Annual Review of Political Science - Volume 12, 2009

This brief review considers how field experiments have contributed to the study of collective action. Field experiments have largely supported findings from laboratory studies suggesting that collective action problems are often overcome through communication and social pressure. These results call into question theories suggesting that collective action problems are intractable in the absence of material inducements to participate.

Since the first half of the twentieth century, whites have become much more accepting of the principle of racial equality even as they have continued to endorse negative racial stereotypes about African-Americans. Some scholars argue that this ambivalence has been exploited by contemporary political elites who have learned to fashion subtle racial appeals that activate these latent attitudes without appearing to violate widely held norms of racial equality. This strategy has been dubbed racial priming. In this brief article, we summarize and evaluate the work in this area, with a particular emphasis on studies that employ experimental research designs.

Current scholarship on elections in authoritarian regimes has focused on exploring the relationship between elections and democratization, and it has generally used analytical frameworks and methods imported from the study of genuinely democratic elections to do so. These tendencies have kept scholars from asking a wide range of questions about the micro-level dynamics of authoritarian elections and the systematic differences among them. With these issues in mind, this review examines literature that investigates the purpose of elections in dictatorships; the electoral behavior of voters, candidates, and incumbents in these elections; and the link between elections and democratization. The review ends with a call to redirect the study of authoritarian elections toward uncovering and explaining the important differences among them.

There is still no broad consensus on the extent to which racial prejudice influences white Americans' political attitudes, in part because of an ongoing dispute over the nature and measurement of racial prejudice. We review measures of new, subtle forms of racism toward African-Americans and consider criticism that such views do not clearly constitute racial prejudice despite their political impact. We then evaluate a number of ways in which explicit prejudice can be assessed in surveys, highlighting the continued existence and successful measurement of overt prejudice. We also consider ways to measure prejudice other than direct survey questions. Social psychologists have gravitated to the measurement of implicit racial attitudes, an approach that we review critically as potentially interesting but with unknown payoff for political researchers. Finally, we discuss the value of experiments as a way to gain direct evidence of politically potent racial discrimination and assess the prejudicial nature of explicit racial attitudes.

This article examines the political theories of Theodor Adorno and Hannah Arendt in light of shared theoretical concerns and the discussion generated by their recent centenaries (2003 and 2006, respectively). I argue that Adorno's tremendously influential critique of identity philosophies is of limited value when it comes to political thinking, in large part because he neglects to give serious thought to the problem of institutionalizing freedom. In contrast, the notion of human “plurality” is central to Arendt's political thought and is set within a rich conceptualization of the public realm and its legal and institutional preconditions.

This article examines the concepts of group membership, group identity and racial identity, and group consciousness. For each of these we discuss theoretical definitions, research using the various definitions, and issues of measurement. We show that these concepts are distinct and build on each other, rather than being interchangeable. We also explore the concept of linked fate, which evolved from the concept of group consciousness and is central in the race and politics literature. Finally, we address the very important question of whether we are in danger of overextrapolation—taking concepts developed in research on one group and grafting them onto other groups.

In recent years, there has been a burst of innovative work on methods for estimating causal effects using observational data. Much of this work has extended and brought a renewed focus on old approaches such as matching, which is the focus of this review. The new developments highlight an old tension in the social sciences: a focus on research design versus a focus on quantitative models. This realization, along with the renewed interest in field experiments, has marked the return of foundational questions as opposed to a fascination with the latest estimator. I use studies of get-out-the-vote interventions to exemplify this development. Without an experiment, natural experiment, a discontinuity, or some other strong design, no amount of econometric or statistical modeling can make the move from correlation to causation persuasive.