Annual Review of Political Science - Current Issue

Trying to address a series of large questions—e.g., when peasants rebel, clandestine forms of resistance, state “imagination,” and the origin of the very first agrarian states—led me to abandon much of the standard political science “tool kit.” This is an account of that intellectual journey.

[James C. Scott died on July 19, 2024, just days before this short intellectual biography went live. Scott was an intellectual giant, an eloquent writer, and an inspiration to multiple generations of students and scholars. The Annual Review of Political Science is pleased to be the publisher of his latest, perhaps last, publication. His oral history is available here.]

The growth in economic sanctions has been matched by a surge in scholarly research. This article reviews the current state of scholarship on economic sanctions to see where the literature has advanced since Baldwin's Economic Statecraft—and where there is need for further research. Over the past few decades, sanctions scholarship has made its greatest strides in investigating the effects and effectiveness of economic coercion attempts. This vein of research suggests that economic coercion is more effective than previously believed—but at the same time, the policy externalities of sanctions are far greater than previously understood. There remain many fruitful areas of research. Scholars need to consider how to better measure the deterrent effects of economic sanctions over time. Claims that there are different national styles of economic statecraft need to be tested to determine whether these styles are enduring or ephemeral. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, international relations scholars need to consider the systemic implications of increased sanctioning behavior. Scholars need to assess when and how sanctions affect the broader global political economy.

The proliferation of government policies to manage immigration has led to the emergence of an interdisciplinary literature that evaluates policy effects on immigrant integration. This review synthesizes findings from evaluations of policies regulating legal status and citizenship, the labor market, welfare, settlement, education, and cultural rights. It concludes that policies lowering immigrants’ costs of adjustment to the host country are consistently more effective in promoting integration than policies incentivizing immigrant effort through withholding resources and regulating access to rights. Policy changes the behavior of both immigrants and native-born citizens through material and psychological pathways, and considering the decision making of each side and their interdependence is crucial for understanding why estimated effects of the same policy differ across contexts and for anticipating unintended consequences. For external validity and useful counterfactuals, a closer connection is needed between empirical research and theoretical models that explicitly account for the equilibrium nature of integration.

This article argues that conflict rather than consensus defines the history of African American political thought. Its seminal figures have pursued justice along different and diverging lines—including advocating reformist, realist, and nationalist paths. While there is agreement that white supremacy is a form of social, economic, and political domination that should be eradicated, there is disagreement regarding its nature, effects, and resilience. This variance in judgments and inferences regarding the foundations and consequences of white supremacy leads to different accounts of social change, diverging strategic advice for realizing that change, and conflicting political theories. To press this claim, I consider the conflicting political visions of Booker T. Washington (1856–1915), W.E.B. Du Bois (1868–1963), and Marcus Garvey (1887–1940).

Individuals, including researchers, often have to form beliefs about the political world from nonrepresentative samples—e.g., their friends, what they see on TV, or content on social media. Substantial evidence indicates that many struggle to account for this selection problem and generally form beliefs as if what they observe is representative. In this review, we provide a formal typology of how this phenomenon of selection neglect affects political beliefs. We identify three types of selection neglect: homophily leads individuals to believe others’ traits and beliefs are closer to their own; the squeaky wheel effect biases beliefs toward more visible or vocal groups; and the man bites dog effect leads to excessive belief in extreme or unusual events. Selection neglect is a unifying way to understand disparate literatures on perceptions of the economy and demographics, beliefs about others’ beliefs, partisan media, and social media. Much empirical research is consistent with biased beliefs driven by selection neglect but rarely directly tests this mechanism outside of lab settings. We discuss how future research can provide more direct evidence.

Nearly 20 years have passed since this journal's last review of Latino politics. Today, American politics have shifted dramatically, even alarmingly, with Latinos absorbing and contributing to many of these changes. Yet American politics research still overwhelmingly privileges non-Hispanic Whites and their political opinions and behavior. We argue that this marginalization of Latino politics research has even fewer excuses in this era when data, methodologies, and other resources have expanded, making theory-based, empirically grounded research on Latino politics more feasible. We also argue that to better grasp what happens in contemporary politics today and tomorrow, a deeper understanding of Latinos’ political psychology is indispensable because they are a highly diverse, minoritized group whose members are acutely sensitive to structural, temporal, and situational pressures. Finally, in an overwhelmingly quantitative, empirically oriented field, we urge Latino politics scholars to more earnestly consider the normative implications of research on this growing pan-ethnic population.

The significant rise in the number of forcibly displaced people crossing international borders, i.e., refugees, necessitates a thorough examination of the policies implemented by receiving states to manage the arrival of these vulnerable populations. This article reviews the literature on the factors that influence refugee policies, focusing on two dimensions of host state responses: admission and integration. We argue that there may be an inherent tension between refugee admissions and refugee integration policies, as countries attempt to restrict benefits when admission numbers increase. Further, we highlight how refugee policies are influenced by international and domestic constraints and priorities that can at times be conflicting or complementary. The article ultimately advocates for a systematic analysis of the endogenous relationship between refugee policies, public perception of refugees, and migration patterns.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, school district politics rose to prominence on the nation's political agenda, as school boards grappled with controversial decisions about reopening schools and implementing mask mandates. A growing number of political scientists are using newly available data and innovative research strategies to examine policy responsiveness, elections, segregation and inequality, state takeovers, interest groups, democratic deliberation, and public opinion—all while focusing on the unique context of education politics. We illuminate the distinctive institutional and policy context of US education politics and review new research in the field, including growing evidence of partisan polarization and the continuing significance of race for influencing power and decision making about schools in the United States. The field has made great strides in the last decade; we highlight the emerging themes from that already rapidly growing literature, while pointing out areas for future research.

Most democratic theories recognize that democracy requires widespread adherence to both formal and informal norms that constrain the use of power and structure relationships among citizens. Most also recognize that a healthy democracy requires some forms of activism or resistance that transgress those norms to disrupt hierarchies, challenge injustices, and drive discursive innovation. Recent systemic theories of democracy show that democratic theory can incorporate these two realities without contradiction, but it is not clear whether an ethic of citizenship can do the same. This article reviews recent literature on the purposes and ethics of transgressive politics while also drawing attention to neglected questions about the functions of democratic norms and how they are maintained amid transgressions. These are questions that must be addressed by an ethic of citizenship that can navigate the tension between the authority of democratic norms and the constructive potential of transgressive politics.

Debates over the development and density of housing have gained visibility in recent years as housing costs have skyrocketed in many metropolitan areas. With those who seek to limit development (NIMBYs) on one side and those who seek to promote it (YIMBYs) on the other, scholarly attention has turned to understanding preferences and power in the politics of development. This article reviews scholarship relating to the politics of land use. After discussing the history of land use regulation, we describe who the important actors are (and, generally, what they want) in the politics of land use; we explain the distribution of power and inequality in the politics of land use; and we briefly review how land use regulation affects other societal outcomes. We end with a set of unanswered political questions that could push the field forward.

When, why, and how do countries move from hostile to peaceful relations, and sometimes even friendship? We draw on the interstate peace literature to identify two peace processes. Rapprochement represents a first step during which enemies might develop normal working relations. Some states then progress to conciliation and establish warm and cooperative ties. We compare rapprochement to conciliation, outline the mechanisms that drive each process, and review scholarly findings about three types of causal variables: abrupt shocks, stable contextual factors, and policy initiatives. A key insight emerges that conciliation is not simply an extension of rapprochement—the predictors of these two processes differ significantly. We then call for greater scholarly attention to the study of conciliation, interactions of causal factors, the domestic politics underlying each process, the causes of peace failure, and empirical and methodological challenges.

How much should we fear that a president will break the law to pursue power—then use their office to avoid legal accountability? Political scientists studying the presidency have often overlooked the risk of what we here call a criminal president. Donald Trump's presidency spotlighted that risk and has begun to shift the field's focus toward not just presidential power but presidential constraints. We believe this shift should continue. In this review, we aim to set an agenda that makes the danger of a criminal president central to understanding the presidency more broadly. Situating the criminal presidency within wider questions about legal and constitutional constraints on presidential power, we emphasize the unique risks to democracy that a president unbound by law can pose. We call for a greater focus on the legal rules governing the executive branch—especially unitary executive ideas—and the policies needed to hold criminal presidents accountable.

Canonical studies of the origins of state capacity have focused on macro-historical or structural explanations. I review recent research in historical political economy that showcases the role of politics—agents, their constraints, and their motivations—in the evolution of state capacity. Findings from both developed and developing countries emphasize how elite conflict, principal–agent dilemmas, and ethnic and racial differences have shaped agents’ preferences for capacity. These new studies demonstrate that state capacity can be strategically manipulated by political and economic elites, and that the various dimensions of state capacity—extractive, coercive, legal—do not necessarily move together. Refocusing our attention on the political drivers of state capacity has also shed light on why there are such stark subnational variations in the development of state capacity, particularly within large polities like India, China, and the United States. The findings point to the need for more nuanced conceptualization and measurement of state capacity.

Democracy requires collective action—but not all forms of collective action are the same. Scholars need a more coherent intellectual infrastructure to differentiate distinct forms of collective action and to identify the kinds of collective action that enable democracy. We distinguish between two types of collective action: organizing, which seeks to transform individuals and groups into effective agents who can shape public outcomes, and mobilizing, which seeks to aggregate and articulate preferences in the public sphere with no explicit focus on individual or organizational change. We review work identifying the dimensions of possible transformation at the micro, meso, and macro levels, and existing evidence for it. We urge scholars to study organizing separate from (and in comparison to) mobilizing and suggest possible research strategies and questions. In doing so, we aim to provide a foundation for future research on organizing and its relationship to democracy.

What role does propaganda play in the information politics of authoritarian societies, and what is its relationship to censorship? What have we learned from rival accounts in recent literature about why states produce it? While regimes clearly invest in propaganda believing that it is effective, there is still much to learn about whether, when, and how it actually is effective. We first discuss some of the tensions inherent in distinguishing between persuasive and dominating, soft and hard, propaganda. We then review efforts to understand the conditions under which propaganda changes attitudes and/or behavior in terms of propaganda's content, relational factors, aspects of the political environment, and citizens’ own predispositions. We highlight the need for more research on propaganda in authoritarian settings, especially on how patterns of its consumption may change amid crises, technological shifts, and direct state interventions.

The prospect of rapid technological development and automation has heightened attention toward issues of work and leisure, prompting many to ask what the future of work will be. Though this question is sometimes asked as a matter of forecasting, the path forward is not predetermined. A range of collective choices shape the conditions of people's work and leisure. It is essential for these choices to be guided by consideration of what the future of work should be. This article reviews recent literature in normative political theory about work and leisure, focusing on how they should be conceptualized, the multidimensional values and disvalues associated with both, and the grounds of people's claims to each. It highlights how the goods and bads of work and leisure are unequally shared by class, race, and gender, as well as the theoretical and practical advantages of considering people's interests in work and leisure in conjunction.

Scholarship from the nascent subfield of Indigenous politics illuminates an enduring tension between Indigenous politics and political science. Settler colonialism continues to configure the contemporary politics of the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia in profound ways that political science has been slow to grapple with. In a related concern, political science has little ability to engage in Indigenous knowledge production. This article reviews the structural exclusion of Indigenous knowledge despite increased inclusion of Indigenous scholarship and argues that Indigenous understandings of settler colonialism, sovereignty, and authority hold the potential to reconfigure political science's approach to Indigenous politics in research and teaching. This reconfiguration will not only impact the development of the Indigenous politics subfield but also expand the analytic potential of political science more broadly.

Despite increasing interest in recent years, disability remains a neglected area of study within mainstream political science. Beginning with a brief overview of the ways that disability studies scholars have defined disability, I address the issues that have arisen in trying to measure disability as well as the limits and possibilities that follow from thinking of people with disabilities as a minority group with defined political beliefs and interests. To the extent that much of the work on disability in political science looks to the research on gender, race, ethnicity, and class as a touchstone, I consider the lessons that might be drawn from this work both as it relates to disability as a social category and regarding efforts to conceive of disability and ability in more structural and ideological terms. Turning to the literature on disability in political theory, I examine the ways that disability has been deployed to reveal the ableist assumptions that pervade canonical and more contemporary texts. I conclude by highlighting avenues for future research, including whether it is possible—or, indeed, desirable—to move beyond the civil rights and identity-based frameworks that have so defined disability politics and organizing.

This article focuses on discussions of territorial rights and self-determination in the last 15–20 years. Theories of territorial jurisdiction typically combine two elements. First, they offer an account of foundational title: What gives a particular set of people a claim to be located in an area, including the right to form political institutions to govern that space? Second, they offer an account of legitimate jurisdiction: What is the moral basis of a state's right to govern the area and its population? This article begins by reconstructing prominent accounts of foundational title and legitimate jurisdiction. After canvassing these views, I highlight three areas where further work is needed, particularly as the territorial states system begins to be challenged by climate change: the appropriate balance of sovereignty and international authority in a world of global interdependence, how to rectify imperial and colonial legacies in the states system, and the just distribution of territory.

The study of contagion offers important but underexplored opportunities to rethink and advance our understanding of key concepts in political science. These include notably state capacity; social policy; state–society relations, especially the role of trust; nationalism and social solidarity; exclusionary dynamics, such as xenophobia, prejudice, and discrimination; and within political psychology, the role of emotions, including disgust. This article reviews studies on contagion and health within and adjacent to political science. While taking note of the surge of studies around COVID-19, this article focuses on work on infectious disease before and beyond the pandemic. It analyzes the scholarship as it sheds light on the control of infectious diseases, on the one hand, and on the consequences of that control, on the other, while also pointing to connections and feedback loops, especially as they open avenues for future research.