Suchergebnisse

AbstractDoes the political ideology of negotiating parties influence the design of international environmental agreements? This article distinguishes between leftist and rightist executives in democracies to develop a twofold argument. First, left-leaning democratic governments tend to be generally more environmental-friendly, which implies that they should favor designs that are more conducive to effective institutions. Second, leftist democratic executives are commonly less concerned about sovereignty costs. Both mechanisms suggest that environmental treaties likely comprise "legalized," i.e., hard-law elements when left-wing democracies negotiate their design. The empirical implication of the theory is tested with quantitative data on international environmental agreements since 1975. The findings report an association between leftist ideology in democracies and agreement legalization, although this is driven by aspects of sovereignty delegation. This article contributes to the literatures on environmental institutions, international cooperation more generally, as well as party politics.

Does the political ideology of negotiating parties influence the design of international environmental agreements? This article distinguishes between leftist and rightist executives in democracies to develop a twofold argument. First, left-leaning democratic governments tend to be generally more environmental-friendly, which implies that they should favor designs that are more conducive to effective institutions. Second, leftist democratic executives are commonly less concerned about sovereignty costs. Both mechanisms suggest that environmental treaties likely comprise "legalized," i.e., hard-law elements when left-wing democracies negotiate their design. The empirical implication of the theory is tested with quantitative data on international environmental agreements since 1975. The findings report an association between leftist ideology in democracies and agreement legalization, although this is driven by aspects of sovereignty delegation. This article contributes to the literatures on environmental institutions, international cooperation more generally, as well as party politics.

The socioeconomic behavior and belief systems of industrial elites in Latin America have received considerable attention from social scientists, but research on the political ideology and activities of these important groups has been surprisingly limited. The socioeconomic literature has focused on the development or underdevelopment of entrepreneurial attitudes and values among Latin American industrialists. The major conclusions, documented by considerable quantitative research, are that industrial entrepreneurship in Latin America has been inhibited by international and domestic structural factors. It is accepted that national industrial elites in general tend to resist economic change and innovation, prefer the maintenance of traditional values such as family ownership, paternalistic labor relations, and laborintensive, low-technology means of production. National industrial elites are furthermore dominated by "internationalized" entrepreneurs and direct state investment.

The dissolution of nonprofit organizations has been increasingly documented by scholars in recent decades. Within this body of literature, how nonprofits' community environments affect their dissolution has not been extensively studied. This research combines a range of data sources to conduct a longitudinal analysis (2007–2015) of how two community factors influence the dissolution of nonprofit organizations across U.S. counties: demographic heterogeneity and political ideology. The study finds that counties with higher demographic heterogeneity and more liberal ideology generally experience higher levels of nonprofit dissolution, although these effects vary slightly across nonprofits' service fields. The findings extend the literature on nonprofit dissolution and offer implications for nonprofits to promote organizational sustainability.

State‐owned enterprises continue to play a considerable role in many economies. In this study we empirically investigate the connections between these enterprises and inequality as mediated through political ideology. Using cross‐country data on the relative size of the state‐owned enterprise sector, we find strong empirical support for an inverted U‐shaped relationship between its size and income inequality. We also find strong evidence that left‐wing (vis‐a‐vis right‐wing) governments are associated with a larger state‐owned enterprise sector in countries with higher inequality. This result is robust to using cross‐sectional vs. panel data, different identification strategies, and various controls.

The political critique of modernity appears to have gained momentum in Europe in recent years. However, as with so many trends, it is a rather diverse movement, encompassing populist nationalist and national-conservative parties in Western Europe, a fascistoid Christian-nationalist revival, and a number of trends that are directly incompatible with liberal democracy. Here, Eriksen talks about a variation of the same culture-borne ideology is Europe. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractRecent studies on political ideology suggest the existence of partisan divides on matters of foreign and security policy, challenging the notion that "politics stops at the water's edge." However, when taken as a whole, extant work provides decidedly mixed evidence of party-political differences outside domestic politics. This article first conducts a systematic empirical analysis of the relationship between parties' left–right positions and their general attitude toward peace and security missions, which suggests that right-leaning parties tend to be more supportive of military operations. Yet, the results also show that the empirical pattern is curvilinear: centrist and center–right parties witness the highest level of support for military missions, while parties on both ends of the political spectrum show substantially less support. The second part of our analysis examines whether the stronger support of rightist parties for peace and security missions translates into a greater inclination of right-wing governments to actually deploy forces for military operations. Strikingly, our results suggest that leftist governments were actually more inclined to participate in operations than their right-leaning counterparts. The greater willingness of left-wing executives to deploy military forces is the result of their greater inclination to participate in operations with inclusive goals.

This study attempts to bridge the research fields of politics and destination choice through testing political ideology's effect on leisure domestic U.S. destination choice. Both the travelers and the states visited were characterized by their reported and actual political ideological standings on a liberal / conservative scale. Included in the inferential tests as control variables were destination choice determinants such as advertising, distance, weather, etc. Through the comparison of Akaike Information Criteria (AIC) and Schwartz Criteria (SC) scores, political variables were shown to improve the model fit of destination choice models as opposed to demographic variables. Furthermore, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) tests showed that reported political ideology, instead of actual political ideology, held an effect on their destination choice. Suggestions are also provided for destinations to ameliorate their position within the marketplace through operational and marketing initiatives.