PS 50 Final

Universal Basic Income

"Basic income" is a term for a range of proposals that share the idea of giving everyone a certain amount of money on a regular basis. No eligibility requirements Everyone gets the same amount just for existing Biggest popularizer of the idea in the 20th century was economist Milton Friedman, who specifically favored a negative income tax. Plan to end poverty In 1970s basic income proposals were popular It has not been implemented anywhere exactly EX: In the United States, Social Security is more or less an age-limited basic income program which ties benefits to wages to make itself look like a pension program. Concerns: 1) destroy incentives to work 2) underreporting - fear that beneficiaries will underreport their incomes so as to get a bigger benefit EX: In Latin America, low-income families are given cash benefits with no restrictions provided they fulfill certain conditions, like sending kids to school or getting vaccinated — have become popular over the past decade or so. But because it is so controversial, basic income probably wont happen anytime soon in the U.S.

Single-Party Majority

A government in which a single party controls a legislative majority. A party controlling a majority (50% plus 1 or more) of legislative seats nearly always forms a government on its own. A majority government is usually assured of having its legislation passed and rarely, if ever, has to fear being defeated in parliament. Example: A single party controlling a majority of seats forms a government on its own 85% of the time that such a party existed in 13 West European parliamentary democracies from 1945-1998. In most parliamentary democracies, no single majority party controls the legislative seats, such as Germany in 1987. The term "majority government" may also be used for a stable coalition of two or more parties to form an absolute majority. One example was the 2010-15 coalition government in the United Kingdom, which was composed of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. The Conservatives won the most seats of any single party in the 2010 election, but fell short of an absolute majority. However, by combining with the Liberal Democrats a solid majority in the House of Commons was created. This was the first true coalition government in the UK since World War II.

Minority vs. Surplus Majority Government

A minority government is one in which the party or parties in power do not explicitly command a majority of legislative seats. Minority governments may be single-party minority governments or minority coalition governments. The opposition controls enough seats that it could remove the government through a vote of no confidence whenever it agrees to do so. A minority government can exist as long as the opposition chooses not to bring it down. This means that whenever we observe a minority government, we know that there must be an implicit majority in the legislature that supports it. The opposition strength hypothesis states that a minority government will be more likely when opposition influence is strong. Although governments that appear "too small" (minority) often form, cabinets that appear "too large" (surplus majority) also emerge from time to time. A surplus majority government is one in which the cabinet contains more parties than are strictly necessary to control a legislative majority. In effect, the government could lose or remove a party and still control a majority of the seats in the legislature. Though they are often considered are often rare and peculiar, data shows otherwise. Surplus majorities make up almost half of the governments in Italy and the Netherlands. Reasons for surplus majority: 1) times of political, economic, or military crisis in order to form "national unity" governments. goal is to put everyday partisan, ethnic, or religious natures of politics on hold for the sake of the country's immediate future. usually short lived 2) sometimes necessary to pass particular pieces of legislation. ex: constitutional amendments often require "supermajorities". if a gov wants to pass a constitutional amendment that requires that, then it might choose to have more parties in the cabinet that are strictly necessary just to remain in power 3) strategic interaction between coalition partners or between actors within parties. if a minority winning coalition takes office, to prevent minority parties from blackmailing, large parties in the coalition may decide to form surplus majority coalitions so that the gov is not automatically brought down if a single party decides to resign.

Plural vs. Multiethnic Societies

A plural society nation does not equal a state. Plural society is a society combining ethnic contrasts: the economic interdependence of those groups and their ecological specialization. Some believe that ethnic boundaries are most stable when groups occupy different ecological niches and make their living in different ways and don't compete. European, Chinese, Indian and native, who do mix but do not combine. Each group holds by its own religion, its own culture and language, its own ideas and ways. As individuals they meet, but only in the marketplace in buying and selling. There is a plural society, with different sections of the community living side by side, within the same political unit. A multi-ethnic society is a society that has many different ethnic groups within their common social identity or "nation," including differences in race, history and culture. The majority of cities and towns in most countries are multi-ethnic societies. An important component of a successful multi-ethnic society is an understanding and tolerance towards all kinds of people. Without the acceptance of the differences between cultures and ethnic groups, a multi-ethnic society will be divided and prone to unrest. This acceptance is often seen in bigger cities and cosmopolitan areas due to the early introduction of more diverse people at a young age. In more remote towns where the population is often entirely of one ethnic group, there can be judgment and animosity towards other ethnic groups. Not all multiethnic societies are PLURAL societies Plural societies require cleavages to be politicized Not all cleavages are equally or always important

Coalition Politics

A political alliance, also referred to as a political coalition, or political bloc, is an agreement for cooperation between different political parties on common political agenda, often for purposes of contesting an election to mutually benefit by collectively clearing election thresholds, or otherwise benefiting from characteristics of the voting system or for government formation after elections. A coalition government is formed when a political alliance comes to power, or when only a plurality (not a majority) has not been reached and several parties must work together to govern. Talk about office seeking vs. policy seeking & minimum winning coalition

Duverger's Law

A principle which states that plurality voting systems (such as first past the post) structured within single-member districts tend to favor a two-party system, and that double majority systems and proportional representation tend to favor multipartism. Duverger's law suggests a combination of a party system and an electoral system: a proportional representation (PR) system creates the electoral conditions necessary to foster party development while a plurality system marginalizes many smaller political parties, resulting in what is known as a two-party system. Duverger suggests two reasons this voting system favors a two-party system. One is Mechanical Effect : small parties don't win many seats Two is Psychological Effect : voters don't waste their votes on hopeless parties, and so those parties disappear Most countries with plurality voting have more than two parties. While the United States is very much a two-party system, the United Kingdom, Canada and India have consistently had multiparty parliaments. India does not fit this "law." Dozens of parties in Lok Sabha Exception to duverger's law Plurality Rule in Single Member Districts 36 Parties in Lok Sabha (lower house of parliament)

Retrospective vs. Prospective Voting

Accountability refers to the extent to which it is possible for voters to reward or punish parties for the policies that they introduce while in office. Many view accountability as important because it provides incentives for politicians to pursue policies that will keep the voters satisfied. Such behavior on the part of voters is referred to as retrospective voting; it occurs when voters look at the past performance of incumbent parties to decide how to vote in the current election. If citizens decide incumbent party performed well in office, they vote for them. If they decide they sucked, they punish them by voting for another party. Prospective voting occurs when voters look at what parties say they will do while in office in order to form the expectations about future performance that help them decide how to vote. In contrast to the majoritarian vision of democracy, mandates are not that important for the consensus vision. Indeed, the consensus vision of democracy actually views mandates as being bad because they mean ignoring the preferences of the minority not in power.

Minimal Winning Coalition

An office seeking politician would not want more parties in government that are strictly necessary for him to obtain a legislative majority. Thus, he will want to form a particular type of coalition called the minimal winning coalition. In the 1987 German Legislative Elections, of the seven potential governments there are 3 MWCs: (Christian Democrats + Social Democrats), (Christian Democrats+ Free Democrats), and (Christian Democrats+ Greens). In none of these coalitions is it possible to remove one party without at the same time giving up his legislative majority. A second implication of the purely-office seeking logic is that he will choose the smallest MWC, or the least minimal winning coalition. The least MWC is the one with the lowest number of surplus seats. He wants the least MWC because he does not want to "buy" more legislative seats than he strictly has to. One example would be the 1987 German election. We should expect the leader of the CDU/CSU to form a minimal winning coalition with the Greens because this MWC has the fewer surplus seats.

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)

Bharatiya Janata Party: Indian People's Party Main Opposition party, currently in power Narendra Modi is current Prime Minister Hindu Nationalist and economically rightist party Elite Party How does the electoral system shape political parties' strategies? India has Single Member District Plurality rules BJPs core constituencies are Elites 1) Internal Composition (who leads the party and who are the politicians?) 2) Electoral support 3) Policy profile 4) Financial backing Have to find a way to extend their appeal to win seats (NOT PR system) -BJP appeals to poor voters through private provision of public services. 1) Provides Universal Access to Health and Education within certain, poorer communities 2) Requires organizational resources -Motivated activists and volunteers 3) Cheaper than other strategies -Redistributive policies -Vote buying How can services win votes? 1) A political access to community networks 2) NOT quid pro quo of Services for Votes 3) Create goodwill instead of enforce compliance 4) Unconditional and reliable provision of services wins support 5) Where Public service provision is poor, BJP could seem like a good alternative How do political actors respond to the institutional incentives they face? For the BJP its is service provision The Bharatiya Janata Party is one of the two major political parties in India, along with the Indian National Congress. As of 2016, it is the country's largest political party in terms of representation in the national parliament and state assemblies, and it is the world's largest party in terms of primary membership. The BJP advocates social conservatism and a foreign policy centered on nationalist principles. The government mainly focused on issues such as neoliberal economic policy: prioritized globalization and economic growth over social welfare.

Centralized vs. Decentralized Systems

Centralization of authority means the power of planning and decision making are exclusively in the hands of top management In Decentralization, the powers of planning and decision making has been spread from the top management to the middle or low-level management. Differences: 1) Centralization is best for a small sized organization, but the large sized organization should practice decentralization. 2) Formal communication exists in the centralized organization. Conversely, in decentralization, communication stretches in all directions. 3) In centralization due to the concentration of powers in the hands of a single person, the decision takes time. On the contrary, decentralization proves better regarding decision making as the decisions are taken much closer to the actions. 4) There is full leadership and coordination in Centralization. Decentralization shares the burden of the top level managers. 5) When the organization has inadequate control over the management, then centralization is implemented, whereas when the organization has full control over its management, decentralization is implemented. Some people think that centralization is better while others are in favor of decentralization. In ancient times, people used to run their organization in a centralized manner, but now the scenario has been changed completely due to rise in competition where quick decision making is required and therefore many organizations opted for decentralization. No organization is completely centralized or decentralized, they are centralized or decentralized only up to the extent. In decentralization, citizens will find it easier to hold government accountable. Thus, it improves outcomes so that physical proximity increases voter information, participation, and monitoring of performance.

Identity Cleavage

Identity is multidimensional. It can be race, gender, ideology, religion, age, etc... It all depends on the context. The politicization of identity varies in intensity.....Even in countries marked by considerable diversity, most groups typically live in peace." - David Samuels Why do some identities get politicized and not others? Why does it sometimes lead to violence? -Context shapes identity -"Identity involves both our own perceptions of how we fit in, and others perceptions of how we fit in." -Samuels -Identity can be politicized because of competition over resources and political power First, a cleavage involves a social division that separates people along at least one key social characteristic such as occupation, status, religion or ethnicity. Second, groups involved in a cleavage must be conscious of their collective identity and be willing to act on that basis. Third, a cleavage must have an organizational component that gives formal institutional expression to the interests of those on one side of the division. EVIDENCE: Examining the major regions of Britain, Canada and the USA, we find considerable national and regional diversity in the nature of social cleavages. For example, social class and race had widely different effects nationally, but regionally their effects on attitudes and on voting were very similar. However, despite that, age and religion had a similar effect on attitudes across societies; the effects on voting varied considerably.

Policy Seeking vs. Office Seeking

If you live in a purely office-seeking world, in order to control a legislative majority, you know what you must get the support of other party leaders because your party controls only a minority of legislative seats. You can win their support only by giving them office. You tell them, "I will give you X ministerial posts in the government in exchange for your legislative support." You will obviously want to give them as few portfolios as possible, so you can keep the rest for yourself. In order to win their support you will have to give up more cabinet positions to a party leader who controls a large number of legislative seats. Ganson's Law states that cabinet portfolios will be distributed among government parties in strict proportion to the number of seats that each party contributes to the government's legislative majority. Political scientists often divide politicians into those who are office seeking and those who are policy seeking. An office-seeking politician will want to secure a many minister portfolios as he can. Many politicians want cabinet portfolios because it is a sign of a successful political career, it brings power and fame. An office-seeking politician is interested in the "intrinsic" benefits of the office. In contrast, a policy-seeking politician will, when forming a government, want to secure ministerial portfolios in order to be able to influence public policy. This type of politician is not interested in the "intrinsic" benefits of office; he does not want to be a minister simply for the sake of being a minster. Instead, a policy-seeking politician wants ministerial portfolios so that he can make a difference in how the country is run. In a purely policy seeking world, you can win the support of other party leaders in order to control a legislative majority by giving policy concessions. This means that instead of being able to implement policies of your own, you will have to implement a coalition policy that lies somewhere between the ideal points of all your coalition partners. A connected coalition is one in which the member parties are located directly next to each other in the policy space.

Bureaucratic Abseentism

In many developing countries, bureaucratic absenteeism is a problem. Random monitoring visits find 24% of teachers and 40% of doctors are absent, on average, in India GOJ installed Biometric Attendance Machines to reduce absenteeism Monitoring abseentism: Biometric Attendance Machines record the arrival and departure of every employee Attendance data is made publicly available in real time, which we scrape on a monthly basis Date, employee name, arrival and departure time, department, and job title

Concentrated vs. Diffuse Interests (i.e. corporations/lobbyists vs. consumers)

People in an interest group receive all of the benefits of redistribution to that group: benefits are concentrated. They only pay a portion of the cost - usually the costs are diffused among taxpayers in general. Because of this, interest groups often favor even subsidies that decrease social welfare, because they receive more in benefits than they pay in costs. When the benefits (or costs) are concentrated to a particular group it is easier to lobby for a particular public policy. When the costs (or benefits) are spread out across "loosely connected" groups it is much more difficult for those people to organize and lobby. For example, it is in the interest of U.S. automakers to lobby the government for quotas or tariffs on foreign cars. The benefits of that kind of policy would be concentrated on U.S. automakers, making it easy for them to organize (large benefits for a small group). The result would be a higher price for vehicles for all U.S. consumers. The costs are spread out, making it harder for those who pay the costs to organize and lobby in their own self-interest.

Interest Groups vs. Socialist Movements

Social Movement A social movement is a loose coalition of groups and organizations with common goals that are oriented toward mass action and popular participation and share the intention of influencing the government. -The term social movement refers to a variety of political and social collective actions, focussed on issues such as gender equality, sexual freedom, health, civil rights, anti-racism, international development, the environment, and peace. -Emphasize participatory, inclusionary, and democratic organization -Make greater use of non-institutional forms of political expression such as protest and public education -Hold critical attitudes towards bureaucratic and state solutions -Ultimate goals and forms of action are non negotiable within existing political arrangements E.g. Women's Movement, Black Lives Matter Interest Groups Interest groups can be part of a social movement, and new interest groups may be spawned by the activities of a broader social movement. But interest groups are formal organizations, while social movements are coalitions of many groups and individuals. -Organizations which have some autonomy from government or political parties and try to influence public policy -Pursue common political goals -Seek to influence government but unlike political parties do not aspire to take control of it -Do not run candidates -Focus is on influencing governments Social Movements are different from interest groups: -Less dependent on formal organization since they represent forms of social or political identity -Define success not in terms of influencing public policy but more generally in changing our understandings of the social and political world -Focus is on mobilizing people to make changes nationally, globally and in their own lives.

Missing Women

Term was coined to capture the fact that the proportion of women is lower than what would be expected if girls and women throughout the developing world were born and died at the same rate, relative to boys and men, as they do in sub-Saharan Africa. Today, it is estimated that 6 million women are missing every year. Of these, 23 percent are never born, 10 percent are missing in early childhood, 21 percent in the reproductive years, and 38 percent above the age of 60. Women in developing countries are treated differently than their brothers, lagging behind men in many domains. For each missing woman, there are many more women who fail to get an education, a job, or a political responsibility that they would have obtained if they had been men.

Parliamentary vs. Presidential Democracy

The essence of pure parliamentarism is mutual dependence The essence of pure presidentialism is mutual independence.. A presidential democracy is one in which the government does not depend on a legislative majority to exist. (Ex: US) A parliamentary democracy is one in which the government depends only on a legislative majority to exist. (EX: Netherlands) A mixed democracy is one in which the government depends on a legislative majority and on an independently elected president to exist. (EX: Armenia) Parliamentary: Prime Minister not directly elected and he is not the Head of State Presidential: President is Chief Executive, Head of State, AND Head of Government Parliamentary: No Separation of Powers Presidential: Separation of Powers between the different branches of the government Parliamentary: Prime Minister must have the confidence of the parliament. With a vote of no confidence he is removed. The Prime Minister can dissolve Parliament Presidential: Impeachment is the only legal way to remove the President from office Parliamentary: Not a lot of public argument within the cabinet Presidential: Consultation of cabinet, legislative agenda, veto power all spark debate Parliamentary: No open recruitment Presidential: Experience is not a requirement Parliamentary: No divided government. PM is the leader of the majority party Presidential: Divided government when the executive party is not the majority in Congress Parliamentary Advantage: Passage of legislation is easier due to the PM being in the same party as the Majority. More regime stability than Presidential. Greater party discipline. The PM is often times not directly elected, it is left up to Parliament Presidential Advantage: Regime stability and less of of a governmental presence The President is often directly elected or elected by an electoral college in which the members represent small municipalities. Parliamentary Disadvantage: Less stable governments because they can change so often. Presidential Disadvantage: Stalemates often occur, A vote for a third party in a Presidential System is arguably a wasted vote, but not so in a Parliamentary System where third parties often join and influence governing coalitions.

Corporatist vs. Political Interest Groups

There are several arguments regarding opposition parties. Strom claims that minority governments are more likely in countries in which nongovernmental parties have a strong say over policy. Luebbert argues that the ability of opposition groups to influence policy depends heavily on whether a country has corporatist or pluralist interest group relations. A corporatist interest group relation occurs when key social and economic actors, such as labor, business, and agriculure groups, are integrated in other formal policy-making process. In these countries, interest groups are organized into national, specialized, hierarchical, and monopolistic organizations that sit down with each other and the government to figure out public policies. For example, ministries in Norway and Sweden that contemplate certain actions that might affect a particular interest group are obliged to consult that interest group before proceeding. Pluralist interest group relations occur when interest groups compete in the political marketplace outside of the formal policy-making process. Corporatist hypothesis: minority governments are more likely in corporatist countries. Investiture hypothesis: minority governments are less likely when there is a formal investiture vote. Strong party hypothesis: minority governments are more likely when there is a "strong" party.

Majoritarian vs. Consensus Democracy

Two diff perspectives on how democracy should work have important implications for things like accountability, government mandates, and representation. There are two alternatives: 1) citizens can elect a government, i.e. select the party whose policies they most prefer 2) citizens can elect a truly representative body, i.e. group that will vote as the citizens themselves would have voted. For the majoritarian vision, the answer is for the majority of the people. For the consensus vision, the answer is as many people as possible. Majoritarian: Where the issues are clear cut and a unified citizenry has a clear set of preferences, voters prefer to take most of the choices out of the hands of negotiators to be sure that the election results are decisive. Consensus: Where the issues are divided and problems that the citizens cannot anticipate arises, each group of citizens prefers to be represented by trustworthy agents who can be relied upon to negotiate for their constituents. Accountability: Consensus democracies tend to have lower levels of accountability because voters in these countries typically do not get to directly choose the government. Clarity of responsibility is common in majoritarian democracies because citizens know to blame they know exactly who to blame - the party in power. Government mandates: Mandates are important for majoritarian democracies as well, not consensus democracies. Voters are expected to engage in prospective and retrospective voting so that they can give the next government a mandate to implement the policies that they ran on during the electoral campaign. Representation: important for both

Votes and Violence

-A political theory of ethnic (religious, racial, linguistic) violence: When politicians need minority support, they prevent violence. When they don't, they don't. And if they need to incite ethnic polarization (e.g. in order to bring more of their ethnic group into the majority party), then they might just promote ethnic violence. -Wilkinson's theory is state level. Because although local factors may influence whether violence breaks out, it is the state-level authorities who must order in police and reinforcements to contain it. Even federal troops can't be deployed unless the state government orders it. Electoral incentives for Hindu-Muslim violence: -Primary argument : In states with high partisan fractionalization, parties have greater incentives to compete for the Muslim/minority vote therefore there should be less violence. The argument has three elements: 1) Multidimensionality-- Though Muslims favor security, most Hindus are more concerned with economic redistribution and other issues than with holding Muslims down. 2) Since Muslims demand less than most Hindu voting blocs (they only want security), they are a low-cost constituency, so they are attractive to parties that need more votes. 3) Less than 1% of the armed forces is Muslim, so granting security doesn't scare Hindus.

Labor Market and Female Empowerment

-In labor market opportunities: women are less likely to work, they earn less than men for similar work, and are more likely to be in poverty even when they work. Women spend almost twice as much time on housework, almost five times as much time on child care, and about half as much time on market work as men do. Women face forms of unequal access to markets than men from insecure property rights, to lacking rights to manage property, conduct business, or even travel, to constraints on their time due to the obligation of child rearing. -There is a bidirectional relationship between economic development and women's empowerment defined as improving the ability of women to access the constituents of development—in particular health, education, earning opportunities, rights, and political participation. -In one direction, development alone can play a major role in driving down inequality between men and women. -In the other direction, continuing discrimination against women can hinder development. Empowerment can accelerate development. -Those focusing on the first believe that gender equality improves when poverty declines. Policymakers should focus on creating the conditions for economic growth and prosperity, while seeking to maintain a level playing field for both genders, but without adopting specific strategies targeted at improving the condition of women. -In contrast, many emphasize the second relationship, from empowerment to development. Achieving gender equality is a prerequisite to achieving goals including eliminating poverty, reducing infant mortality, achieving universal education, and eliminating the gender gap in education -Some policies can be implemented to address gender imbalance in "rights, resources, and voice," and promote equality, and that specific measures, such as girls' scholarships and quotas for women in parliament, be adopted. -The fact that women have fewer opportunities in the labor market may contribute to their unequal treatment in the household. Parents have lower aspirations for their daughters than for their sons, and female teenagers themselves have lower aspirations. Interviews of parents in five states in north India found that Many parents believed that educating girls is not necessary, since girls are only expected to marry and take care of their households. Empowering women to go to school and achieve an education equally among men can significantly improve economic development. -if more educated women command higher outside wages, and it is easier for them to get a job, then investing more in educating women, rather than in men, may indeed have a more positive impact on child health than when the investments are spread evenly.

Gender equality promotes development

-Policy action is still necessary to achieve equality between genders. Such policy action would be justified if empowerment of women also stimulates further development, starting a cycle. Gender inequality is often greater among the poor, both within and across countries. -Education for girls has a catalytic effect on every dimension of development: lower child and maternal mortality rates; increased educational attainment by daughters and sons; higher productivity; and improved environmental management. Together, these can mean faster economic growth and, equally important, wider distribution of the fruits of growth. . . . More education for girls will also enable more and more women to attain leadership positions at all levels of society: from health clinics in the villages to parliaments in the capitals. This, in turn, will change the way societies will deal with problems and raise the quality of global decision-making. -if more educated women command higher outside wages, and it is easier for them to get a job, then investing more in educating women, rather than in men, may indeed have a more positive impact on child health than when the investments are spread evenly. -In addition, if women are the primary caregivers for young children, then more education may help them provide better care. -In Africa, it is common for women and men to retain separate property rights over productive assets, particularly land. Weak property rights for women also lead to an inefficiently low level of investment. -Giving women the right to vote makes a difference. An example of proof of this is the introduction of women suffrage in the United States was associated with a decline in infant mortality.

Development promotes gender equality

-Poverty and lack of opportunity breed inequality between men and women. When economic development reduces poverty, the condition of women improves on two counts: first, when poverty is reduced, the condition of everyone, including women, improves, and second, gender inequality declines as poverty declines, so the condition of women improves more than that of men with development. -The first way by which economic development reduces inequality is by relaxing the constraints poor households face, thus reducing the frequency at which they are placed in the position to make life or death choices. Because these tragic choices are often resolved at the expense of women's well-being, increasing the resources available to families, as economic development does, reduces the excess vulnerability of women. -If poor households are less likely to spend money on a girl's illness than on a boy's illness, then improved access to health services, through either health insurance for the entire family or free medical care for the poor, would disproportionately help girls, even if parents do not change their behavior toward them. For example, a study found that, in the poor neighborhoods of New Delhi, girls are more than twice as likely to die of diarrhea. -If crises throw poor households into circumstances in which they are more likely to discriminate against vulnerable women, then increasing the ability of poor households to weather crises would disproportionately help women. -These two examples suggest that just reducing the grip of poverty on these households or helping them to deal with crises could improve the welfare of women of all ages. -By reducing the vulnerability of poor households to risk, economic development, even without specifically targeting women, disproportionately improves their well-being

Party Systems

1) Electoral system: a set of laws that regulate electoral competition between candidates or parties or both. These laws and regulations include many things, such as electoral formula, ballot structure, and district magnitude. 2) Majoritarian Electoral system: one in which the candidates or parties that receive the most votes win. 3) Single-member district plurality system: one in which individuals cast a single vote for a candidate in a single member district. The candidate with the most votes is elected. 4) Borda Count: a candidate-centered electoral system used in either single or multimember districts in which voters must use numbers to mark their preferences for all of the nominated candidates. These preferences are then assigned a value using equal steps to reflect the voter's preference ordering. These values are then summed and the candidate(s) with the most "valuable" votes is (are) elected. 5) Two Round System: has the potential for two rounds of elections. Candidates or parties are automatically elected in the first round if they obtain a specified level of votes, typically an absolute majority. Those candidates or parties that win the most votes in the second round are elected. 6) Proportional Electoral System: a quota-or division based electoral system employed in multimember districts. 7) List PR System: each party presents a list of candidates for a multimember district. Parties receive seats in proportion to their overall share of the votes. 8) Division system: divides the total number of votes won by each party in a district by a series of number of votes won by each party in a district by a series of numbers (divisors) to obtain quotients. District seats are then allocated according to which parties have the highest quotients. Parties try to hold onto government power Elements of a Party: 1. Party in Office: legislators, high level bureaucrats 2. Party in the electorate: card carrying members or core supporters, volunteers 3. Party Organization: party elites, party headquarters, party professionals Outcomes are governed by: 1. Electoral system: Plurality vs. PR 2. Federalism: regional parties 3.Identities: class, religion, language, race, ethnicity *more diverse society, more parties

The "chronic failure" of African Growth

Africa as a whole has been in "a chronic failure", however African growth has been episodic. 1. Average Masks Variation: It is unfair to compare Africa as a whole as opposed to its various countries. 2. Underlying Data Can Also be Unreliable 3. Evidence of growth in postcolonial period, stagnation/declines in the 80's and growth afterwards Growth and Income data before 1960's in unreliable or missing There has been a chronic failure among economists to explain growth in Africa. The methods and analytical angles they have used to explain relative failure in Africa were conceived in the 1990s, but these were unsuitable for explaining growth in the 1960s or growth since the 2000s. The idea that initial conditions such as ethnic fragmentation had a direct role in the failure of economic growth in the late 1970s is wrong. Also the distinction between "closed" and "open" economies, or the related "bad" and "good" policies are also wrong and do not correlate coherently with episodes of economic growth in African countries.

Federalism

Constitution guarantees sub-national governments exclusive control over some policy areas National governments cannot unilaterally take these powers away National and sub-national leaders are chosen independently Federal states tend to be: - Large - Bicameral Advantages: 1. Policy variation 2. Better information at local level 3. Competition between local governments 4. Policy Experimentation 5. Diffuse power 6. Protect minority groups 7. Prevent secession Disadvantages: 1. Redundancy 2. Collective action failure 3. Race to the bottom 4. Intensifies inequality between regions 5. Can't spread risk as well 6. Responsibility for failure/success unclear 7. Local majorities can oppress local minorities 8. Might encourage separatism 9. Intensify separate identities

Poor Voters and Economic Interests

Democratization might be expected to benefit most the average voter, who in most developing countries is "poor." Public policy in emerging democracies does not seem to benefit poor voters. Policy-makers that depend upon political support from the poor do not effectively deliver basic services to the poor. Why? 1) Political market failures are caused by 3 things: lack of information among voters about politician performance, social and ideological fragmentation among voters that leads to identity based voting and lower weight placed on the quality of public services, and lack of credibility of political promises to citizens. 2) Informed voting is costly, and voters may have difficulty in coordinating information to reward (or punish) particular politicians or political parties for specific actions that improve (or worsen) the quality of public services. 3) Socially and/or ideologically fragmented societies are less able to provide the incentives to their political agents to improve broad public services -In developing countries, poor voters are more likely to vote in uninformed ways, being susceptible to campaign slogans, or polarized along religion or ethnic identity, and political promises are particularly lacking in credibility. Public services are likely to suffer. Decentralization to locally elected governments will improve political incentives and delivery outcomes 1) if voters are better informed and likely to use information about local public goods in their voting decisions for electing local governments 2) if there is greater social homogeneity and coordination of preferences for local public goods 3) if political promises are more credible at local levels. Decentralization improves outcomes to the extent that physical proximity, increases voter information, participation, and monitoring of performance, and by narrowing the scope of responsibilities government decision makers are more likely to perform better in their responsibilities.

Services vs. Patronage vs. Clientelism

Patronage: Exchange between two individuals of different status and power, of jobs and other resources for vote banks (usually done face-to-face) Clientelism: Quid pro quo exchange of vote for benefit exchanges of favors between patrons and clients, often requiring a hierarchy of intermediaries. Clientelism exists primarily in democratic countries where large numbers of voters need to be mobilized. Services: - Provide universal access to health and education within certain, poorer communities - Requires organizational resources, ie motivated activists ad volunteers - Cheaper than other strategies (re distributive policies and vote buying) Advantages: 1. A political access to community networks 2. NOT quid pro quo of services for votes 3. create goodwill instead of enforce compliance 4. Unconditional and reliable provision of services wins support 5. Where public service provision is poor, party could seem like a good alternative

Measuring Corruption

Traditional Measure: Perceptions of Corruption Expert Opinions Surveys about bribes Could be unreliable Difficult to measure because corruption is hidden Alternative Measure: Missing Expenditures Corruption = Reported Spending - Actual Spending Reinikka and Svennson (2005) - PETs; Only 20% Education Grants reach local schools in Uganda Olken (2004): Corruption = Reported Road Spending - Actual Road Spending Corruption = Reported Road Spending - Costs to Build Road There had been a randomized experiment done Results: Top-down Auditing reduced corruption by 30% Bottom-up Community Monitoring had little effect

Primordialism vs. Constructivism

Two of three theories have been used to explain ethnic conflict. Constructivism: argues that ethnic conflict is a product of historical processes over time that result in divergent ethnic identities and hostility between them. Primordialism: ethnic 'ties' are inherent in us as human beings; that we have deep, 'natural', connections that link us to some people and that lead to natural divisions with others, whether based on race, religion, language or location. Thus division caused by natural 'ties' has been referred to as 'ancient hatreds'. Example: The conflict in Rwanda is a result of both elite manipulation and historical processes, thus fitting into both Instrumentalist and Constructivist theories. Primordialism: REJECTED.. Why? 1) Simplifies complex situations 2) Suggests that ethnic conflict is natural and to be expected, but they are culturally and socially moulded, as well as being grounded in place, language and shared historic experience. 3) The Rwandan genocide has been portrayed as an inevitable ethnic conflict that was born out of tribal differences and ever present 'ancient hatreds'. It 'romanticizes' the conflict: without requiring a specific perpetrator; without needing apologies from unresponsive governments and international organizations such as the UN. Ethnicity or 'tribalism' is used as an auto- explanation of political events in Africa', particularly by the media. 6) Ethnic differences between the Hutu and the Tutsi are not clear. 7) The Rwandan genocide did not see an 'all against all' conflict. Many Hutus hid and protected 'Tutsi neighbours and sometimes strangers despite the pressure, and despite the fact that the punishment for such behavior could be instant, brutal death. 8) Primordialism fails to produce a substantial alternative theory to the notion of elite manipulation Constructivism WORKS..Why? 1) The theory of Constructivism sees 'ethnic conflict as the product of concrete historical processes'. It argues that influences in history will effect relations between ethnic groups. 2) The distinctions were not on a 'racial' or 'ethnic' basis. The arrival of the German and Belgian colonizers saw the development of 'a system of categories for different 'tribes' that was largely a function of aesthetic impressions. Individuals were categorized as Hutu or Tutsi according to their degree of beauty, their pride, intelligence and political organization. These colonizers considered the Tutsi to be superior to the Hutu. 3) These exacerbated differences lead to increased tension between the Tutsi minority leadership and the Hutu majority. They came to a head in the 1959 genocide aimed at Tutsi elites. 4) The 1959 genocide played a role in constructing a history that was accessed by the Rwandan leaders in their manipulation of ethnic hatreds. The notion that conflict seemingly inspired by ethnic hatreds is in fact driven by the aims of political leaders is therefore not a complete theory. There are other factors at play, and the construction of ethnic identities over history and the history of ethnic relations have a key part to play in the instigation of ethnic conflict