Suchergebnisse

The development of a country's civil society has typically been tied to the development of democracy: a vibrant civil society is indicative of a vibrant democracy. Why, then, has civil society emerged differently in South Korea, a country that democratized fairly recently, and Japan, a country that has been democratic since the end of the Second World War? I argue the origins of democracy in both states significantly contributed to the contrasting characters of civil society. In Japan, top-down democratization facilitated the development of a civil society with a strong link to the state for the majority of the 20th century, best viewed from the perspective of Gramsci. By contrast, the bottom-up democratization process in South Korea fostered a civil society where organizations monitor the state, best understood from the Tocquevillian perspective. Through comparative case analysis, this study endeavors to contribute to the literature on civil society by highlighting the ways in which democratization influences the trajectory of civil society.

Abstract
Why has North Korea avoided capitulating to economic sanctions pressures? We argue that economic sanctions have been ineffective and unsuccessful for three reasons: North Korea's adeptness at evasion, other states' unwillingness to enforce economic sanctions, and North Korea's efforts to avoid panopticon effects via its diplomatic statecraft and policies that allow states to monitor and collect information on others. We contend that the implementation and enforcement of economic sanctions led North Korea to alter its trading network, reallocating trade to countries (or nodes) within its network willing to ignore international sanctions. As a result, these network shifts limited the ability of senders to weaponize the interdependence between them and North Korea effectively. We further highlight how North Korea conducts diplomatic statecraft in such a way that limits the impact of sanctions enforcing states from effectively monitoring it and limiting the impact of panopticon effects senders generate. To test our theory, we employ an ordinary least squares regression followed by social network analysis to understand how North Korea's network of trade has adapted over time in the face of punishing economic sanctions. We find that states with greater diplomatic engagement enjoy better centrality than sanctions enforcing states. Also, economic sanctions at critical junctures induce changes to North Korea's network over time with commercial imperatives to trade replaced by a North Korean near reliance on China. We further demonstrate that economic sanctions likely induce changes to the structure of the network as North Korea seeks to insulate itself from the impact of economic sanctions.

Abstract
We often look to the examples set by other countries when thinking about how to deal with problems at home. But what explains why some countries are more likely to serve as role models than others? Are people influenced mainly by the examples set by countries that are considered to be particularly successful in a given policy area? Or are they influenced to a greater extent by countries that are more familiar to them, or that appear more similar to their own? In this paper, we test these hypotheses using two large (n$\ > {\rm{\ }}$2,000) survey-based experiments conducted in the United States. The first focuses on environmental issues, while the second focuses on human rights issues. In both studies, the respondents were presented with a randomly drawn list of countries and asked to indicate how relevant the examples that these countries set should be to policy discussions in the United States. Our results suggest that the US public's perception of the relevance of other countries' experiences is driven primarily by the extent to which the respondent perceives the other countries as familiar to them, or similar to the United States, rather than by more objective measures of policy success.

Scholars that are interested in accounting for space in their research may run into difficulty when studying phenomena at a sub-state unit of analysis. Recent literature argues that theory and causal mechanisms should motivate the incorporation of crucial components of spatial analysis such as the selection of units of analysis (Darmofal 2015; Harbers and Ingram 2018; Soifer 2019) and the construction of spatial weights (Neumayer and Plümper 2016). This can be a challenge for studies that use jurisdictional units, such as provinces, districts, or other government administration units (Soifer 2019, 96). Additionally, this can be particularly difficult for studies that utilize non-jurisdictional units that have some cohesive ethnic, religious, or power grouping, such as Kurdistan, the Uighur region of China, or gangcontrolled territories. This, however, may not just be an issue for informal, occupied, or sub-states, but also those with fluid boundaries. In addition to ethnic or religious groupings, this can be applied to the study of areas controlled by gangs, insurgent territorial control, immigration patterns, or the spread of pandemics, among other topics. These examples elucidate difficulties in selecting the appropriate unit of analysis, especially as people's perceptions of unit boundaries may be different than that of researchers (Soifer 2019, 104). For nonjurisdictional units it may be particularly difficult to find sufficient available shapefiles and geo-referenced data, which may not exactly line up with the units needed to study outcomes of interest. It is valid to use available data to study subjects that do not follow traditional political boundaries, or phenomena with non-jurisdictional units (Soifer 2019, 108). However, it is important to think critically about how to choose the units of analysis that best align with the outcome under study. In the example provided later (see section "The Hypothetical"), we work through the different ways in which a study to understand civilian support for the ...

Students often struggle to grasp how examining international phenomena at the systemic, state, or international level of analysis can yield different understandings or perspectives. To help students understand the dynamics at the different levels of analysis, we suggest the use of several short games that make students be "lab rats in their own experiments." In this article, we discuss the mechanics of three short games we play with our students. We offer our qualitative impressions of the impact of these games on the understanding of the students.

What is field research? Is it just for qualitative scholars? Must it be done in a foreign country? How much time in the field is "enough"? A lack of disciplinary consensus on what constitutes "field research" or "fieldwork" has left graduate students in political science underinformed and thus underequipped to leverage site-intensive research to address issues of interest and urgency across the subfields. Uneven training in Ph.D. programs has also left early-career researchers underprepared for the logistics of fieldwork, from developing networks and effective sampling strategies to building respondents' trust, and related issues of funding, physical safety, mental health, research ethics, and crisis response. Based on the experience of five junior scholars, this paper offers answers to questions that graduate students puzzle over, often without the benefit of others' "lessons learned." This practical guide engages theory and praxis, in support of an epistemologically and methodologically pluralistic discipline.

ABSTRACTHow can scholars conduct field research when there is limited access to the field? This article first identifies how limited and uncertain field access can affect field research and then provides recommendations to address these challenges. We focus on conducting field research in Japan because of our substantive expertise, but we believe that the problems and solutions outlined in this article are applicable to a broad range of countries. Our hope is that this article contributes to the developing literature on conducting research during times of emergency and to the larger literature on best practices for field research.