attitudinal and behavioral responses to violence by studying the topic through the lens of gender in a multi-violence context where both criminal and state violence are salient (El Salvador). The findings show that, although citizens are more likely to condemn sexual violence against women than other types of crimes, public opinion is more tolerant of all violent acts (gender-based or not) when committed by state armed actors than members of organized criminal organizations, particularly when aggressions occur in places marked by territorial control.

Destroying Criminals or Enacting Preferred Behaviors? Juan Masullo, Leiden University; Davide Morisi, University of Southern Denmark

Recent research shows that when state repression is conditional on how criminals behave, it is likely to be more effective in curbing criminal violence. Policymakers and scholars alike argue that governments do not adopt a selective repression approach more often because it is likely unpopular, as the public might see it as “soft on crime.” To test this proposition, we study public attitudes in two Brazilian cities profoundly affected by criminal violence, São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, leveraging cross-city variation in how drug syndicates participate in the drug trade and engage in violence. We draw on survey experiments to (a) descriptively map support for selective repression and (b) experimentally identify potential factors that could drive this support. We find that support for selective repression is higher than policymakers and scholars expect: one-third of our respondents are willing to back the implementation of such an approach in the cities. Support is higher in São Paulo than in Rio de Janeiro, suggesting that fiercer competition between drug syndicates and higher levels of violence do not drive support. When conditional repression is framed as a means of reducing violence, support for conditional repression decreases. However, the public cares more about reducing some forms of violence than about others. In both cities, support for conditional repression is higher when aimed at reducing forms of violence that directly affect the population.

Democracy, Dictatorship, and Democratic Backsliding in Central America

Saturday, September 7, 10:00am – 11:30am Co-sponsored by Division 12: Comparative Politics of Developing Countries Full Paper Panel

Participants : (Chair) Patricio D. Navia, Universidad Diego Portales (Discussant) Christine J. Wade, Washington College (Discussant) Deborah Yashar, Princeton University

Session Description: In the wake of military dictatorships and civil wars, the Central American countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua transitioned to democracy. For a brief moment, it seemed like democracy would flourish: rivals, including those on opposite sides of armed conflict, embraced elections as the only legitimate way to govern, and competitive elections ushered in an unprecedented era of peaceful power alternations. But despite these noteworthy advances, beginning in the early 2000s, democracy stagnated, and autocracy made a comeback. Electoral democracies have reversed to a full dictatorship (Nicaragua), are in the process of being replaced by competitive authoritarianism (El Salvador) or remain on a tightrope after recent elections (Honduras and Guatemala). This panel, which examines the region through case studies and cross-country comparisons, seeks to answer the following questions: Why has democracy proven fragile and authoritarianism resilient in Central America? What tactics and strategies have incumbents used in their varying power-grabbing efforts? How have opposition blocs responded to those threats, and what are the prospects for future democratization in the region? And what lessons can we draw from Central America’s troubled record with democracy and authoritarianism?

Papers : Anti-corruption Crusades and Democratic Erosion: Evidence from Guatemala Rachel A. Schwartz, University of Oklahoma

The quality of democracy and the extent of political corruption are often seen as intertwined. Democratic institutions are assumed to be a bulwark against corruption because they provide mechanisms to hold corrupt officials accountable and enhance political competition in ways that disincentivize corrupt behavior. Corruption also has deleterious effects on democracy. It foments citizen mistrust and dissatisfaction with the democratic system and may even lay the groundwork for authoritarian actors to seize on widespread disillusionment and take power. Under these logics, efforts to combat corruption and strengthen rule of law institutions should have salutary effects on democracy. Yet, this is not always the case. Analyzing the Guatemalan context over the last fifteen years, this paper examines when and why anti-corruption crusades give way to democratic backsliding. In so doing, I unpack two mechanisms through which anti-corruption and rule of law strengthening efforts can trigger authoritarian regressions: 1) by stoking backlash amongst a broad swath of elite actors, who resort to anti-democratic maneuvers to preserve impunity, and 2) by developing new institutional tools that can be appropriated by anti-democratic actors to further autocratic legalism once in power. The Guatemalan case offers a cautionary tale for international and domestic anti-corruption efforts, illustrating the limits and unintended consequences of strengthening institutions within fragile and fraught democratic systems.

Authoritarian Personalism, Parties, and Democratic Erosion in Central America Kai Massey Thaler, University of California, Santa Barbara

When authoritarian-minded personalist politicians seek power in electoral democracies, how do they use political parties? Some personalists seek to gain control of an existing political party to turn it towards their interests, acting as caudillos who push out opponents and centralize the party around themselves. Other personalists develop their own party and use populist, anti-establishment appeals to break through the control of established political elites and take power. Once in office, caudillos, and populists both seek to erode democratic institutions and norms to aggrandize executive power, but is the way they use parties different? We might expect variation, since caudillos may have preexisting party elites to manage and could face legislative challenges, while populists in personalist parties have exercised greater control over the party and its membership, and so may be less susceptible to internal tensions. This paper compares the cases of the caudillo Daniel Ortega and his FSLN party in Nicaragua and populist Nayib Bukele and his Nuevas Ideas party in El Salvador to develop a theory of how personalist political leaders’ use parties in their quest to erode democracy and consolidate authoritarian control. Ortega was a former revolutionary leader in the FSLN who gradually gained influence during the group’s collective rule in the 1980s, becoming first among equals among FSLN commanders. After the FSLN lost power, Ortega set about centralizing the FSLN around himself and later his family. Bukele, by contrast, was initially a politician in the ex-rebel FMLN party, but abandoned it after pushback from party elites, starting Nuevas Ideas and sweeping to power. Bukele has emulated some of Ortega’s democracy-eroding practices, but also forged his own path. Comparing these two cases will illustrate how authoritarian personalists in similar post-conflict Central American settings used parties pursuing unfettered power, and I also assess whether lessons from these cases may generalize elsewhere in Latin America or beyond.

Human Rights Violations and Citizen Support for Accountability in Guatemala Joséphine Lechartre, University of Notre Dame; Regina A. Bateson, University of Colorado, Boulder

Establishing a common historical ground about past human rights violations is often presented as one of the main benefits of transitional justice. It is often assumed that increasing citizens’ awareness of past violence will consolidate the post-conflict political transition by promoting shared values of non-repetition, respect for human rights and accountability. However, this assumption has yet to be empirically tested. Using several experiments embedded in two surveys with a total of 1,100 respondents in Guatemala, this article analyzes whether knowledge of human rights violations committed by the military during the country’s armed conflict affects Guatemalan’s judgement towards the militarization of public safety, accountability, and preferences for systems of government. Contrary to the assumptions of the transitional justice literature, we find that increasing awareness of past human rights violations committed by the military does little to promote citizens’ support for accountability. Similarly to other Latin American citizens, Guatemalan citizens tend to display a preference for punitive and militarized security policies and place the fight against corruption at the center of their policy preferences.

Disrupting Institutionalized Party Systems: Evidence from Central America Lucas Perelló, Marist College

Democratic erosion in Central America has often coincided with party system disruptions. This article compares Honduras and El Salvador, which scholars recently labeled as having some of the most institutionalized party systems in Latin America and the Caribbean, to deepen our knowledge of realignment and dealignment in the region. In Honduras, the 2009 coup fueled the rise of new parties, like the left-wing Freedom and Refoundation (LIBRE) party, which gradually forced a realignment. In El Salvador, the rise of Nayib Bukele and his New Ideas (NI) party led to the breakdown of traditional parties and the party system’s borderline collapse. Using the AmericasBarometer survey waves, this article examines the individual-level determinants of support for challenger and traditional parties, and possibly, the emergence of new political divisions, as a function of (1) socio-demographic features, (2) ideology, (3) attitudes toward democracy, (4) and the organizational features of parties.

Criminal Electioneering & Democracy in Central America: Evidence from Guatemala Manuel Meléndez-Sánchez, Harvard University

In this paper, I examine one understudied mechanism through which criminal organizations like street gangs and drug cartels have undermined the integrity and legitimacy of democratic institutions in Central America: their deliberate efforts to influence elections outcomes, or what I call “criminal electioneering.” I develop a conceptual and theoretical framework to help explain (1) when criminal groups choose to engage in criminal electioneering; (2) why, when they do, their tactics vary along two key dimensions (the degree to which they target voters vs politicians and the extent to which they overt violence); and (3) how different criminal electioneering tactics shape voter attitudes toward democracy and toward hardline anti-crime policies. I argue that two key variables drive criminal electioneering outcomes at the subnational level: the degree of criminal competition and politicians’ access to local party resources. I test my hypotheses through a survey of voters in Guatemala carried out in the aftermath of the country’s 2023 general election. I discuss the implications of my findings for emerging debates about the relationship between criminal violence and democratic legitimacy and survival in Central America and beyond.

Migration as Part of the Authoritarian Toolkit

Saturday, September 7, 12:00pm – 1:30pm Co-sponsored by Division 52: Migration & Citizenship Full Paper Panel

Participants : (Chair) Michael Jones-Correa, University of Pennsylvania (Discussant) Katrina Burgess, Tufts University (Discussant) Michael Jones-Correa, University of Pennsylvania

Session Description: The political behavior of immigrants has long been a major theme within the literature on migration and citizenship, but rarely has the impact of exit from authoritarianism been explicitly considered as a key IV governing this behavior. To what extent does authoritarianism motivate citizens to emigrate, and in what ways does exposure to authoritarianism impact immigrants’ subsequent political behavior in their new countries? And given the widespread awareness that immigrant populations may push for regime change from abroad, in what ways do authoritarian regimes react to or even exploit the political activity of their populations abroad to maintain power?

This panel aims to address these questions by focusing on the nexus between authoritarianism and migration. Allen and Wellman examine the expansion of voting rights to citizens living abroad through the lens of Schedler’s “menu of manipulation.” Bolotnyy, Komisarchik, and Libgober analyze notable relationships between past exposure to authoritarianism and voting behavior after emigration among Jewish refugees. Peters and Miller show that autocrats employ a variety of strategies to prevent citizens living abroad from spreading democracy back to their home countries. Morse examines the ways in which Turkish immigrants translate and map their ideologies onto more democratic political landscapes. Finally, using Zimbabwe as a case study, Dendere identifies a “migration premium” benefitting authoritarian regimes by allowing them to manipulate political outcomes more easily.

Together, these papers address the topic of migration and authoritarianism using diverse cases and embrace an inter-subfield and interdisciplinary approach to research on migration. Key themes of the panel include migration, political behavior, transnationalism, autocratic legalism, and political socialization.

Papers : Diaspora Voting: A New Item on the “Menu of Manipulation”? Nathan Allen, St. Francis Xavier University; Elizabeth Iams Wellman, University of Memphis

Since 1990, over 100 countries have extended voting rights to their citizens abroad. Although diaspora voting can be argued as a mechanism for increased inclusion, the potential for governments to employ diaspora voting as a form of electoral manipulation is both theoretically feasible and empirically evident. Drawing on Schedler’s classic “Menu of Manipulation” (2003), this article explores how choices in the organization and implementation of voting abroad can serve as new strategies for violating democratic norms. We identify numerous points of potential manipulation of diaspora voting throughout the election process that correspond with Schedler’s “chain of democratic choice” at both individual and institutional levels. We also look beyond country-of-origin policies to consider how country of residence can also manipulate both the range of choices offered to diaspora voters as well as the formation of preferences. Cases of diaspora voting manipulation, including elections in Italy, Ghana, and Russia, illuminate the diversity of emerging tactics. Our study demonstrates how transnational voting is now a new item on the menu of election fraud.

Backlash against Repression: Evidence from Refugees Fleeing the Soviet Bloc Valentin Bolotnyy, Hoover Institution; Mayya Komisarchik, University of Rochester; Brian Daniel Libgober, Northwestern University

Using administrative data on Jewish refugees fleeing the Former Soviet Bloc for the United States between 1955 and 2000, along with survey data on Israeli citizens born in the Former Soviet Bloc, we demonstrate persistent downstream political consequences of living as a targeted minority under a repressive, communist regime. Using a within-family research design, we show that individuals who spent longer periods living under a Soviet Bloc government are more likely to engage in backlash against the regime that oppressed them by (1) being more likely to vote in their new democratic countries and (2) affiliating with right-wing political parties most unlike ruling regimes in their origin countries.

Autocrats’ Strategies to Preventing the Spread of Democracy by Migrants Margaret E. Peters, University of California, Los Angeles; Michael Miller, George Washington University

An increasingly large literature demonstrates that migrants from autocracies to democracies spread democratic norms back to their home country and help foment democratic change there. This ability to spread democracy is not unknown to autocrats. Given the possibility for the spread of democracy, how do autocrats strategically respond to this possibility? In this book chapter, we use several case studies, including China, Taiwan, Algeria, and Morocco, to illustrate that (1) autocrats understand the ability of migrants to spread democracy and (2) the strategies that states use to counteract migrants’ spread of democracy. We show that states use many strategies: preventing incorporation in the host state, censorship, intimidation, and incarceration. Together, this chapter demonstrates how autocratic states try to gain the benefits of migration without losing their control over society.

Just Another Erdogan: How Migrants Map Political Beliefs onto New Contexts Irene Morse, University of Michigan

An emerging body of literature is beginning to consider how immigrants from an authoritarian home country adapt and change upon moving to more a democratic context. Building on the literature on political socialization, I argue that immigrants are “re-socialized” within their new political environment. As part of this process, immigrants use existing prior political beliefs and ideologies – often based heavily on their foundational political experiences in their authoritarian home country – as heuristics for understanding their new political context. By conducting and analyzing in-depth interviews with Turks living the United States, I theorize the process by which immigrants map these prior political beliefs and ideologies onto their new context and the resulting impact on their political behavior, a key concern for both the home country and the hosting country.

Migration Premium for Authoritarian Survival Chipo Dendere, Wellesley College

This paper discusses the strategies adopted by authoritarian regimes to silence the voices of citizens living abroad. Drawing from interviews with Zimbabweans living abroad and a study of their voting patterns I show that authoritarian regimes benefit from a migration premium. When would-be opposition voters leave the country, the ruling party has room to manipulate political outcomes in their favor.

Roundtable on Democratic Retrenchment in Asia

Saturday, September 7, 2:00pm – 3:30pm Roundtable

Participants : (Chair) Dan Slater, University of Michigan (Presenter) Ashutosh Varshney, Brown University (Presenter) Sana Jaffrey, Australian National University (Presenter) Ali Riaz, Illinois State University (Presenter) Sol Iglesias, University of the Philippines

Session Description: This roundtable responds to the theme of this year’s annual conference by examining the varieties of democratic retrenchment in Asia. Presenters will discuss outcomes of recent elections, held between 2022 and 2024, across Asia’s most populous democracies to debate the tension between popular representation and institutional accountability.

The roundtable will take a long-term view of democracy in the region to explore the distinct ways in which populist leaders in Asia have used their public mandate to confront or co-opt opposition parties, denying voters legislative alternatives and in some cases eliminating electoral choice altogether. Presenters will also discuss ways in which these leaders and their affiliates have brought key democratic institutions, including courts, media, anti-corruption agencies and electoral bodies into compliance with their larger political and ideological projects. They will further cover some common legal and extra-legal measures that have been used to consolidate popular support and minimize resistance from civil society groups.

By bringing scholars of South Asia and Southeast Asia in conversation, this roundtable will also discuss the role of voters in supporting and opposing the process of democratic retrenchment across Asia. How does the promise of economic prosperity bolster support for exclusionary ideologies in India and Indonesia? Why are the voters in Philippines and Indonesia underwriting a triumphant return of authoritarian-era pariahs through genuinely competitive elections? Is the fear of conservative Islam fueling popular support for civil society curbs in Indonesia and Bangladesh?

Presenters will further compare the common strategies that pro-democracy forces are using to fight democratic retrenchment and the avenues of redress that are still open to them. These include sub-national governance, alternative media outlets and youth groups.

Finally, the session will conclude by discussing the prospects for democratic renovation and reimagination in the region and how Asia’s experience can inform the broader field of knowledge about democratic politics.

The roundtable will run for 90 min. The chair will deliver opening remarks to identify big questions in the field and points of comparison (10 min). Each of the four presenters will speak on their country of expertise (40 min), followed by a roundtable debate and questions from the audience (40 min).

Democracy in Francophone Africa: Enduring Challenges and Paths Forward

Saturday, September 7, 4:00pm – 5:30pm Full Paper Panel

Participants : (Chair) Aili Mari Tripp, University of Wisconsin, Madison (Discussant) Scott Straus, University of California, Berkeley

Session Description: In the last four years, there have been 8 coups in Francophone Africa including two different coups in both Mali and Burkina Faso, which raise many questions about future governance trajectories for this understudied region. This panel explores governance, political economy, and citizen behavior across a range of countries in Francophone Africa. It touches on challenges facing countries in the region including informal economies and underemployment as well as accountable governance, but also pockets of democratic resilience. In doing so it highlights the tremendous variation in regime trajectories and citizens’ relationship to those regimes to highlight the distinct challenges and paths forward in a few different countries.

Elischer’s paper provides a useful overview of the recent coup wave in West Africa drawing on descriptive statistics, process tracing, and CSQA to compare causes and consequences of military interventions in Mali, Guinea, Niger, Chad, Burkina Faso, and Gabon. He shows that while all ruling juntas would like to put a presidential candidate in office, those that are most able to do so are the junta’s that share grievances with the broader military.

Diebire and Bleck offer in-depth analysis of country cases with a specific focus on citizens’ attitudes and behavior. Diebire explores the role of ethnicity in contemporary Burkina Faso and argues that citizens who prioritize ethnic identity over national identity are more skeptical about democratic governance and more willing to embrace authoritarian rule. Bleck explores the contradictions within Mali’s multi-party era by drawing on focus group data with members of more than 60 tea-drinking social clubs – mostly young, urban men. She highlights a perceived distance between citizens and elected officials, but the robust deliberative culture within Mali society as well as strong connections between citizens and non-elected forms of authority – such as religious leaders and traditional elites. Both papers offer insight into popular support for ruling juntas in countries which have boasted strong, pro-democracy popular movements in the past.

Finally, Gottlieb and Bhandari explore citizen preferences in a Francophone country that has not been touched by the coup wave but has been rocked by waves of protest: Senegal. They compare owners of formal and informal firms to see the conditions under which business owners might vote for programmatic policies instead of clientelist appeals. They use an information experiment in the lead up to Senegal’s 2022 elections and show that formal firms and informal firms that think they might formalize are more likely to support programmatic candidates than informal firms. The paper offers important lessons about voters in Senegal, but also those throughout this region – dominated by the informal economy.

Papers : Toward Praetorian-Led Electoral Authoritarianism? Coups in Francophone Africa Sebastian Elischer, University of Florida

The wave of military coups between 2020 and 2023 in Mali, Burkina Faso, Guinea, Niger, Chad, and Gabon has raised longstanding questions about the role of the military in fragile democratization processes. Drawing on descriptive statistical data, multimethod research techniques including csqca and process-tracing, and several rounds of field research in all six countries, the paper compares the causes and the subsequent political consequences of these military interventions. It is interested in the ability of the six juntas to influence the post-coup elections in favor of their preferred presidential candidate. The capacity of the juntas to do so varies significantly across the six countries. The extent to which the motives of the junta overlap with the grievances of the military-at large is the most decisive factor in accounting for this variation. Other variables such as the relationship between the junta and civilian domestic elites or the extent to which Western countries enjoy economic as well as diplomatic leverage matter comparatively little.

Tribe or Nation: Ethnicity’s Grip on African Political Ideology Samira Diebire, University of Essex

Amid the backdrop of recent coups and socio-political upheavals in Africa, this paper investigates the role of ethnic identity in shaping attitudes towards democracy, using Burkina Faso as a case study. I find a clear trend: relative to those who identify with their nationality over their ethnicity, individuals who identify with their ethnic group over their national identity tend to harbour reservations towards democratic governance, while simultaneously showing a preference for military or one-man rule. These findings highlight potential challenges for democratic resilience in the region. As West Africa grapples with political transitions and the Sahelian crisis, this study offers crucial insights into the ethnic dimension of democratic attitudes, carrying implications for policymakers, scholars, and state-building initiatives in fragile contexts.

Desires for Accountability and Obstacles to Democracy in Mali Jaimie Bleck, University of Notre Dame

This chapter draws explores the contradictions within Mali’s multi-party era by drawing on focus group data with more than 300 members of 66 tea-drinking social clubs in Bamako and Mopti/Sevare – mostly young, urban men. The data, collected in 2015, highlight a perceived distance between citizens and elected officials, but also robust deliberative culture within Mali society as well as strong connections between citizens and non-elected forms of authority – such as religious leaders and traditional elites. It explores the ways that popular this disjuncture fuels popular frustration with multi-party elections and desire for deep-seated reforms – foreshadowing popular support for Mali’s ruling junta. It concludes by highlighting young people’s ideas about an ideal political leader – stressing the importance of someone who is accountable to and responsible for the population’s concerns.

Private-Sector Support for Programmatic Candidates: Evidence from Senegal Abhit Bhandari, Vanderbilt University; Jessica Gottlieb, University of Houston

Informal firm owners in developing countries are thought to value clientelistic policies. Informal firms vie for targeted goods in competition over limited state resources, and, due to the electoral value of private-sector support, politicians offer clientelistic policies such as forbearance. In some countries where the informal sector has historically dominated economies, however, policymakers have touted business formalization as a method to break away from such clientelistic cycles. In this paper, we examine the conditions under which business owners may vote for programmatic candidates that campaign on impersonal, universalistic policies instead of particularistic ones. We argue that firm formality plays a critical role in moderating support for clientelistic candidates. Formal firms, facing complex local political pressures, are more likely to support programmatic candidates. Informal firms who believe they might formalize similarly break away from the cycle of clientelism. Using evidence from an information experiment conducted with firm owners in the formal and informal sectors ahead of Senegal’s local elections in 2022, we demonstrate the conditions under which workers prefer programmatic candidates. The results have implications for breaking links between the private sector and clientelism in developing economies, and simultaneously reducing economic inequality and market segmentation.

Aid and the Unraveling of Civil Society in Guinea and Sierra Leone Michelle Reddy, University of California Berkeley

The exhilarating third wave of democratization in the 1990s made it seem like democracy had triumphed the world over. However, since 2006, the high tide of democracy was slowly beginning to erode, and at a much faster pace in recent years. Democratic backsliding is global, even in West Africa, the region that made the most democratic gains in the 1990s and 2000s. “Coup culture” and unconstitutional changes to power have once again become pervasive (see, for example, Council on Foreign Relations 2021; Sampson 2012; Mustapha 2012), despite significant international investment in civil society and the active role civil society played in peacebuilding and democratic transition in many West African countries. While democratic consolidation cannot be reduced to a single factor (Diamond 2022), a strong civil society was viewed as a way to institutionalize democratic norms and serve as a buffer against backsliding. A “free and lively civil society”, effective electoral and representative institutions, rule of law, a functional state bureaucracy, and a market economy were viewed as the pillars of democratic consolidation (Linz and Stepan 1996). Consequently, following a series of civil wars from 1989-2003, international organizations encouraged the formation of civil society organizations (CSOs) in West Africa to rebuild civil society as part of the peacebuilding process, to promote democracy, and to counterbalance the state. Drawing on the Tocquevillian idea that voluntary associations without political objectives form the cornerstone of democratic civil life (de Tocqueville, 1835/1994), Putnam et al (1993) argued that associations produced horizontal networks of trust generating civic engagement. Subsequently, Putnam’s neo-Tocquevillian vision of civil society influenced the democratization wave of the 1990s. International organizations imagined a West African civil society comprised of formal organizations (WACSI, 2015) and separate from politics (LeVan, 2011), as central to democratization and development. Participatory approaches became a cornerstone of international development and peacebuilding (Sampson, 2012) and inclusion of civil society was viewed as the way to address emerging global threats (United Nations, 2004). While Western technical assistance reportedly was more prevalent in successful transitions and more limited, or absent, in failed transitions (Stoner et al 2013), external aid to civil society in West Africa has increasingly been questioned from a theoretical perspective as well as from a policy perspective. However, could (and should) civil society in West Africa be apolitical? While various scholars have debated the apolitical vision of civil society in West Africa (see, for example, LeVan 2011), in this book, I examine two main variables: politicization and professionalization, and discuss to what extent the professionalization and politicization of civil society influence a community’s capacity to collectively respond to crisis, drawing broader implications for democratic consolidation in West Africa. In addition, to what extent do donor preferences, especially with regards to professionalism, or technical capacity, shape civil society, and what does this mean for democracy? This book aims to consolidate these debates within a context where there is increasing skepticism among West Africans as to whether democracy has achieved its promises. Challenges to Western-funded civil society in Africa, for example, the lack of local finance and state-civil society relations, have not been examined systematically over time and across countries. Overall, this book traces the emergence and evolution of formal civil society organizations from democratic transition in Guinea and Sierra Leone, to public health crises (Ebola and COVID-19), and challenges to democracy at present. I examine the presence and density of non-profits as indicative of civic capacity across four field sites (capital cities and large towns in the interior) in Sierra Leone and Guinea, two countries with a prior experience of conflict and similar levels of human development, sharing a long border, with different institutional legacies. I argue that it is not just the number of associations, or having diverse nonprofits, that leads to resilience – in addition, the quality of deliberation and participation within organization and between organizations, and the diversity of organizations within civil society, matter for resilience. Considerations of the mechanisms fostering civic engagement, such as deliberation over issues, and community meeting attendance, are important in creating the type of civil society that can mobilize collectively during a crisis. A vibrant civil society brings all groups together – formal civil society organizations, informal groups, social movements unions, religious groups, and business leaders –together, across class, ethnic, and religious divides, during times of crisis.

Mini-Conference on Asian Political History

Sponsored by Division 7: Politics and History

Consequences of Empire in Asia

Friday, September 6, 8:00am – 9:30am Created Panel

Participants : (Chair) Dan Slater, University of Michigan (Discussant) Htet Thiha Zaw, University of Michigan

Session Description: This opening panel explores how imperial powers have both strategically and inadvertently shaped narratives and enduring patterns of nationalism, state-building, violence, and women’s rights in Asian countries such as China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Vietnam.

Papers : Debating Empire: Narratives of Colonial Rule in French Indochina Fiona Shen-Bayh, University of Maryland, College Park; Risa Kitagawa, Northeastern University

How Postcolonial Leaders Shape Colonial Narratives in Southeast Asia Dean Dulay, Singapore Management University

The Legacy of Colonial Settlement on Post-colonial Political Violence Harunobu Saijo, Hiroshima University

Religious Collision and Women’s Liberation in China Chu Lin; Chengli Wang, University of Macau; Wei-Ling Sun

Col. Rule, State-Building, and Enduring Antagonism Tianguang Meng, Tsinghua University

States and Vulnerable Populations in Asian History

Friday, September 6, 9:45am – 11:15am Created Panel

Participants : (Chair) Ji Yeon (Jean) Hong, University of Michigan (Discussant) Daniel M. Smith, University of Pennsylvania (Discussant) Sumin Lee, The Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University

Session Description: This panel brings together a range of papers that consider how states have historically ruled and misruled vulnerable populations such as ethnic minorities, women, and children in cases such as Indonesia, Japan, Laos, South Korea, and Vietnam.

Papers : Façade Fictions: Performative Compliance and Spaces of Impunity in Meiji Japan Reo Matsuzaki, Trinity College; Fabian Drixler, Yale University

Long-Term Effects of Ethnic Discrimination on Anti-China Protest in Indonesia Sanghoon Kim-Leffingwell, Johns Hopkins University; Yujeong Yang, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign

Legacies of Minority Mobilization Gregory Amusu, Princeton University

South Korea’s State-Run Fertility Policies and Effects on Women’s Participation Soosun You, University of California, Berkeley

Sovereignty and Rivalry in Asian Geopolitical History

Friday, September 6, 11:30am – 1:00pm Created Panel

Participants : (Chair) Yuhua Wang, Harvard University (Discussant) Austin Strange, University of Hong Kong (Discussant) Eun A. Jo, Cornell University

Session Description: This panel discusses how various Asian powers have historically related to each other and to outside forces as rising sovereign nations in the shaping of global geopolitical orders.

Papers : A Great Political Divergence Clair Yang, University of Washington; Yasheng Huang, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The Institutional Origin of Enduring Rivalries: The Case of Korea Jaeyoung Kim, McGill University

Contesting International Order and the Standard of Civilization Annie Hsu, University of Oxford

The Historical Struggles of Asian States

Friday, September 6, 2:00pm – 3:30pm Created Panel

Participants : (Chair) Xiaobo Lu, University of Texas at Austin (Discussant) Qin Huang (Discussant) Erik H. Wang, New York University

Session Description: This panel centers on the diverse historical struggles of Asian states such as China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam to build bureaucratic capacity, fend off external threats, and centralize authoritative power.

Papers : The Written Word and the Development of the State in China and Europe Cheng Cheng, NYU Wilf Family Politics Dept; David Stasavage, New York University; Yuhua Wang, Harvard University

War and Ancient State Formation along China’s Eastern and Southern Frontiers Tuong Vu, University of Oregon

External Threats and the Paradox of State-Building in Medieval Japan Erik H. Wang, New York University; Weiwen Yin, University of Macau

The Rise and Fall of Bureaucratic Rationality under Mao Michael Thompson-Brusstar, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Footprints of Conflict in Asia’s Violent 20th Century

Friday, September 6, 4:00pm – 5:30pm Created Panel

Participants : (Chair) William Hurst, University of Cambridge (Discussant) Hojung Joo, University of Michigan (Discussant) Yujeong Yang, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign

Session Description: This concluding panel traces the wide variety of ways in which histories of violent conflict have shaped patterns of political resistance and the politics that followed across Asia’s diverse national landscapes.

Papers : Legacies of Gender-Based Violence: Evidence from World War II “Comfort Stations” Risa Kitagawa, Northeastern University; Sumin Lee, The Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University

Economics of Mobilizing Free-Riders: Evidence from the Chinese Civil War, 1945-49 Peiyuan Li, University of Colorado Boulder

Repression and Mobilization Mark W. Frazier, New School for Social Research

Righteous Armies and Politics of Resistance in the Making of Modern East Asia Seo-Hyun Park, Lafayette College

The Long-Running Effects of Indonesia’s Abortive Land Reform William Hurst, University of Cambridge

Mini-Conference on Democracy and Organized Crime

Sponsored by Division 21: Conflict Processes

Democracy, Political (In)stability, and Organized Crime

Thursday, September 5, 8:00am – 9:30am Created Panel

Participants : (Chair) Omar Garcia-Ponce, George Washington University (Discussant) Javier Osorio, University of Arizona

Session Description: Our first panel examines how criminal groups influence democratic politics and the consequences of doing so. While democracy can hold officials accountable, it can also be exploited by criminal groups to influence who enters office and what policies are put in place. Further, democratic transitions of power can also be destabilizing to the ties between local officials and criminal groups. This panel examines the dynamics between democracy and organized crime, from the introduction of electoral changes and post-democratic reforms to shifts in state capacity and leadership. The papers here examine the effects on violence, criminal activities, state stability and capacity, and policy choices. This panel encompasses theoretically and empirically rigorous works, using both qualitative and quantitative methods, original data, interviews, and extensive documentation, in studies from across the globe, including Mexico, Kenya, Ecuador, and Brazil. Together, these papers draw a unique understanding of the complex relationship between democracy and organized crime.

Papers : Mobilizing to Prevent Election Violence: Evidence from Kenya Megan Turnbull, University of Georgia

Relational State Capacity and Criminal Violence: Ecuador’s Security Crisis Angelica Duran-Martinez, University of Massachusetts, Lowell

The Political Determinants of Violence against Environmental Defenders Mariana Carvalho, Brown University

Defending the Status Quo? How Reelection Shapes Criminal Collusion in Mexico Adee Weller, Emory University

How Organized Crime Affects Citizens’ Political Behavior

Thursday, September 5, 10:00am – 11:30am Created Panel

Participants : (Chair) Abby B. Cordova, University of Notre Dame (Discussant) Omar Garcia-Ponce, George Washington University

Session Description: Our second panel is dedicated to understanding the role of voters and accountability in democracies with organized crime. Using experimental and survey evidence in Ecuador, El Salvador, and Mexico, as well as in a low-violence context like the Peruvian case, this panel offers relevant insights on civilians’ attitudes that shape how representation and accountability are held in organized crime-affected areas. On the one hand, it addresses citizens’ attitudes toward victims in the context of war, considering gender and non-gender-based violence, as well as attitudes toward unauthorized migrant populations who leave their countries amid criminal violence. On the other hand, this panel also addresses perceptions toward state actors and the regime type, examining popular perceptions toward threatened politicians (by criminal groups), the military in contexts affected by organized crime, and how the perceived presence of drug trafficking organizations shapes voter support for elections and democracy.

Papers : Electoral Support for Candidates Involved in Drug Trafficking Mariana Victoria Ramirez Bustamante, Vanderbilt University

Criminal Violence and Attitudes toward Immigrants in Mexico Omar Garcia-Ponce, George Washington University

Coercion or Co-opted? Differential Effect of Corruption for Voters in a Drug War John Henry Murdy, University of Chicago

Public Security in Conflict & Post-conflict Settings

Participants : (Chair) David Andres Dow, Naval Postgraduate School (Discussant) Anna Maria Wilke, New York University

Session Description: Our third panel explores the politics of law enforcement by examining the interactions between criminal groups, police forces, and elected candidates. In conflict and post-conflict settings, political incentives of criminal actors and politicians often condition security assistance. This panel explores the politics of law and order in Latin America, placing particular emphasis on Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico. Within these states, the persistent issue of police violence and the lack of police reform have significantly shaped public sentiments toward law enforcement. The papers presented in this panel draw upon original datasets derived from survey and survey experiments, administrative data, and extensive qualitative information. Together, these papers shed light on the complex interplay involving elected officials, police officers, criminals, and citizens within societies marked by racial tensions and eroded democratic structures, especially in the context of widespread police violence.

Papers : The State That Forges Armed Criminal Groups Ana Paula Pellegrino, Georgetown University

Evidence from the Andean Coca Economy Andres Uribe, University of Chicago

The Politics of Policing: Origins of Uneven Distribution of Security in Colombia Manuel Moscoso, Brown University

Decentralize Policing? Insights from Mexico City Residents Jessica Zarkin, Claremont McKenna College

Crime-State Symbiosis: New Theories and Evidence

Thursday, September 5, 2:00pm – 3:30pm Featured Paper Panel: 30-minute Paper Presentations

Participants : (Chair) Benjamin Lessing, University of Chicago (Discussant) Gemma Dipoppa, Brown University (Discussant) Martin Castillo Quintana, University of Chicago

Session Description: Crime–State relations are paradoxical. States define what is “criminal”, and usually direct repressive force against it, yet such force can inadvertently strengthen criminal groups. Conversely, some criminal activity–especially criminal governance–may distance the state, while simultaneously benefiting it. Crime–State relations can thus be antagonistic at one level and symbiotic at another. This panel presents new formal theories of symbiosis and novel empirical study of its effects.

Papers : Persistent Duopolies of Violence: How the State Gets Drug Gangs to Govern for It Benjamin Lessing, University of Chicago

Armed criminal governance over civilians is common, persistent, and concentrated in urban zones within easy reach of state forces. If states strive to establish monopolies on the legitimate use of force, why do such duopolies of violence persist for decades? Might states prefer duopoly? Typical “Market for Protection” models offer limited traction: theoretically, they assume competing providers of protection would prefer monopoly; empirically, drug-retailing gangs often govern without charging any protection fees or taxes at all. Instead, I develop a public-goods model where state and criminal governance overlap and each stand to benefit the other actor. I compare a baseline model of (monopolistic) stationary banditry (McGuire and Olson, 1996) with a modified version that includes a second bandit—the gang—in terms of the state’s utility, social welfare (if different), and total governance. All three can be higher under criminal duopoly than under Weberian monopoly i gangs’ relative costs of governance-provision are lower. I then add a retail drug market in which gang governance (and taxation) affect drug profits by winning (or losing) residents’ loyalty. Here, the state may prefer duopoly even under equal costs of governance. State repression of retail trafficking can incentivize gangs to cut taxes and channel illicit profits into governance, indirectly benefiting the state enough that it prefers duopoly even though more drugs are trafficked than under monopoly. This requires the “pain” of drug trafficking to the state be neither too high (so that it monopolizes), nor too small (so that it de facto decriminalizes drugs and gangs lose the incentive to govern). If the state moves first, though, it might fight a drug war it cares nothing about merely getting the gang to govern for it.

A Model of State-Crime Relations: Crackdown, Collusion, or Omission? Heesun Yoo, Emory University

Governments have various approaches to dealing with organized crime, ranging from aggressive crackdowns to passive tolerance and even collaboration. To understand the logic behind the varied responses of governments, I developed a formal model that highlights the intertwined interests between the national government, organized crime groups (OCGs), and the community. I propose that the “illicit benefit” that ordinary citizens derive from the presence of OCGs is a key factor in determining the intensity of criminal violence and the government’s response. When citizens benefit more from OCGs’ businesses and social services, OCGs are more likely to reduce violence to secure citizens’ support and increase their chances of survival. This reduction in violence may then perpetuate the collusion between the OCG and the government. I present evidence supporting these main findings from a case study of the Shanghai Green Gang and the Japanese Yakuza.

Unfolding State Capture by Legalized Non-state Armed Actors in Colombia Javier Osorio, University of Arizona; Enrique Desmond Arias, Baruch College, CUNY; Camilo Pardo, George Mason University

States commonly rely on paramilitary forces to support their counter-insurgency efforts and often grant them special legal status or official recognition to consolidate their alliance. Moving beyond the battlefield, this study analyzes the effects of legalizing paramilitary groups on various government policies in Colombia. The study shows that formally recognizing paramilitary groups increases their coercive capabilities and allows them to shape local government institutions and policies in ways that favor the economic opportunities of local private elites. By relying on a new database of legally recognized paramilitary jurisdictions in Colombia and using a Regression Discontinuity research design, results show that the legalization of paramilitaries influences local government institutions that increase their use of violence, forcibly reshape land property rights, enable illicit economies, impose predatory taxation, engage in spendthrifty local finances, and implement regressive social policies.

Political Parties and American Democracy Mini-Conference I

Polarization in developing democracies.

Thursday, September 5, 8:00am – 9:30am Full Paper Panel

Participants : (Chair) Ezequiel Alejo Gonzalez Ocantos, University of Oxford (Discussant) Lisa Zanotti, Diego Portales University (Discussant) Luis Schiumerini, University of Notre Dame (Discussant) Susan C. Stokes, University of Chicago

Session Description: Political competition in democratic countries is increasingly structured around antinomies. While the sharp increase in political polarization begun in advanced democracies, it has now penetrated the developing world. Even if ideological attachments continue to be weak, the crystallization of positive and negative partisan/coalitional identities suggests we might be seeing the rise of affective polarization. Put differently, politics is becoming more tribal. To be sure, in some countries, polarization led to the demise of democracy. In others, however, the consequences have been more mixed. Tribalism sometimes complicates governability, but on occasion also gives politics new anchors of stability, albeit feeble ones.

While there is a vast literature on polarization in the USA, and to some extent Western Europe, much less has been written on the developing world. By focusing on Latin America, our panel features some of the ongoing efforts to address this gap in the literature. Contributors describe the types of political identities that give rise to polarization in the Latin American context, and via cross-country comparisons and single-country studies, also seek to explain the phenomenon and assess its implications for democracy. A theme that runs across most papers is the puzzle of political polarization amidst low levels of positive partisan identification and/or ideological distance. Specifically, what are the societal anchors of polarization under these conditions? Why is it that societies that do not appear to be ideologically polarized, or where few voters feel strongly attached to establishment parties, end up voting for highly polarized alternatives? To answer these questions, contributors rely on regional datasets, as well as on original quantitative and qualitative data from Argentina, Brazil, and Chile.

Papers : Latin America’s “New” Polarization: Elite and Mass Levels of Analysis Santiago Anria, Cornell University; Kenneth M. Roberts, Cornell University

Although several democratic regimes in Latin America have become increasingly polarized in the past decade, it is not clear why. Existing public opinion data is not moving in a uniformly polarizing direction. But even where public opinion is, in the aggregate, moderate or centrist, established political parties have collapsed in much of the region; political centers have dissipated almost everywhere; and in some unlikely cases, established parties have been outflanked by protest movements on both the left and the right, leading to highly polarized, high-stakes electoral contests. This paper examines the multidimensional character of polarization processes in an effort to explain how elite and mass levels of analysis do and do not align with one another – or why societies that do not appear to be highly polarized in public opinion surveys end up voting for highly polarized alternatives in the electoral arena. To develop this analysis, the paper uses a combination of public opinion and electoral data, as well as comparative case studies.

The Social Anchors of Affective Polarization Ezequiel Alejo Gonzalez Ocantos, University of Oxford; Carlos Melendez, Universidad Diego Portales

We know little about the extent to which Latin American “partisans” think about themselves and their rivals in the same way as partisans in other parts of the world do. Our paper addresses this gap with original experimental/observational survey data from Brazil and Argentina. We also rely on qualitative data collected via focus groups in both countries to get a sense of the meaning voters ascribe to partisan identities and contextualize survey findings. Specifically, we document the depth and intensity of partisan attachments and polarization across several dimensions: programmatic or policy preferences; degrees of perceived social distance, in-group favouritism, and out-group aversion; and reliance on cognitive mechanisms to enhance ontological security, including distorted perceptions of reality, group-size perceptions, and emotional reactivity to political events. We are thus able to trace the main contours of the key political fault lines (“grietas”) that have dominated Argentine and Brazilian societies over the past decade. The paper concludes by contrasting the kind of polarization present in these cases with what has been documented in the United States. On this front, we find that in Argentina and Brazil: (a) perceptions of social distance between groups are less intense; (b) out/in-group stereotyping is much more centered on questions of class; and (c) many partisans display identities defined primarily via antipathies to out-groups rather than a strong sense of belonging to an in-group. This leads them to dovetail with anti-political sentiments that, paradoxically, threaten the stability of existing partisan fault lines.

Identity and/or Ideology? The Bases of Affective Polarization in Chile Carolina Segovia, Universidad Diego Portales

Two apparently contradictory phenomena can be observed in Chilean politics today: high and rising levels of affective polarization and very low and declining levels of party identification. How can citizens polarize if what is usually understood as the basis for political identity -political parties- do not attract people’s hearts and minds? This paper addresses this question by considering the basis of affective polarization within the Chilean public. It argues that the answer relies on how people define “us” versus “them” and whether those differences are based on social and political sorting and/or ideological or policy issue differences. The paper uses different public opinion surveys to address these issues.

Explaining Differences in Affective Polarization in Latin America Luis Schiumerini, University of Notre Dame; Noam Lupu, Vanderbilt University; Virginia Oliveros, Tulane University

During the last two decades, polarization has increased in both established and young democracies. Political elites and citizens do not merely disagree on policy issues, such as how to manage climate change or whether to adopt single-payer health care. People of different political persuasions increasingly dislike and distrust each other at a personal level. Because this affective polarization cannot be resolved via political negotiation, it provides the grounds for disagreement over basic facts, political intolerance, and democratic erosion. The causes of affective polarization are not well understood. In this paper, we focus on social characteristics as correlates of polarization. What type of voters are more prone to express dislike and distrust for members of the opposite political side at a personal level? Using data from CSES from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay, we focus on social characteristics such as age, gender, income, education, and religion to assess which types of voters are more likely to show stronger dislike towards political outgroups.

New Approaches to Political Polarization in Comparative Perspective

Participants : (Chair) David J. Samuels, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities (Discussant) James N. Druckman, Northwestern University

Session Description: In line with this year’s conference theme of “Democracy, Retrenchment, Renovation and Reimagination,” this panel explores novel approaches to the pressing question of the sources and impact of political polarization on democracy and democratic participation. The panel brings together a diverse group of scholars, and each paper offers novel theoretical insights and empirical contributions. The panelists were invited to offer insight into a wide range of cases (Brazil, Russia, the USA, and Europe) in a thematically cohesive panel, so that participants and session attendants can learn from each other and spark fruitful conversations about cross-national similarities and differences in the roots and effects of polarization. Each paper seeks to push forward important questions in the study of polarization. Mutz & Asimovic look at the impact of polarization on social trust; Adams et al. explore mainstream parties’ dilemmas in attempting to combat right-wing populists; Samuels et al. explore the impact of perceptions of status gains as well as losses as drivers of polarization; and Rosenfeld considers the political psychology of when voters in an autocracy will take the risk of voting for the opposition.

Papers : Cross-Party Conflict and Diffusion of Populist Support in Europe James Adams, University of California, Davis; Josephine T. Andrews, University of California, Davis; Braeden Davis; Alexa Federice, University of California, Davis

How does publicly attacking or being attacked by populist parties affect mainstream and populist parties’ popular support? Past work finds that cross-party, elite-level, interactions involving populist parties are significantly more conflictual than interactions between mainstream parties. Using data from the Integrated Crisis Early Warning System, we analyze media reports of cross-party, elite-level, interactions in fourteen European party systems between 2001 and 2019. We hypothesize that mainstream party attacks against populist parties actually boost populist parties’ subsequent popular support, but do not meaningfully affect support for the mainstream attacking parties. Reciprocally, we expect populist party attacks on mainstream parties to increase populists’ subsequent support, while depressing support for the mainstream targets of the attack.

Why Contemporary Elections Reduce American Social Trust Diana C. Mutz, University of Pennsylvania; Nejla Asimovic, University of Pennsylvania

We hypothesize a spillover effect from the increasing politicization of everyday life onto how ordinary citizens feel about one another. We suggest that American life has become politicized to the point that merely supporting a losing presidential candidate holds the potential to reduce one’s level of social trust, that is, one’s trust in diffuse others. Strong affective polarization makes it ever more difficult for people to fathom how others come to vote as they do. Whether one is a Republican or a Democrat, knowing that that so many other people supported a candidate viewed as dishonest, unreliable, and morally bankrupt, makes it difficult to maintain faith in the masses. When people hold strong political preferences, yet their favored candidate loses, it prompts lower levels of social trust because they conclude that others in their society simply cannot be trusted.

Polarization and Perceptions of Status Gain and Loss: The Case of Brazil Fernando Barros de Mello, Carlos III-Juan March Institute of Social Sciences; David J. Samuels, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities; Cesar Zucco, Getulio Vargas Foundation

Brazilian voters are deeply polarized between supporters and opponents of the Partido dos Trabalhadores (Workers’ Party – PT). Although such polarization began to emerge before the PT rose to power in 2003, we suggest that support or opposition to policies that PT governments have enacted since then to ameliorate Brazil’s racial, gender, and socio-economic inequalities now drive the divide that exists today. These policies, beyond just producing actual winners and losers, have triggered perceptions of status gains and losses. Using an original nationally representative survey tailored to probe status perceptions, we show that Brazilians who perceive status gains for themselves as well as for “people like them” are more likely to be PT partisans, while those who perceive status losses are more likely to oppose the party. We further tie status perceptions to polarization by showing that positive and negative partisanship are tightly linked to attitudes about welfare deservingness, racial resentment, and gender hostility, which reflect approval of or hostility towards perceived winners and losers of PT policies. Our findings provide novel insight into the importance of perceptions of status gain as well as loss as sources of partisan polarization in the Brazilian case and contribute to our general understanding of the politics of resentment.

Affective Polarization and Risky Politics in Autocracies Bryn Rosenfeld, Cornell University

When citizens of autocracies vote for the dictator’s opposition or take part in contentious collective action, they take significant risks. What drives this behavior? And why do people who are normally risk averse sometimes choose to gamble politically? This paper explores the relationship between polarization and citizens’ willingness to take political risks. Using survey data from Russia where the war in Ukraine has deepened political divisions, I study risk preference reversals, building on framing and relational theories. While the first posit that risk reversals occur, and people become risk seeking, when choices are convincingly framed as losses rather than gains, the second contends that risk discounting results when strong in-group identities are activated. I consider how affective polarization shapes the political behavior of citizens through the lens of these theories, shedding light on the psychological bases of dissent in nondemocratic settings.

Left Parties in Advanced Capitalism

Thursday, September 5, 12:00pm – 1:30pm Co-sponsored by Division 11: Comparative Politics Full Paper Panel

Participants : (Chair) Peter A. Hall, Harvard University (Discussant) Jane R. Gingrich, University of Oxford (Discussant) Julia Lynch, University of Pennsylvania

Session Description: This panel on Left Parties in Advanced Capitalism examines how parties traditionally associated with the working classes and organized labor have responded to the political changes brought on by advanced capitalism. It brings together scholars of comparative and American politics and comparative political economy to understand the relationship of party organizations to inequality, partisan realignment, and democratic decline. The left has changed profoundly over the past forty years, combining neoliberal economic orthodoxies with social democratic commitments in ways that have eroded their relationships with their traditional constituencies. These papers examine what “the left” means in a neoliberal era, and they consider how social democratic ideas, organizations, networks, and leaders have adapted over forty years.

This panel includes four papers that examine social democratic parties such as the Democratic party in the United States, the Swedish Social Democrats, the British Labour Party, and the German Social Democratic Party. Together, these papers show that social democratic parties underwent significant organizational and programmatic change in the late twentieth century. Two of the papers, “Practical Social Democracy” by Jonas Pontusson and “The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same: ideological stagnation in the contemporary mainstream left” by Max Kiefel, look at intra-party organizational dynamics. They first note that left parties’ policy outputs have changed: the parties responded differently to recent economic crises (i.e. the 2008 financial crisis) than they did to stagflation in the 1970s; since the 1990s, these parties have become less redistributive and more pro-affluent. Kiefel conducts Bayesian case analysis on the US Democratic party and the British Labour party, finding that ideological reinvention was due to the replacement of trade union elites by modernizing political professionals. Pontusson examines major policy shifts by the Swedish Social Democrats and the failure to reverse bourgeois reforms in 2014-2022, as well as third-way policies in the United Kingdom and Germany. This paper argues that social democratic parties moved away from a traditional focus on economic inequality because of the decline of former trade-union officials as ministers in social democratic governments.

By showing that the decision-makers within left parties were changing, these papers trace the rupture of the long-symbiotic relationship between organized labor and social democratic parties. They help us understand how the policy goals of these parties changed, and why the left parties adopted economic policies—including austerity, retrenchment, and deregulation—that they formerly opposed. The next two papers examine the relationship of party organizations to other political groups.

In “Organized Power and Networks within the Contemporary Democratic Party Coalition,” Ian Berlin, Jacob Hacker, Fiona Kniaz, Amelia Malpas, Paul Pierson, and Sam Zacher aims to quantify interest group policy influence in the Democratic Party’s extended network. It leverages three new sources of data on left-affiliated interest groups, including their electoral expenditures, financial resources, and membership; whether Democratic members of Congress tout relationships with these groups; and interviews with activists involved in Democratic policymaking. Finally, Didi Kuo and Noam Lupu, in “The Electoral Roots of the Third Way,” examine how left parties in Britain, the United States, and Germany embraced a strategy of triangulation—combining policies of the right with social democratic commitments—and ask whether this was motivated by public demand, or instead by party elites. The paper is interested in public opinion on left parties in the third way era, and the composition of pro-third way factions.

The challenges facing advanced democracies today are rooted in widespread distrust in government and parties, as well as economic grievances rooted in advanced capitalism. Parties of the left are undergoing realignment, with a base of educated professionals rather than the working class. They therefore, to develop programmatic commitments that seem to address the problems related to advanced capitalism, and, therefore, fuel discontent even as they continue to win elections. This panel situates social democratic parties in debates about political economy, democratic responsiveness, and backsliding.

Papers : Organized Power and Networks within the Contemporary Democratic Party Coalition Jacob S. Hacker, Yale University; Paul Pierson, University of California, Berkeley; Sam Zacher, Yale University

The American parties’ electoral coalitions and policy priorities have indisputably changed over recent decades. Scholarship has focused on shifts in the class and geographic composition of each party’s voters, but parties are also coalitions of “intense policy demanders” (Bawn et al., 2012). How do recent changes in the parties’ electoral bases and policy stances relate to their networks of allied interest groups? The most detailed accounts currently available focus on interest groups critical to the contemporary Republican Party, which are implicated in its rapidly changing political orientation (Skocpol and Hertel-Fernandez 2016; Hacker and Pierson 2020). In this paper we aim to quantify levels of policy and political influence of interest groups in the Democratic Party’s extended network, where recent changes have been more subtle but nonetheless substantial. To do so, we engage with three primary sources of data. First, we draw on data from MapLight, the IRS, Senate lobbying reports, and the FEC to examine the lobbying and electoral expenditures, financial resources, and membership and staff sizes of interest groups active in the Democratic Party. Second, we turn to an original dataset of organizations whose support congressional Democrats showcase in their press releases, which reveals which organizations Democrats want to be publicly affiliated with. These press releases, like the MapLight data, also allow us to identify networks of party-aligned interest groups that share legislative priorities. Finally, we augment these large-n sources with original interview evidence from advocacy group leaders actively involved in the Democratic Party’s recent policymaking. Together, these varied data shed light on the emerging structure of group influence on the Democratic Party at a moment of considerable coalitional and agenda change.

The Electoral Roots of the Third Way Didi Kuo, Stanford University; Noam Lupu, Vanderbilt University

This paper examines the politics of the third way—the social democratic rightward turn in the 1990s. Left parties in Britain, the United States, and Germany lost elections to conservative parties through the 1980s. The strategy of triangulating—combining policies of the right with social democratic commitments—was therefore seen as driven by electoral exigencies. While this economic program helped left parties capture majorities, this paper uses survey data to examine whether the third way was an elite program (i.e. driven by party leaders) or whether it was instead responsive to at least one faction of the left’s base (and therefore driven by public opinion). The paper pays particular attention to the composition of pro-third way factions, and the strategies left parties used to campaign on third way policies that were otherwise unpopular.

Practical Social Democracy Jonas Pontusson, University of Geneva

The core theme of the essay is that literature on the erosion of socials democracy focuses too much on programmatic trade-off and the inability to find a “winning formula.” What Social Democrats actually do also matters. The essay will focus on ties with the working class, not just blue-collar but also white-collar, against a backdrop of rising working-class populism. The paper asks why the effect of Left government on social spending and redistribution has been less pronounced after 1990 than pre-1990 (Kwon and Pontusson 2010), and why social democratic governments used to be equally responsive to the preferences of low-income and high-income citizens in the domain of economic and social policy but have become more “pro-affluent” since the 1990s (Mathisen et al 2023). It examines major policy shifts by the Swedish Social Democrats from 1990-2006 and the failure to reverse bourgeois reforms in 2014-2022, with implications for (a) income inequality, (b) dualization/precarity and (c) de-unionization. It then examines the third way in comparative perspective and emphasizes the historic role of trade unions. Not only were they allies of social democracy by mobilizing workers to vote, but they also focused attention on distributive issues. Drawing on comparative data on the decline of former trade-union officials as ministers in social democratic governments, the paper then examines how middle-class professionals have become more important as policy and PR advisors as well as candidates.

The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same Max Kiefel, Harvard University

Why did mainstream left parties re-orient their policy programs in response to the stagflation crisis of the 1970s but not the financial crises of the 2010s? In this paper, I argue that to understand party decision-making we need to identify how organizational structures condition a party’s overarching ideological orientation, which underpins party policy and electoral strategy. I develop a conceptual approach where organizational change enables processes of sociological turnover amongst intra-party actors, who are identified as the drivers of ideological re-invention. Through Bayesian case analysis of the United States Democratic Party and the British Labour Party, I demonstrate that cohesive ideological re-orientation occurred in the late 20th century as organizational change facilitated the replacement of trade union elites by modernizing political professionals; in the 2010s, the failure of challengers to achieve organizational change ensured that these same types of professionals would retain their dominant hold over party institutions and prevent substantive ideological re-orientation.

Author Meets Critics: “Claiming and Contesting Representation in Mexico”

Thursday, September 5, 2:00pm – 3:30pm Author Meets Critics

Participants : (Chair) Michael Saward, University of Warwick (Presenter) Fernando Castaños, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (Presenter) Eline M. Severs, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (Presenter) Jorge Cadena-Roa, UNAM (Presenter) Cristina Puga-Espinosa, Univcersidad Nacional Autónoma de México (Presenter) Jose Luis Velasco, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (Presenter) Carina Galar, Centro de Investigaciones Interdisciplinarias en Ciencias y Humanidades UNAM

Session Description: “Claiming and Contesting Representation in Mexico: Meanings, Practices and Settings” (Bristol University Press, 2023), edited by Fernando Castaños, Silvia Inclán, and Michael Saward offers the first in-depth English-language analysis of the politics of representation and representative democracy in Mexico. Through innovative conceptual work and original case studies, it explores important trends in Mexican politics and governance through the lens of representation, including who speaks and stands for whom, on what grounds and in what domains. Revealing a significant portrait of major tensions in and threats to democracy across Mexico, the book engages closely with current trends in the theory and practice of political representation, draws on interdisciplinary approaches, and offers fresh perspectives on the processes that shape political life.

With its productive mutual dynamic between theory and practice as a defining feature, the volume is both about Mexico and about the world of representation seen from Mexico. The book contains rich new studies of electoral party, civil society, social movement, ethnic, gender, bureaucratic, corporate, and associative representation – at the local as well as the national level. Chapter authors apply the topical and ground-breaking idea of the ‘representative claim’, at the same time adapting and refining that perspective, while each chapter also deploys and defines further cutting-edge concepts.

The authors of the book’s texts are Fernando Castaños, Silvia Inclán, Alejandro Monsiváis, Matilde Luna, José Luis Velasco, Cristina Puga, Iván Islas, Carina Galar, Scott McLean, Laura Montes de Oca Barrera, Ricardo Tirado, and Michael Saward. They work at various centres of Mexico’s National University (UNAM) and Colegio de la Frontera Norte (COLEF), Canada’s Calgary University and the UK’s University of Warwick.

This Meet the Authors roundtable will offer an account of the book’s distinctive overall contribution, presented by Fernando Castaños, and a deeper dive into the arguments of four chapters by their authors (or coauthors): Alejandro Monsiváis, “Representative claims in Mexico’s 2018 election”; Carina Galar, “Contesting gender representation in Oaxaca´s indigenous communities”; Cristina Puga, “Participatory democracy in Yucatán; and José Luis Velasco, “Representation in complex associative systems”. The roundtable will also comprise brief outlines of works in progress stimulated by the book’s arguments and debates, including analyses of representative claims in Mexico’s 2024 election, an experimental design (and preliminary results) to test representative claim framing, and further qualitative data on contestations of gender representation. A group of invited discussants will comment the presentations and there will be dedicated time for audience questions and discussion.

Going Negative: How Information Affects Attitudes

Thursday, September 5, 4:00pm – 5:30pm Co-sponsored by Division 38: Political Communication Full Paper Panel

Participants : (Chair) Taeku Lee, Harvard University (Discussant) Kris-Stella Trump, Johns Hopkins University

Session Description: A core question of democracy is how citizens get their information about politics and how that information affects what policies they want from politicians. Indeed, how citizens process the negative news that often dominates contemporary discussions of the economy is at the heart of the conference theme of how democracies can renew themselves in an era of political polarization.

This is a question of how the media covers the news and how citizens process information about the state of the economy and society. The papers look at this overarching question from different perspectives. Three of the papers look at how people consume and react to news-like information, particularly negative news. Culpepper, Shandler, and Lee look at how various negatively reported economic events – scandals, political capture, and instances of economic unfairness – differentially affect regulatory attitudes and propensity to participate in politics in four countries: France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States. The paper by Pralle and Thorson considers how the negativity bias in media coverage shapes citizen knowledge and engagement by comparing the effects of information about successes and failures in three separate areas of American public policy: child health, the environment, and education. The paper by Soroka and Wlezien looks at how negativity bias can lead to media inaccuracy, or misinformation, in reporting about unemployment levels. Hicks, Jacobs, and Matthews zero in on one particular type of information – about the level of inequality in the US – and consider how exposure to this information affects willingness to contribute to public goods, which it finds is reduced by reading about the true level of inequality. The paper also examines mechanisms behind this effect, finding evidence for arguments about system-fairness and political trust. Etienne and Mutz complement the other papers on the panel by looking at how the dynamics of public opinion shift with a change in partisanship of the White House.

Methodologically, the panel combines the use of surveys and survey experiments with the use of automated content analysis and data about macroeconomic aggregates, looking at both the macro-outputs of the media as well as informational effects at the individual level. Some of the papers focus on the United States alone, while others study the US in comparative context.

Papers : Nothing Beats a Good Scandal: Negative News and Attitudinal Change Pepper D. Culpepper, University of Oxford; Ryan Shandler; Taeku Lee, Harvard University

Negative media coverage is often thought to be especially important in the way that people form politically relevant attitudes about the economy and economic policy. In this paper we consider three characteristic modes of negative coverage and how they influence attitudes to economic regulation: corporate scandals; state capture through corporate lobbying; and unfairness of existing policy arrangements. Using a large, 4-country panel survey, we use survey experiments to identify the effect of these types of news coverage on regulatory preferences across three different economic sectors: technology, finance, and energy. Across the combined sample we find that scandals have a larger positive effect on attitudes towards regulation than do either capture or fairness articles, regardless of whether use a between-subject (treatment-control) set-up or whether we look at within subject differences between survey waves. We further examine the mechanisms behind these changes, looking at both emotions and learning. Our findings suggest implications for which sorts of negative economic occurrences may be most likely to emerge as focal events have important implications for reforms of public policy.

Accuracy and Asymmetry in the News Stuart N. Soroka, UCLA; Christopher Wlezien, University of Texas at Austin

There are large and growing bodies of work highlighting inaccuracies in news coverage. In this paper, we suggest that “negativity biases” in news account for some portion of longstanding inaccuracies (or “misinformation”) in coverage. Using automated content analyses of over 40 years of television news transcripts merged with macroeconomic data, we measure the accuracy of coverage of unemployment across the six major US broadcasters (ABC, CBS, NBS, Fox, MSNBC and CNN). We then examine the degree to which variation in accuracy – both across broadcasters and/or over time – is associated with variation in the tendency to outweigh negative information relative to positive information. Findings suggest a connection between inaccuracy and negativity biases; and preliminary analyses suggest that similar dynamics may be evident in news reporting of policy. We interpret these findings as they relate to our understanding of “misinformation” in the news and consider their implications for public preferences on a broad range of political and economic issues.

The Effects of Policy Successes vs. Policy Failures Sarah Pralle, Syracuse University; Emily Thorson, Syracuse University

This paper seeks to answer a question fundamental to citizen engagement around policy issues: how does information about policy successes versus policy failure shape attitudes and behavior? We compare the effects of information about policy success versus failure in three separate areas (child health, the environment, and education). Specifically, we examine how these two types of information shape (1) political engagement around the issue (including mobilization and salience) and (2) support for future government action on the issue (including funding and prioritization). These findings contribute to the larger literature on how the negativity bias in media coverage might shape citizen knowledge and engagement.

Economic Inequality, Information, and Political Support for Public Goods Timothy Hicks, University College London; Alan M. Jacobs, University of British Columbia; Scott Matthews, Memorial University

Economic inequality has steeply increased over the past four decades across the high-income, established democracies. The literature on public responses to inequality has tended to focus on whether inequality provokes demands for the state to do more by boosting redistribution. In this paper, we instead pursue the possibility that rising inequality undermines the popular foundations of state action. Building on findings in diverse literatures in political science, economics, and psychology, we hypothesize that one important effect of the steep rise in inequality may be to undermine support for public investment in costly public goods among the non-rich. We theorize that economic inequality may reduce lower- and middle-income citizens’ willingness to pay for public goods through three possible mechanisms: by changing evaluations of the fairness of the political-economic system in the broad sense (“system fairness”); by changing evaluations of the distributive fairness of the tax measures required to finance public goods (“policy fairness”); and by reducing the perceived likelihood that politicians will deliver promised public goods after taxes are paid (“political trust”). Via any of these mechanisms, citizens who receive or attend to information indicating that they are on the losing side of rising inequality would be expected to become less willing to pay higher taxes to finance additional public goods. We evaluate these conjectures through a series of online survey experiments, administered to large samples of voting-age citizens in the U.S., in which the key treatment is the presentation of information about rising inequality. While results vary to some degree across experiments, we find considerable evidence that providing and making salient information about rising concentrations of income at the top reduces non-rich respondents’ willingness to pay for public goods, and that it does so through our hypothesized system-fairness and political-trust mechanisms, with no evidence of the operation of a policy-fairness mechanism. The findings shed light on the nature of modern democratic states’ capacity to deliver collective goods that are foundational to social wellbeing and economic prosperity, while clarifying the political ramifications of rising inequality beyond the politics of redistribution.

The Dynamics of Policy Opinions When the Party in Power Changes Tom W. Etienne, University of Pennsylvania; Diana C. Mutz, University of Pennsylvania

Our paper provides an individual-level examination of the Wlezien’s thermostatic model of opinion change as well as the Coggins, Stimson, Atkinson, and Baumgartner elaboration on it. We test models of opinion dynamics over time using 8 waves of nationally representative panel data from October 2016-October 2022. By studying changes in policy attitudes from a Democratic administration (in 2016) to a Republican administration (in 2017), as well as changes from a Republican administration (in 2020) to a Democratic one in 2021 among the same individuals, we further contribute to an understanding of policy opinion dynamics over time when the party in the White House changes.

Political Parties and American Democracy Mini-Conference II

Data sources for the study of congress.

Participants : (Chair) Daniel Schuman, POPVOX Foundation (Presenter) Daniel Schuman, POPVOX Foundation (Presenter) Derek Willis, The New York Times (Presenter) James R. Jones, Rutgers University

Session Description: Studies of the Legislative branch often rely upon datasets that directly or indirectly describe actions inside the U.S. Congress and its support offices and agencies. However, the Legislative branch releases significantly more data than is commonly realized by academics and others who study Congress.

This session will provide an overview of often overlooked data sources about Legislative branch activities from the perspective of an expert who has spent 15 years encouraging Congress to release more information about its activities and has previously served as a Congressional staffer. It will include a review of select non-official but reliable sources of data generated by civil society and journalists.

Underpinning the conversation will be a catalog of datasets, including what they contain and where they can be found. It will also include a call to action for those in attendance to describe datasets that they would like to have access to support their research.

Scholars Assess and Reimagine the 2024 American Political Party Conventions

Participants : (Chair) Denise L. Baer, Strategic Research Concepts (Presenter) Robert G. Boatright, Clark University (Presenter) Michael T. Heaney, University of Glasgow (Presenter) Eric S. Heberlig, University of North Carolina, Charlotte (Presenter) Caitlin E. Jewitt, Virginia Tech (Presenter) Hans Noel, Georgetown University (Presenter) Seth E. Masket, University of Denver (Presenter) Karen Denice Sebold, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville (Presenter) Linda Trautman, Ohio University Lancaster

Session Description: The Democratic and Republican political party conventions reappear in 2024 as in-person events after the COVID 2020 hiatus which provided a sharp global drop in collective action in-person organizing. In other changes, American politics has seen a rise in increased presidential/executive power, an insurrection attempt, and interested or “dark” money which skirts federal regulation following the United decision treating corporations as individuals and expanded use of the 501(c)4 IRS loophole that allows non-party groups to act like political parties. To what extent are American political parties undergoing backsliding and retrenchment? What is the current status of parties and interests from a democratic lens? Is this primarily a problem within one political party as some have maintained (e.g., Norman Ornstein/Thomas Mann; APSA 2023 Task Force Report) or are both American political parties susceptible to minority factions governing undemocratically? How do we define what is majoritarian and do we need to consider no parties or more parties (Jack Santucci) to answer these questions? In an era where national 501(c)4 groups like No Labels are nonetheless qualifying as political parties on state ballots, does the current combination of (private) political associations and the electoral college collide to create chaos in electing presidents? To what extent do both political parties require renovation and reimagination to better serve their democratic promise? Political scientists associated with the Research Collaborative on Studying Political Party Conventions and Meetings Comparatively who have conducted field research in 2024 and at previous conventions will discuss these issues from a variety of perspectives – party rules and governance, political money, group participation and advocacy surrounding the conventions and nomination processes, and protestors. Paradoxically, since the 1960s, American party conventions have been both described as undemocratic AND as a major party institution that expands democratic access, transparency, and accountability. The political party reforms of the 1970s and 1980s dramatically expanded access to the party grassroots and opened up the nominating processes to both activists at the organizational levels and voters in party primaries. Yet increasing concerns about party responsibility was the impetus for the American Political Science Association Presidential Task Force appointed by John Ishiyama. The APSA Task Force issued its report in 2023 with an emphasis on electoral reforms of primaries intended to move the parties away from “extreme” views. This roundtable will extend this important debate by examining and reimagining the internal and external lives of political parties by focusing on political party conventions. Conventions are the only quadrennial national gathering of the political parties – a meaningful source of data and respondents – and an arena and institutional governance architecture for participation, governance and politicking that go beyond non-nomination party functions. Assessments of what Judith Parris has labeled as the “convention problem” also stress nominations over internal party democracy and governance. For example, other political scientists have decried the ability of political party conventions to provide democratic governance. Instead, conventions have been decried as a “bifurcated” (Byron Shafer) “combination carnival, Roman circus, and revival meeting (James Davis) of interest only to political insiders where ““prominent reporters have more influence… than do the delegates” who serve as “extras” (Costas Panagopoulos) and “register choices that have already been made” so that “national conventions have become to the nominating process what the Electoral College is to the electing process” (Austin Ranney). While there is rich body of delegate surveys telling us a great deal about who the delegates are, their attitudes, and where they came from, the significance of conventions as an institutional part of the party organization – or as a key stage in the nomination process – is less well understood. Seemingly wide disciplinary acceptance of the narrowly defined “convention problem” has led to a decline in participant observation and political ethnography of the conventions both inside and outside the hall while media accounts prevail. Can the media adequately cover the conventions or does political science have new things to add to the efforts to reimagine political parties and democracy? The risk is a “drunkard’s search” (looking where the light is) where political science as a discipline is understanding conventions and party meetings through the media rather than direct observation. This roundtable which includes scholars with diverse views will discuss these issues sharing “early returns” from both 2024 individual research projects as well as from the collaborative effort to address the U.S. convention problem.

Effective Lawmaking and Compromise in Congress and the States

Friday, September 6, 12:00pm – 1:30pm Co-sponsored by Division 22: Legislative Studies Full Paper Panel

Participants : (Chair) Craig Volden, University of Virginia (Discussant) Sean M. Theriault, University of Texas, Austin (Discussant) Alan E. Wiseman, Vanderbilt University

Session Description: This panel features cutting-edge work on effective lawmaking, as well as the role of legislative compromise, within both the U.S. Congress and the American states.

Papers : Are Wealthy Lawmakers More Effective? Danielle Thomsen, University of California, Irvine; Ryan Mundy, University of California, Irvine; Savannah Plaskon, UC Irvine

A central question in the study of Congress is which lawmakers are more effective in office. Prior research has shown that gender, prior experience, seniority, and institutional positions are (at least sometimes) associated with legislative effectiveness. We add to this body of work by examining a new variable: legislator wealth. This paper examines whether rich members of Congress are more effective lawmakers. We draw on a new dataset of the assets held by members of Congress from 2008 to 2022. We find little evidence that wealthy members are better lawmakers, nor do we find that rich members become more effective during their time in office in ways that differ from their less wealthy counterparts. Thus, while rich candidates have a clear advantage at the ballot box, the results cast doubt on the idea that their victory leads to higher quality officeholders or better representation for constituents.

Growing Latino Constituencies and Representational Change in the U.S. Congress Carlos Algara, Claremont Graduate University

Since 1970, and reflecting an increasingly diversifying country, the share of the U.S. population identifying as Latino grew from 5% to 23% while the share of the non-Latino white population fell from 93% to 59%. Today, Latinos represent the fastest growing and largest minority group in the United States, with projections suggesting that a third of the population will identify as Latino by 2030. Are legislators responsive to these profound demographic changes among their constituents? We extend previous work by focusing systematically on how Democratic and Republican legislators in both congressional chambers adjust their representation in the face of profound demographic changes among their constituents. First, we test whether legislators “hedge their bets” and compile more ideologically inconsistent voting records in response to uncertainty in preferences of a growing Latino population. Second, we test whether growing Latino constituencies (1) alter the policy content of the bills legislators introduce and co-sponsor; and (2) shape the issue domains legislators strategically choose to be effective in. We pay particular focus to how demographic changes motivate the work of legislators on immigration policy and partisan asymmetry, positing the conditional theory that growth in Latino constituencies leads Democratic legislators to be more active in advancing permissive immigration bills while Republican legislators choose to be more active in advancing restrictive immigration bills. Our findings shed light on how legislators alter their representation in Washington in response to burgeoning demographic changes at home.

Enabling Compromise Nicolas Hernandez Florez, University of Michigan; Christian Fong, University of Michigan

Many legislators recognize that compromise is a prerequisite for achieving their policy goals, but they fear that primary voters will punish them for compromising. We show one tactic party leaders use to facilitate compromise: scheduling a vote on a more extreme, ideologically pure version of the proposal (an affirmational vote) before voting on the compromise. A survey experiment shows that this reduces the punishment compromisers face from primary voters by affirming the compromisers’ ideological commitment. An observational study of Republican legislators’ messaging around debt ceiling negotiations shows that, surprisingly, compromisers rarely mention these affirmational votes. Instead, these votes are usually invoked by legislators who opposed the compromise. We hypothesize that these affirmational votes are intended to shift the rhetoric of legislators who opposed the compromise away from questioning the ideological commitment of the compromisers and toward a tactical discussion of whether it was feasible to pass a more extreme bill.

Bipartisan Campaigning, Collaboration, and State Legislative Effectiveness Mackenzie Ridge Dobson, University of Virginia

To what extent does the use of bipartisan language in state legislative campaigns predict a lawmaker’s propensity to engage in bipartisan collaboration, and what might this mean for their legislative effectiveness? The study analyzes campaign materials for 11,038 legislators elected between 2006 and 2016 to identify candidates who utilize bipartisan rhetoric before their first term in office. Employing a word embedding model, the research navigates the complex linguistic landscape of political campaigns. This model leverages a neural network architecture to predict words in campaign statements based on contextual proximity. The analysis seeks to discern patterns of bipartisan messaging, evaluating both frequency and sincerity. This approach aims to determine if such rhetoric is a strategic tool for electoral success or reflects genuine bipartisan intentions. Post-election, the study further examines the behavior of elected lawmakers, investigating how campaign rhetoric aligns with legislative actions, explicitly focusing on co-sponsorship behavior and its subsequent impact on legislators’ state legislative effectiveness scores (SLES).

Authors Meet Critics: Paul Pierson and Eric Schickler’s “Partisan Nation”

Friday, September 6, 2:00pm – 3:30pm Co-sponsored by Division 7: Politics and History Author Meets Critics

Participants : (Chair) Robert Mickey, University of Michigan (Presenter) Suzanne Mettler, Cornell University (Presenter) Hakeem Jerome Jefferson, Stanford University (Presenter) Katherine Krimmel, Barnard College, Columbia University (Presenter) Paul Pierson, University of California, Berkeley (Presenter) Eric Schickler, University of California, Berkeley (Presenter) Daniel F. Ziblatt, Harvard University

Session Description: This panel will discuss Pierson and Schickler’s major new work, Partisan Nation: The Unmaking of the U.S. Constitutional Order (forthcoming 2024 by U. of Chicago Press). This book, by two of the field’s most renowned scholars, is a fascinating exploration of contemporary American polarization in historical perspective. Its authors argue that the implications of polarization are now much graver than those in prior periods. In the past, mediating institutions such as fragmented state parties, loosely aligned interest groups, and locally-rooted press moderated the negative effects of polarization. In today’s highly nationalized partisan environment, these brakes on the dangers of polarization for America’s separation-of-powers system are much weakened. The panel features experts in American and comparative politics who will engage with the book from a variety of perspectives.

Author Meets Critics: “Filibustered!” by Senator Jeff Merkley & Mike Zamore

Friday, September 6, 4:00pm – 5:30pm Co-sponsored by Division 22: Legislative Studies Author Meets Critics

Participants : (Chair) Carlos Algara, Claremont Graduate University (Presenter) Sarah Binder, GWU / Brookings Institution (Presenter) Gregory Koger, University of Miami (Presenter) Wendy J. Schiller, Brown University (Presenter) Steven S. Smith, Arizona State University

Session Description: This panel will focus on the book “Filibustered! How to Fix the Broken Senate and Save America” by U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley and his former Chief of Staff Mike Zamore. The panel will be chaired by Carlos Algara (Claremont Graduate University) and include Sarah Binder (Brookings & George Washington University), Greg Koger (University of Miami), Wendy Schiller (Brown University), and Steve Smith (Arizona State University).

Proponents of filibuster reform argue that the explosion of filibustering in the U.S. Senate over the last 15 years has created crippling Congressional gridlock and contributed to Americans’ declining faith in democracy. Using the growth of the legislative filibuster at a critical moment for American democracy, Senator Jeff Merkley and Mike Zamore in “Filbustered!” argue that the contemporary Senate is a far cry from the deliberative legislature envisioned by the founders and is an institution crippled by dysfunctional inaction on popular legislation.

In the book, the authors provide a powerful firsthand account on the paralyzing gridlock found in the contemporary U.S. Senate brought by the increased use of the legislative filibuster by the minority party. Drawing on their experiences and a vast array of historical research, the authors take us behind the scenes to show how the filibuster cripples the lawmaking capacity of the Senate and what reforms can be taken to restore the “world’s greatest deliberative body.” More historically, the book also provides a comprehensive account from the first filibuster of 1841, through the filibusters of Civil Rights legislation by Southern Dixiecrats, through the present-day use of the “no-talk” filibuster as a minority party veto on legislation, much of which is strongly supported by the public. Through a comprehensive account of the history of the filibuster and suggestions of reform, the authors provide a framework of how the Senate can return to the deliberative body as envisioned by the founders.

Political Parties and American Democracy Mini-Conference III

Constitutions, counter-majoritarianism, and american democracy.

Participants : (Chair) Gretchen Helmke, University of Rochester (Discussant) Anne Meng, University of Virginia (Discussant) Jack Paine, Emory University

Session Description: Institutions can make or break a democracy. Having observed the transgressions of European monarchs, as well as the failures of the Continental Congress, America’s founders sought to construct a constitution that simultaneously limited and enabled government. The separation of powers system that they devised, with its intricate web of checks and balances established across the three branches of government, was crafted explicitly to tame the societal impulse towards parties, or “factions” as Madison called them. More than two hundred years later, there is growing concern that the solution, which had once appeared to work so brilliantly, has itself become part of the problem. Criticisms of the U.S. Constitution are neither new, nor confined to scholars of American politics. The escalating polarization of America’s two-party system, however, has led to renewed attention to the downsides of separation of powers systems, as well as ushered in a wave of calls for various institutional reforms. This panel brings together novel empirical and theoretical perspectives to understand the apparent “mismatch” between contemporary political parties and the U.S. Constitution. The papers on the panel also offer new insights into the potential trade-offs of various institutional reforms.

Papers : Intermittent Majorities: A Dynamic Theory of Democratic Inertia John Duggan, University of Rochester; Gretchen Helmke, University of Rochester

We develop a dynamic model in which political polarization is a function of democratic inertia. Our approach conceptualizes democratic inertia in terms of parameters that can reflect the separation of powers, (i.e. presidentialism, multicameral legislatures, and/or super- majority rules within legislatures, such as the Senate filibuster). The baseline model shows that the prospects for compromise decrease as the probability of future inertia grows: That is, the harder it is for parties generally to gain unilateral power, the more tempting it is to exploit such rare opportunities to “lock in” extreme policies. We further show that asymmetries matter: intuitively, institutional structures that affect parties differentially (e.g. one party may require less electoral support to change policy, due to democratic advantages via the US senate, via the electoral college, or via gerrymandering, etc.), make it more likely that advantaged parties will deviate from compromise. Notably, however, party asymmetries are not the essential driver of discord in our framework. We then endogenize democratic inertia in a dynamic model of elections and prove that the core mechanism is robust. By isolating a specific mechanism –democratic inertia via checks and balances – we also provide a novel lens for analyzing institutional reform proposals currently debated by policy-makers and scholars.

Expressive Politics: Animus, Cognitive Dissonance, and Electoral Extremism William G. Howell, University of Chicago; Mattias K. Polborn, Vanderbilt University; Stefan Krasa, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

We study a model of electoral competition that incorporates two expressive benefits of candidate position taking: the psychological costs of deviating from one’s own preferred policy and the psychological benefits of antagonizing an out-group. Whereas concerns about cognitive dissonance consistently temper candidate extremism, we show, the effects of animus are non-monotonic —exacerbating policy divisions when baseline levels are low and triggering one candidate’s capitulation (as distinct from both candidates’ moderation) when they are high. We further show that when communication channels are siloed and voters are less concerned about voting for someone who represents their own policy views, candidates are especially inclined to stoke inter-group animosities. Our findings have broad implications for understandings of political polarization, partisan sorting and representation, fragmented media markets, and separation of powers.

Tyranny of the Minority Steven Levitsky, Harvard University; Daniel F. Ziblatt, Harvard University

America is undergoing a massive experiment: it is moving toward a multi-racial democracy. But the prospect of change has sparked an authoritarian backlash that threatens the very foundations of our political systems: this paper draws on our book, Tyranny of the Minority, to explain why democracy is under assault in the United States but not in other wealthy, diversifying nations, and what we can do to save it. In particular, we explore how the US Constitution enables minority rule, and the reforms that may help to restore majority popular government.

Beyond the Principal-Agent Binary: New Approaches to Democratic Representation

Saturday, September 7, 10:00am – 11:30am Full Paper Panel

Participants : (Chair) Mark E. Warren, University of British Columbia (Discussant) Michael Saward, University of Warwick

Session Description: There is a long-ingrained conception of political representation that understands it as a binary relation between the represented (as the principal) and the representative (as the agent). The political institutions of modern representative democracy – parliaments and parliamentarians, democratic government, and political parties – have contributed to the predominance of this binary conception. They often present themselves, or are presented by commentators, as the mouthpiece of their constituencies, of the citizens, of the people at large, and regularly invoke the mechanism of electoral authorization and accountability to justify their right to speak on behalf of the represented. For a long time, empirical political science and normative political theory have built their instruments and concepts around this way of understanding democratic representation. They have done so in the face of some obvious difficulties: the multiplicity of wills characterizing the “principal” as well as the multiplicity of roles characterizing the “agents,” and the opacity of processes of authorization, accountability, and responsiveness. Despite the limits of such an approach, a great deal of good scholarly work has come from studies done within this framework of analysis. Moreover, there is something important in the idea that the legitimacy of modern democratic government must rest on a meaningful connection between the governed and those who govern.

During the last twenty years or so, however, there has been a fundamental turn in the study of political and democratic representation, questioning both the simple binary structure of the process, and its very nature. Representation is no longer considered as a kind of transmission-belt that links prior constituent preferences to political decision-making. Instead, representation is conceived as a process of constructing and mobilizing political interests, opinions, and identities of the represented as they are represented. This process takes place across formal and informal institutions, cuts across various levels (e.g., local, national, international), and involves a multitude of actors in changing roles.

The claim-making paradigm (Saward 2010; 2020) helpfully pushes the boundaries of the principal-agent binary conception of political representation. It casts representation in triadic relations: implying that representation is not only about those represented but is performed before relevant audiences (who do not necessarily overlap with the represented). As a complex, multifaced, and variegated process, the effectiveness and legitimacy become contextual; dependent on audiences’ engagement with the claims presented to them. This opens to novel ways of understanding political representation. Instead of thinking of political representation as a transmission-belt, one can think of it as a ‘system’ (Rey, 2020; Castiglione 2020) or an ‘ecology’ (Warren and Castiglione 2020); instead of thinking of relations of representation in synchronic terms, one can look at them diachronically: ‘recursively’ (Mansbridge 2018) or ‘reflexively’ (Saward 2021); instead of thinking of representation as always inclusive and empowering, one can also think of its asymmetric consequences on different groups in society (Dovi 2020).

The task of this panel is to explore the analytical and normative implications of these alternative approaches to political representation and consider their potential for fostering our understanding of democracy’s retrenchment and renovation, or its reimagining. Specific questions the papers in the panel address include the role of the ‘audience’ in the process of representation; in what sense the ecology of representation can also be toxic, alienating, and democratically illegitimate; the nature of the relationships between representation and deliberation in modern democracy; and how a more holistic understanding of representation relates to debates about ‘deliberative systems’ (Mansbridge et al. 2012, Bohman 2012).

Papers : Toxic Representation: An Ecological Approach? Suzanne Dovi, University of Arizona

Much has been written about the democratic potential, indeed the democratic necessity, of political representation in contemporary politics. While historically representation has been conceived as primarily a principal-agent relation, and deliberation has been extolled for mediating political conflict, these democratic “givens” often contribute to political hostilities in contemporary democratic politics. Elite representation contributes to anti-egalitarian populism and public political disagreements foster affective polarization. For this reason, modern politics requires a much more dynamic and complex understanding of representation as well as a more nuanced way to identify toxic ecologies. In particular, it will need to consider how certain patterns of inclusion and absences can undermine the legitimacy and desirability of representative processes (Dovi 2009, 2020). Inclusion alone should not be considered democratic. Nor should absences be treated as necessarily undemocratic. Rather it is imperative to acknowledge how the iterative nature of inclusion and absence facilitates democratic responsiveness and accountability. The benefits of such iterations though will depend on how representation produces and maintains citizens’ affective attachments to each other and to their political system. Although representation produces these affective attachments, I consider how some emotional attachments, lethal partisanship, can threaten the very legitimacy and desirability of the entire system. Put bluntly, what citizens desire and the particular content of their identity attachments can foster democratic backsliding, contribute to political paralysis, and ultimately, undermine citizens’ political agency. Drawing on recent empirical research on affective polarization, I want to consider how partisan attachments can create perverse incentives and introduce toxic ecologies – that is, modes of representation and deliberation that destabilize and undermine democratic governance.

Audience Power and the Configuration of Political Representation Eline M. Severs, Vrije Universiteit Brussel

Recent work on political representation has effectively extended our understanding of representation practices – to include also non-elected representatives – and has introduced a grammar of representation that provides new levels of analytical purchase (e.g. Saward 2006; 2020; Shirin & Reinelt 2014). Audiences are an elementary part of this new grammar but their contributions to representation processes remain under-theorized. The unilinear underpinning of the grammar of representation (i.e. maker of claims – subject – object – referent – audience) continues to center-stage and privilege political claim-makers and the (vocal) activity of claim-making (cf. Severs 2024). This paper analyzes the work which audiences perform in representation processes and argues that democratic representation requires the audience’s assistance as empowered spectators (Boal 1993). I draw on literature on audience/spectator democracy (Manin 1997, Rosanvallon 2006; Green 2009), and theatre and performance studies (Féral 2002; Fitzgerald 2015; Debord 1967) to theorize audience power as comprising both a revelatory and articulatory capacity. The configuration of political representation in contemporary democracies is skewed towards revelation. The evolutions that characterize audience democracy have reduced the expressive function of elections. Citizens increasingly react to the terms that have been presented on the political stage (Manin 1997, 223) and primarily use voting as a mechanism for de-selecting political representatives (Rosanvallon 2006, 173). Meanwhile, the spectacularization of politics (Debord 1967) undercuts, in important ways, the articulatory capacity of democratic audiences. Growing competition for citizens’ gaze has resulted in a politics whereby form increasingly takes precedence over content. The Spectacle casts spectators in a one-way relationship to the center of representation that maintains and even strengthens their isolation from one another. Vested in consumption, not dialogue, it fails to undo the fragmentation of society and rebuild a meaningful sense of togetherness (Kohn 2008, 477). Building on this analysis, the paper investigates alternative configurations of political representation that could strengthen the articulatory capacity of audience power (understood as its capacity to contribute to discourses that produce it as an object). It draws inspiration from street theatre (as an alternative to the proscenium/confrontational style of theatre) and non-Western styles of theatre, to advocate for the creation of a ludic space that allows audiences to join in and participate (also in horizontal ways) in the performance of their political representation.

The Representation: Deliberation Nexus John Erik Fossum, University of Oslo

Representation and deliberation are democratic practices that take on distinct shapes and are made to operate together (in a sense they require each other) in modern democracy (Warren 2017). That they need each other has been made clearer by the deliberative turn in representation (Mansbridge 2003). At the same time, we need to keep in mind that much of the literature on deliberation comes with a certain epistemic bias. We should therefore be wary of positing an overly close representation – deliberation nexus, because such a notion might skew representation’s ability to somehow balance epistemic with symbolic and descriptive aspects. In that sense there will be both cross-fertilization and tension between deliberation and representation. The paper starts by clarifying the conceptual core, or centre of gravity of representation and deliberation respectively to get a clearer sense of the representation – deliberation nexus. Thereafter the paper argues that the representation – deliberation nexus will be affected by the broader political, institutional, and constitutional context, and whether this is stable or dynamic (constitutive/de-constitutive). Accordingly, the paper introduces a distinction between deliberation over representation and deliberation in representation. The former is inspired by the constructivist turn to representation that sees representation as constitutive and takes this literally by probing the deliberation-representation nexus in processes of polity formation and constitution making. This pertains to claims-making and deliberation over such questions as: who should be represented; how should they be represented; by whom should they be represented; and how should the representative relationship be structured in processes of polity formation? The latter form of the nexus, as deliberation in representation, is about deliberation’s role in already-existing political systems, in other words where the broader systemic terms of representation are set. How similar and different these deliberation-representation dynamics are will depend on whether political systems can draw clear bounds between deliberation over representation versus deliberation in representation. What do these examinations tell us about the overall representation – deliberation nexus? In discussing this, the paper will draw on, and compare and contrast, democratic experiments: small-scale ones such as mini-publics and a large-scale one, namely the European Union, which has been undergoing a long and protracted process of polity formation.

What Does “Representative Ecology” Do That “Deliberative Systems” Don’t? Dario Castiglione, University of Exeter

The so called “representative turn” in democratic theory has developed around two fundamental ideas: that representation should not be considered as a mere second-best option; and that representation should not be seen in opposition to the democratic ideals of participation and deliberation. In the last decade or so, the arguments for the “representative turn” have become mixed with two other theoretical developments. On the one hand a reassessment of the very fabric of political representation, considered from a more constructivist perspective; on the other, the emergence of what has been called the “third phase” of deliberative democracy (Mansbridge et al. 2012), where this is considered from a more systemic perspective. This paper aims to bring together some of the key insights of these theoretical developments by exploring the analytic and normative advantages of looking at political representation in democratic society as an “ecology” capable of comprising within it, moments of democratic participation, deliberation, and collective identity construction. Although not all ecologies of representation are democratic, inclusive, and empowering – indeed, there are plenty of examples to the contrary; to think of political representation as an ecology gives us the tools to analyse the complex way in which it connects the processes of opinion formation and social identification to what it normally passes for democratic governance; as well as to assess the way in which such connection may acquire or deserve legitimacy. As part of its argument, the paper aims to revert the relationship that is normally assumed between representation and the “deliberative systems”, where the former is being subsumed under the latter. On the contrary, by taking an enlarged and more ecological (and not merely institutional or mechanical) view of political representation in democracies, it is possible to make a stronger case for the passage from “communicative freedom to communicative power” (Bohman 2012) and for considering political representation as ‘an intrinsically modern way of intertwining participation [and] political judgment’ (Urbinati and Warren 2008).

“Emergent Proportionality”: Reimagining Proportional Representation for the U.S.

Saturday, September 7, 12:00pm – 1:30pm Roundtable

Participants : (Chair) Deb Otis, FairVote (Presenter) Rhyane Wagner, Black Voters Matter (Presenter) Drew Penrose, Protect Democracy (Presenter) Rachel Hutchinson, FairVote

Session Description: Proportional representation (PR) takes many forms around the world but is underused and under-studied in the United States. In comparative literature, proportionality is typically measured by levels of support versus representation for political parties, but various aspects of the party system in the United States complicate that kind of analysis. Unique factors to consider in the U.S. context include the near-exclusive dominance of two political parties, the relative weakness of those parties, and the relatively larger roles played by non-party interest groups in U.S. politics.

Additionally, there are other dimensions of proportionality beyond partisan proportionality that should be considered, especially in a society as diverse as ours. Issue coalitions, coalitions based on shared racial or ethnic identity, and political ideology all deserve fair consideration. In any given election, some of those factors may take precedence over others, based on the needs of the electorate.

In an age of increasing political polarization, any approach to reform must consider the needs of the populations being served. When discussing proportional representation, it is the responsibility of researchers to consider which groups are included in the concept of proportionality, and how our systems will help or hinder representation for various constituencies. Political scientists and reformers have the opportunity to reimagine what proportionality means for the U.S.

This panel introduces a property called Emergent Proportionality. The panel will explore how electoral systems can proportionally represent coalitions of voters along dimensions that are important to voters, but do not necessarily align with the existing party system. The Emergent Proportionality property is inherently flexible, letting proportionality arise naturally rather than specifying ahead of time which dimensions matter (e.g. specifying that political parties are the axis along which voters must sort themselves). Emergent Proportionality should result in partisan proportionality, but not be dictated by it.

Emergent Proportionality could be achieved by awarding seats to individual candidates from multi-member districts or at the state or national level and utilizing a threshold-to-elect low enough such that various partisan, issue, or demographic groups can feasibly elect candidates of their choice in proportion to their level of support. Whereas party-centered PR may require or incentivize parties to provide a balanced list regarding demographic dimensions, Emergent Proportionality lowers electoral barriers to allow representation to occur naturally and on voters’ terms.

Emergent proportionality likely comes with some trade-offs, however. While Party List PR results in nearly perfect partisan representation, systems that include Emergent Proportionality may sometimes result in a partisan skew because of the mathematical difficulty of achieving perfect proportionality across multiple dimensions at once. For example, if affordable housing is the predominant issue in each election, a system exhibiting Emergent Proportionality would help the various factions around the housing issue earn exactly their fair share of seats. However, those issue factions may not perfectly coincide with partisan factions. As a result, one party may win less than its “fair share” of seats because some of that party’s voters care more about the housing issue than party allegiance. This flexibility is key to the property of Emergent Proportionality, but trade-offs are inherent.

Emergent Proportionality should be particularly relevant to conversations about reform in the United States. Party-centered PR may not be compatible with the US, where big-tent parties aren’t always ideologically cohesive and there is a considerable number of cross-cutting cleavages. The racial and ethnic diversity in the U.S., along with our high level of racially polarized voting, also demands a system that can award seats fairly outside of just the partisan dimension. Of course, political cultures and party systems somewhat derive from electoral rules, so when considering what PR should look like in the United States, we must consider both our current political culture and the culture that could emerge from our systems.

This panel will discuss the current state of thinking around PR in the United States; introduce the property of Emergent Proportionality; consider the relevance and implications of the Emergent Proportionality property; and guide a new level of thinking about what proportional representation can and should mean in the U.S. These and other questions can and should inform critical future research that can inform ongoing and future reform options.

How the Public Used Facebook and Instagram in the 2020 U.S. Election

Saturday, September 7, 2:00pm – 3:30pm Co-sponsored by Division 38: Political Communication Full Paper Panel

Participants : (Chair) Natalie Jomini Stroud, University of Texas, Austin (Discussant) Joshua A. Tucker, New York University (Discussant) Kevin Munger, Pennsylvania State University

Session Description: This panel will discuss results from four as-of-yet unpublished papers as part of a path-breaking collaboration among 17 independent (that is, not paid by Facebook, now Meta) academics and a team of Meta researchers. This group worked together to evaluate the role of Facebook and Instagram in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The project involved a multi-wave panel survey beginning in August 2020 and continuing through the aftermath of the 2020 general election, including a wave added after the events of January 6th. Survey participants were selected in two ways: a stratified random sample of Facebook and Instagram users recruited on the platforms and an independent probability sample, stratified based on whether people used these platforms. The survey focused on four key outcome variables: (1) political participation, (2) political polarization, (3) knowledge and misperceptions, and (4) beliefs about democratic norms. For those who gave their consent, the survey data were paired with on-platform data. We also use platform-wide aggregate statistics to understand the content to which users were exposed on Facebook and Instagram, such as exposure to various types of news and political content, misinformation, targeted political ads, and other similar content. A series of different classifiers were used to categorize election-relevant platform content.

The collaboration was structured such that all the academics and Meta researchers contributed to the common goods by, for example, helping to design the survey and develop classifiers. Teams of academic and Meta researchers then worked to design and pre-register analyses that focused on different aspects of the election season and platforms. The academics are lead authors on the publications resulting from these collaborations, with control rights over the details; Facebook agreed to no pre-publication approval. All human subjects contact was managed by Meta and NORC at the University of Chicago.

The four papers proposed as part of this panel include: (a) detailed descriptive information about Facebook and Instagram engagement and information exposure during the 2020 elections; (b) the diffusion and reach of information and misinformation on Facebook; (c) the dynamics of friendship creation and destruction over a tumultuous period in American history, which included the Covid-19 pandemic, the 2020 election, and the January 6th insurrection; and (d) the prevalence and targets of anti-normative content on the platform.

Papers : The Diffusion and Reach of Information on Social Media Sandra Gonzalez-Bailon, University of Pennsylvania; David Lazer, Northeastern University; Pablo Barbera, University of Southern California; William Godel, New York University

Social media creates the possibility for rapid, viral spread of content. We analyze the virality of and exposure to information on Facebook during the US 2020 Presidential election by examining the diffusion trees of the approximately 1B posts that were reshared at least once by US-based adults (from July 1, 2020, to February 1, 2021). Only N ~ 12.1 million posts (1.2%) were reshared more than 100 times, involving N ~ 114 million adult U.S. users and accumulating ~ 55% of all views. We differentiate broadcasting versus peer-to-peer diffusion to show that: (1) Facebook is predominantly a broadcasting (rather than viral) medium of exposure; (2) Pages (not Groups) are the key engine for high-reach broadcasting; (3) misinformation (as identified by Meta’s Third Party Fact Checkers) reverses these trends: this type of content relies on viral spread through long, narrow, and slower chains of resharing activity; and (4) a very small minority of users (older and more conservative) power the spread of misinformation, triggering very deep cascades that accumulate large numbers of views.

Prevalence, Dynamics, and Effects of Behavioral Polarization on Facebook Fang Guo, Stanford University; Neil Malhotra, Stanford University; Jaime E. Settle, College of William & Mary; Magdalena Wojcieszak, UC Davis, U of Amsterdam; Annie Franco, Facebook

Both the public and researchers worry about the social consequences of affective polarization, specifically that Americans are unwilling to interact with people who do not share their partisan or ideological identities. This is a key issue surrounding the potential retrenchment of American democracy. Specifically, many worry that social media facilitates polarization by allowing people to curate social networks that are politically congenial. This motivates our main research question: How are political leanings associated with people’s propensities to create and sever ties on social media, and what moderates these relationships? In this study, we analyze two unique datasets — aggregate data on the behavior of over 150 million Facebook users and a targeted survey of over 63,500 of these users collected during the 2020 U.S. presidential campaign and its aftermath—to assess a behavioral manifestation of affective polarization: political (un)friending on social media platforms. We assess the dynamics of friendship creation and destruction over a tumultuous period in American history, which included the Covid-19 pandemic, the 2020 election, and the January 6th insurrection. We make several novel contributions stemming from the unique availability of data on user behavior on Facebook. First, we ascertain the prevalence of political (un)friending during the 2020 U.S. general election and its aftermath and offer the first ever evidence of the differential preference for congenial friendships and aversion to cross-cutting friendships. To better contextualize this prevalence, we map the fluctuations in political (un)friending and its two components over the course of the 2020 presidential campaign and we additionally benchmark political (un)friending around Election Day and the January 6th Capitol storming against users’ unfriending patterns during New Year’s Day, 2020-2021. This allows us to assess how people’s behavioral response to changes and conflicts in the political environment compares to other events that may prompt reconsideration of the composition of one’s social networks. Second, we analyze the prevalence of political (un)friending—”in-group affinity” and “out-group aversion” —among various sub-groups of Facebook users who, theoretically, should be more or less likely to be affectively polarized (e.g., liberals vs. conservatives; those with strong versus weak partisan identities; those with high vs. low on platform political engagement and exposure to political content). Examining the variation in network curation patterns among these different social groups can shed light on which kinds of people are most likely to inject political considerations into their social lives. Third, in conjunction with one another, these unique datasets—on-platform behavioral data and survey self-reports from the same individuals— make it possible to address an important methodological problem that has complicated the study of both affective polarization and political (un)friending as its manifestation and social consequence. We compare the rates of political (un)friending in behavioral data to self-reported feeling thermometers of partisans and to survey self-reports of political (un)friending.

Facebook and Instagram Use and Information Exposure in the 2020 Election Emily Thorson, Syracuse University; Christopher Schwarz, New York University; Taylor W. Brown; Arjun Wilkins, Facebook

This paper uses both behavioral and survey data to provide detailed descriptive information about Facebook and Instagram engagement and information exposure during the 2020 elections. The paper explores how Facebook and Instagram usage, including how patterns of interaction and exposure to content varied across demographic groups. It then gives detailed information about the reach of various types of content on Facebook during the 2020 election (e.g. misinformation, uncivil content, and content from political actors). Next, the paper analyzes engagement on Facebook, including how different groups engaged with types of political content (e.g. sharing, commenting, and liking). Finally, over-time analyses illustrate how information exposure and behavior changed over the course of the 2020 election. Taken together, the analyses in this paper will provide the most comprehensive publicly available information to date on Facebook and Instagram usage. The text of the paper will summarize the findings and will be accompanied by a substantial Supplemental Materials section with tables that we anticipate serving as data and references for many future analyses of social media and elections.

Prevalence and Targets of Anti-normative Content on Facebook and Instagram Rebekah Tromble, George Washington University; Deen Freelon, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Stefan McCabe, Northeastern University; Taylor W. Brown; Winter Mason, Facebook Research

This study analyzes the prevalence of content on Facebook and Instagram that deviates from conventional norms of civility, tolerance, and or accuracy in the United States. Specifically, we analyze English-language content that is classified as (a) containing hateful or intolerant slurs, (b) incitement to political violence, (c) likely to suppress voting, (d) false information, and/or (e) uncivil. This study also examines whether certain groups of Facebook and Instagram users are more likely to be exposed to, engage with, or produce each type of anti-normative content. Finally, we look more closely at one category in particular—content containing hateful or intolerant slurs—and examine what groups and communities are targeted by these posts and messages. The study examines each of these phenomena beginning just before the 2020 U.S. federal elections and ending in mid-February 2021, allowing us to examine data from the elections, the January 6th Capitol insurrection, and the presidential inauguration.

The State of Polarization, Nationalization, and Identity in U.S. Schools

Saturday, September 7, 4:00pm – 5:30pm Co-sponsored by Division 59: Education Politics and Policy Full Paper Panel

Participants : (Chair) Jeffrey R. Henig, Columbia University (Discussant) Melissa Lyon, Rockefeller College of Public Affairs & Policy, University at Albany, State University of New York

Session Description: This session dedicates its time to exploring polarization, nationalization, and identity in U.S. School Boards. Specifically, papers engage with polarization by exploring the effects of policymaking through the lens of representation of constituent preferences and engagement, and how public opinion regarding school-related issues has changed based on identity over time. Furthermore, papers engage with nationalization by focusing on instances where party members break from the larger party standpoint to the best interests of their community. Lastly, authors across the papers presented in this panel focus on policy feedback, whether it be to school closures or private school openings. This overarching panel suggests to readers that schools as institutions provide novel findings regarding this conference’s main theme – renovation. Have the dominant political parties magnified our ‘social cleavages’ over times when discussing school policy? Or are schools one of the better places to look for strong representation, as the inherent localness of the institution provides the best approximate direct-democracy approach to voter representation? Alternatively, have schools entrenched themselves into the larger political network, existing as a simple derivative of our larger institutions? These papers provide insights into such questions by focusing on the key areas of polarization, nationalization, and identity in U.S. schools.

Papers : Beyond the Reach of Nationalization? The Case of Private School Choice in Texas Leslie K. Finger, University of North Texas

Scholars have observed that state and local politics have become nationalized, with less split-ticket voting and government decisions increasingly reflecting distinct party stances. However, this has been less the case with education policy. In particular, private school choice policies, which use government funds to pay for private school tuition have been a priority for the Republican party, yet Republican politicians in Texas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and elsewhere have at times rejected private school choice. Why have some state legislators strayed from the party on this issue? This study uses the case of Texas to answer this question. Using roll-call voting data from the ten private school choice proposals that reached the floor of the Texas legislature between 2013 and 2023, I find that population density is key to whether state legislators support private school choice; Republican legislators that represent more rural districts are more likely to vote against private school choice than those representing urban districts. I find that this result is largely driven by school enrollment in rural areas. Lastly, I find evidence that the centrality of public schools to the community is inversely related to representatives’ votes for private school choice policies. These findings suggest that local factors can still trump partisan stances in state level education politics.

Bootleggers, Baptists, and (School) Building Closure Vladimir Kogan, Ohio State University

Closing school buildings represents a third rail in local education politics, and there are growing bodies of research (1) examining the academic impacts of such closures on students and (2) the political feedback that results. In this study, I bring together original data sources and a credible causal (difference-in-differences) research design that speaks to both literatures. First, I show that when districts close schools, they target lower-enrolling, lower-performing, and more heavily minority schools. Crucially, these schools are lower-performing because of the demographic composition of students they serve, not because these schools are lower in quality (as measured by year-to-year growth or “value-added”). Second, I find that school closures have no measurable impact — positive or negative — on student achievement in the years after closure, debunking claims of both closure supporters (who argue that closing lower-achieving buildings will improve learning) and critics (who argue closures will hurt students). I conclude that this is largely because closures do not target low-growth buildings, the only context where closures have been found to produce positive effects on learning. This decision is strategic, designed to minimize the political costs of closure, resulting in the targeting of buildings in communities with less political power. I do show, however, that closures produce significant cost savings by reducing staffing levels, providing support for one of the stated motivations. In addition to the large-N analysis, I also present original interviews with district leaders and community activists in school systems that have experienced significant closures, which confirm the finding that political, fiscal, and employment considerations largely drive both support and opposition to building closures, not sincere concerns about student learning. The findings are most consistent with the “bootlegger and Baptist” model of policy change. These results have important real-world implications considering the coming wave of closures due to declining public school district enrollment.

How Partisanship and Identity Have Structured US Public Opinion on Education David Houston, George Mason University

If measured by the contentiousness of local school board meetings about topics such as pandemic-induced school closures, Critical Race Theory in the classroom, and bathroom access for transgender students, the last few years in K-12 education in the United States appear uniquely turbulent (Feuer, 2021). Recent polling reveals large partisan divides on these and other emergent issues (Collins, 2021; 2022; Houston et al., 2022; Polikoff et al., 2022). However, our current era is hardly the first in which the front lines of American politics have breached the schoolhouse gate This project takes a step back from the contemporary political conflicts that have enveloped elementary and secondary education policy in the US to consider the changing relationship between partisanship and public opinion on K-12 education issues since the middle of the 20th century. I have begun by assembling nationally representative survey data on public attitudes regarding school desegregation, school prayer, sex education, and school spending from the 1950’s onward from the American National Election Study (ANES) and the General Social Survey (GSS). My analysis is organized around three main research questions. First, how do the gaps in public opinion between self-identified Democrats and Republicans on issues regarding race, religion, sexuality, and education in the second half of the 20th century compare to the gaps observed in recent polling on issues relating to similar themes? Second, as documented by Houston (2022), partisan gaps in public attitudes have widened across a range of contemporary education policies issues since 2007. To what extent do we observe a similar phenomenon when considering a much longer period? And third, if these gaps have widened since the 1950’s, what underlying shift in the nature of the two major political parties best accounts for this pattern: Is the increasing alignment between party affiliation and education policy preferences primarily a function of the changing demographic compositions of the two parties, or is this phenomenon better explained by the growing divergence between members of each party in terms of their beliefs about the role of identity in American life? There is an extensive body of evidence documenting the ways in which the parties’ demographic configurations have shifted over time. Beginning with the transition of the American South from a reliably conservative Democratic region to a reliably conservative Republican region in the wake of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Carmines & Stimson, 1989) and accelerating in the aftermath of the Great Recession and the election of Barack Obama as president (Podhorzer, 2022), Americans have increasing sorted themselves into political parties in a manner that aligns with their racial, ethnic, gender, educational, economic, religious, geographic, and ideological identities (Bafumi & Shapiro, 2009; Levendusky, 2009; Mason, 2018). To the extent that these characteristics are related to individuals’ education policy preferences, it follows that the changing demographic compositions of the parties ought to be a key explanatory factor in any account of the widening partisan gaps in public opinion on education issues. However, some scholars argue that an over-emphasis on partisans’ social identities obscures the more fundamental role played by partisans’ beliefs about social identity, specifically with respect to racial equity and the role of racism in American society (Abramowitz, 2018; Jardina, 2019; Mason, 2018, Sides et al., 2018). These authors argue that racial resentment—one’s beliefs about the importance of white identity and the extent to which whites are unfairly discriminated against serves as a better predictor of presidential vote choice, and by extension partisan affiliation, than individuals’ demographic characteristics alone. To assess the applicability of these theories to the case of growing partisan polarization over education issues, I track the changing relationships between individuals’ demographic characteristics and whether their education policy preferences align with the modal response of their co-partisans. Likewise, I track the analogous relationships between individuals’ racial resentment scores and the same indicators of partisanship-preference alignment. In other words, are the widening partisan gaps we observe on education issues better explained by the changing social identities of the Democratic and Republican parties or by the parties’ changing beliefs about social identity? By documenting and evaluating these trends, I seek to contribute to our understanding of how the political coalitions organizing K-12 education policy have evolved since the middle of the 20th century, generating insight into the nature of the conflicts that currently animate the domain.

Back to School: Representation & Polarization in U.S. Educational Institutions Sara Bornstein, The George Washington University

Federalism in the United States has led to wealth of variety, as well as pitfalls, when collecting data about local institutions. That last 20 years have seen monumental progress in tackling questions of local government representation and polarization. Using a new data source, I highlight the causal link between policy discussion and voter preferences, and therefore representation of these preferences, by tracking policy in meeting minutes across the continental United States. This work defines the state of ideological representation in these local governments. That is, I focus on whether republican-dominated areas produce conservative policy, and vice-versa, and how this process may link to the causal chain of representation. This work contributes substantially to the American politics literature by clarifying the causal link of meetings in determining policy outputs and demonstrates how polarization significantly impact how representative federalism works and persists in local government in the United States.

Teaching Human Rights Mini-Conference: Open Access Edited Volume

Sponsored by Division 45: Human Rights

Approaches 1

Thursday, September 5, 8:00am – 9:30am Café

Participants : (Chair) David L. Richards, University of Connecticut (Presenter) Shareen Hertel, University of Connecticut (Presenter) K. Chad Clay, University of Georgia (Presenter) Skip Mark, University of Rhode Island (Presenter) M.P. Broache, University of North Carolina at Greensboro (Presenter) Kristen Renwick Monroe, University of California, Irvine (Presenter) David L. Richards, University of Connecticut

Session Description: Participants will be split into two groups, one led by each organizer, with the discussion centering on the issue of “Why teaching human rights is important” and, particularly, how this will be addressed in each chapter in a substantive manner. For the last 20 minutes, all participants will reassemble to compare results from the two discussion groups.

Approaches 2

Thursday, September 5, 10:00am – 11:30am Café

Participants : (Chair) Tina Kempin Reuter, University of Alabama at Birmingham (Presenter) Daniel J. Edquist-Whelan, Hendrix College (Presenter) Thomas Briggs (Presenter) Michael Joel Voss, University of Toledo (Presenter) Tina Kempin Reuter, University of Alabama at Birmingham

Session Description: Participants will be split into two groups, one led by each organizer, where the discussion will center on common issues inherent in all teaching of human rights – such as dealing with emotionally charged material, advocacy versus representation, and inclusion/alienation – and how these will be addressed in each chapter. For the last 20 minutes, all participants will reassemble to compare results from the two discussion groups.

Thursday, September 5, 12:00pm – 1:30pm Café

Participants : (Chair) David L. Cingranelli, Binghamton University, SUNY (Presenter) Courtenay R. Monroe, University of California, Merced (Presenter) Audrey Lynn Comstock, Arizona State University (Presenter) Melissa Martinez, University of Mary Washington (Presenter) David L. Cingranelli, Binghamton University, SUNY

Session Description: Each of the eleven pairs of chapter authors will use this time/opportunity in person to confer on their chapter outline and prepare themselves for the upcoming lightning round.

Thursday, September 5, 2:00pm – 3:30pm Café/Lightning Round

Thursday, September 5, 4:00pm – 5:30pm Café

Participants : (Chair) Laura Parisi, University of Victoria (Presenter) Susan Lee Kang, CUNY- John Jay College (Presenter) Stephen Michael Bagwell, University of Missouri, St. Louis (Presenter) Annie Watson, Middle Georgia State University (Presenter) Laura Parisi, University of Victoria

Session Description: Participants will be split into two groups, one led by each organizer, where the discussion will center on the issue of instructional methods for the teaching of human rights (e.g. materials, debates, simulations, etc.) with an emphasis on how this will be addressed in each chapter in a substantive manner. For the last 20 minutes, all participants will reassemble to compare results from the two discussion groups.