- Home
- A-Z Publications
- Annual Review of Political Science
- Previous Issues
- Volume 25, 2022
Annual Review of Political Science - Volume 25, 2022
Volume 25, 2022
-
-
Testing Causal Theories with Learned Proxies
Vol. 25 (2022), pp. 419–441More LessSocial scientists commonly use computational models to estimate proxies of unobserved concepts, then incorporate these proxies into subsequent tests of their theories. The consequences of this practice, which occurs in over two-thirds of recent computational work in political science, are underappreciated. Imperfect proxies can reflect noise and contamination from other concepts, producing biased point estimates and standard errors. We demonstrate how analysts can use causal diagrams to articulate theoretical concepts and their relationships to estimated proxies, then apply straightforward rules to assess which conclusions are rigorously supportable. We formalize and extend common heuristics for “signing the bias”—a technique for reasoning about unobserved confounding—to scenarios with imperfect proxies. Using these tools, we demonstrate how, in often-encountered research settings, proxy-based analyses allow for valid tests for the existence and direction of theorized effects. We conclude with best-practice recommendations for the rapidly growing literature using learned proxies to test causal theories.
-
-
-
Media and Policy Making in the Digital Age
Vol. 25 (2022), pp. 443–461More LessDo media influence policy making? To what extent can governments or other actors manipulate this influence? Our understanding of the relationship between media and policy making remains limited, as separate research agendas look at parts of the puzzle in public policy, political communication, and related fields. This article tries to bridge these divides, to show how knowledge from different fields may be complementary, and to point to shortcomings and blind spots in existing research. By bringing different strands together, I show that media, old and new, are the main arena for the battle over the scope of policy conflict. The review discusses different factors determining or influencing media coverage of and influence on policy making, before looking at how governments and administrations deal with media coverage of policy making. I explore how ongoing changes in the media landscape are likely to affect the media–policy making nexus. The final section presents future research directions.
-
-
-
Automation, Digitalization, and Artificial Intelligence in the Workplace: Implications for Political Behavior
Aina Gallego, and Thomas KurerVol. 25 (2022), pp. 463–484More LessNew technologies have been a key driver of labor market change in recent decades. There are renewed concerns that technological developments in areas such as robotics and artificial intelligence will destroy jobs and create political upheaval. This article reviews the vibrant debate about the economic consequences of recent technological change and then discusses research about how digitalization may affect political participation, vote choice, and policy preferences. It is increasingly well established that routine workers have been the main losers of recent technological change and disproportionately support populist parties. However, at the same time, digitalization also creates a large group of economic winners who support the political status quo. The mechanisms connecting technology-related workplace risks to political behavior and policy demands are less well understood. Voters may fail to fully comprehend the relative importance of different causes of structural economic change and misattribute blame to other factors. We conclude with a list of pressing research questions.
-
-
-
Political Risk and International Investment Law
Vol. 25 (2022), pp. 485–507More LessInternational investment law provides a means for states to mitigate political risks that foreign investors face inside their borders. Its status quo includes thousands of international investment agreements (IIAs) and Investor–State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), a dispute resolution mechanism in which foreign, private investors sue host states in ad hoc international tribunals in pursuit of monetary compensation for property rights violations. In this review, we survey the vast contemporary literature on this regime to evidence the ways in which scholars have challenged the purported original goals of international investment law and its distributional consequences. In light of this literature's accomplishments, we highlight opportunities for a refocusing of international relations scholars’ research agenda on dynamics of continuity and change in the regime. The status quo in international investment law is fragile, and, in our view, the regime is on the brink of a major shift toward prioritizing state sovereignty well above political risk mitigation.
-
-
-
Race and Redistricting
Vol. 25 (2022), pp. 509–528More LessThis review examines the role of race in the decennial process of redistricting. I review the scholarly literature on three related questions: What role should racial redistricting play in the representation of racial interests, how may racial redistricting be used, and what is the connection between racial redistricting and the substantive representation of racial minorities? The review briefly examines the normative question of racial representation and then focuses on the last two topics: empirical research on how racial interests are represented in legislatures and legal questions concerning the use of redistricting to produce descriptive representation. Racial redistricting enhances the representation of racial interests in legislatures, and the legal status of the districts is complex; therefore, litigation will proceed on a heavily fact-based, case-by-case basis in which political scientists will continue to play a vital role with their research on racially polarized voting and representation.
-
-
-
Experiments and Surveys on Political Elites
Vol. 25 (2022), pp. 529–550More LessOne of the major developments in political science in the past decade has been the rise of experiments and surveys on political elites. Yet, the increase in the number of elite studies has outpaced our collective understanding of best practices and how we know a good elite experiment when we see one. In this article, we discuss some of the challenges in the study of political elites—from who counts as an elite to how to best utilize elite experiments in the context of broader research designs. We also offer recommendations on questions of access, recruitment, and representativeness, as well as designs that researchers can use to study “eliteness” without access to elites.
-
Previous Volumes
-
Volume 27 (2024)
-
Volume 26 (2023)
-
Volume 25 (2022)
-
Volume 24 (2021)
-
Volume 23 (2020)
-
Volume 22 (2019)
-
Volume 21 (2018)
-
Volume 20 (2017)
-
Volume 19 (2016)
-
Volume 18 (2015)
-
Volume 17 (2014)
-
Volume 16 (2013)
-
Volume 15 (2012)
-
Volume 14 (2011)
-
Volume 13 (2010)
-
Volume 12 (2009)
-
Volume 11 (2008)
-
Volume 10 (2007)
-
Volume 9 (2006)
-
Volume 8 (2005)
-
Volume 7 (2004)
-
Volume 6 (2003)
-
Volume 5 (2002)
-
Volume 4 (2001)
-
Volume 3 (2000)
-
Volume 2 (1999)
-
Volume 1 (1998)
-
Volume 0 (1932)