MPSA Award Recipients - 2015
The MPSA sponsors many awards for outstanding research presented at the MPSA Conference and one award for the best article published in each volume of the American Journal of Political Science (AJPS). Nominations are made by conference chairs, discussants, and section heads after the conference. Award committees select the winning papers. Awards are announced at the MPSA business meeting during the conference the following year.
The following awards were presented at the 2015 conference for research presented at the 2014 conference:
AJPS Best Article Award
A $1,000 award for the best article appearing in the volume of the American
Journal of Political Science preceding the conference.
Title: Group Segregation
and Urban Violence (Volume 58, Issue 1, pages 226–245)
Authors: Ravi Bhavnani,
Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Karsten Donnay,
ETH Zürich, Dan Miodownik, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Maayan Mor, Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, Dirk Helbing, ETH Zürich
Award Committee: David
Darmofal, University of South Carolina (chair); Matthew Golder, Penn State;
Tracy Osborn, University of Iowa
From the committee:
Bhavnani, Donnay, Miodownik, Mor, and Helbing’s article, “Group Segregation and
Urban Violence”, is an imaginative paper that brings a rigorous research design
and methods to bear on an important and timely topic: how does segregation
shape intergroup violence in contested urban spaces? The authors argue that
social distance – be it religious, ethnic, or ideological, class- or
gender-based – is a key mechanism that explains conflict over urban areas. All
else equal, higher levels of social distance increase the likelihood that
day-to-day contact between members of nominally rival groups leads to violence.
The authors apply
agent-based modeling to the demonstration case of Jerusalem, seeding their
model with micro-level, geo-coded data on settlement patterns for each of the
city’s 77 neighborhoods. One of the most innovative contributions of this paper
is to employ agent-based modeling to examine violence under four proposed
scenarios for the future status of Jerusalem: “Business-As-Usual”, “Clinton
Parameters”, “Palestinian Proposal”, and “Return to 1967.” The authors find
that the “Return to 1967” scenario would most dramatically curb violence in the
city. They also conclude that although integration is a promising strategy when
social distance is small, arrangements to reduce intergroup interactions –
including localized segregation, limits on mobility and migration, partition,
and differentiation of political authority – can be effective when social
distance is great.
Bhavnani et al’s article
has several attractive features. In highlighting the importance of social
distance it demonstrates the contingent nature of intergroup interactions in
conflict-prone settings and identifies an important factor that helps account
for whether these interactions will ameliorate or promote conflict. Its use of
agent-based modeling demonstrates the utility of this approach, particularly in
forecasting the likely consequences of proposed scenarios in real world
settings. Finally, the rigorous methods it employs are applied to one of the
most consequential and intractable conflicts in the world. For all of these
reasons, we believe that “Group Segregation and Urban Violence” is
well-deserving of the AJPS Best Article Award.
Best Paper in Comparative
Policy Award
A $500 award sponsored by the Journal of Comparative Policy
Analysis: Research and Practice (JCPA) and International Comparative Policy
Analysis Forum for the best paper in comparative policy. The winner(s) may
submit their paper to JCPA for an expedited triple blind-fold review process.
Title: Ripples from the
First Wave: The Monarchical Origins of the Welfare State
Author: Eileen McDonagh,
Northeastern University
Award Committee: Charles Blake, James Madison University
(Chair), Christoffer Green-Pedersen, Aarhus University, Denmark, Klaus
Schubert, University of Muenster
From the committee: In a considerable number of settings in the
comparative study of policy dynamics, prevailing public attitudes toward
government action are presented as a given. In contrast, in this innovative
paper, Professor McDonagh argues that the origins of public support for the
welfare state in the 20th and 21st centuries can be found in distinctive
monarchical legacies. Highly patrimonial regimes demonstrated a familial
rhetoric and took courses of action that laid the foundation for future policy
development and for public support of government activity in pursuit of public welfare.
In contrast, less patrimonial monarchies evolved into more liberal polities
with political cultures more focused on individual responsibility for
socioeconomic outcomes. Professor McDonagh combines a comparative historical
approach with contemporary quantitative analysis to engage in process tracing
regarding the origins of distinctive political cultures and of distinctive
policy outcomes. Her work extends the
temporal boundaries of the contemporary debate over the causal dynamics of
robust welfare states with implications both for future research and for
practitioners engaged in social policymaking.
Best Paper by an Emerging
Scholar Award
A $250 award given for the best paper, regardless of field of
topic, authored by a scholar or scholars who have received their terminal
degree(s) no sooner than six years prior to the year in which the paper was
delivered.
Title: Social Norms and
the Presentation of Partisanship
Authors: Samara Klar,
University of Arizona, Yanna Krupnikov, Northwestern University
Award Committee: Leonie
Huddy, SUNY Stony Brook (chair); Michael Berkman, Penn State; Raymond Duch,
University of Oxford
From the committee: American political behavior research has
established that leaning political independents, those who call themselves
independent but lean towards one or the other major political parties, act as
consistent partisans. What has remained unclear in past research is why such
individuals call themselves independents and not partisans. In this well
written, carefully researched, and innovative paper, Klar and Krupnikov find
that Americans are more likely to call themselves political independents in
climates characterized by partisan disagreement. This is especially the case
for high self-monitors, individuals who are highly attuned to social norms and
most likely to modify their attitudes and behavior to fit within a specific
social context. Partisan disagreement not only pushes Americans towards an
independent self-identification it also dampens their political activity. Klar
and Krupnikov base their conclusions on four well-designed experiments that
show the powerful effects of political disagreement on the avoidance of
partisan labels and decreased levels of political engagement. Their work lends obvious insight into
political engagement. It also answers an incredibly important but vastly
understudied question: Why do people vary in their attachment to political
parties? At a time of intensified partisanship and heightened partisan
acrimony, their research is trend setting and timely.
Best Paper in
International Relations
A $250 award for the best paper on the topic of
international relations.
Title: Modern Day Merchant
Guilds: Supply Chains and Informal Property Rights Enforcement
Authors: Leslie Johns,
University of California at Los Angeles, Rachel Wellhausen, University of Texas
at Austin
Award Committee: Zaryab
Iqbal, Penn State (chair); Philip Arena, SUNY Buffalo; Jonathan Renshon,
University of Wisconsin, Madison
From the committee: This paper stands out for both its
intellectual and empirical rigor, as well as its creativity. Substantively, it
makes the important point that reputational arguments (of the sort invoked not
only to explain property rights, but many other outcomes in international
relations) hinge upon an often implicit assumption that certain actions will be
deterred by punishments no one actually has any interest in carrying out. This
is a glaring problem in a number of literatures and it is important to draw
attention to it. Methodologically, the paper combines formal theory,
statistical analysis, and case studies to great effect. One rarely sees such a
wide range of approaches adopted within a single paper. Johns and Wellhausen
dexterously use a combination of observational data, surveys case studies, and
formal theory to construct a convincing narrative that feels like more than the
sum of its parts. While it is common these days to see multi-method approaches,
it's rather unusual to see them carried out so well.
Best Paper Presented in a
Poster Format Award
A $250 award for the best poster presentation.
Title: Natural Resources
and Recurring Civil War
Author: Vita Thormann,
German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA)
Award Committee: Heather
Evans, Sam Houston State University (chair); Gwen Arnold, University of
California, Davis; Nick Clark, Susquehenna University
From the committee: Vita Thormann's paper makes an interesting
contribution to the study of the interrelationships among natural resource
holdings and conflict by examining how the attributes of bundles of natural
resources possessed by a country may make the country more or less vulnerable
to recurrence of civil conflict. The paper tests hypotheses about how variation
in these bundles, specifically with respect to the lootability of natural
resources and the extent to which their expropriation can be feasibly
obstructed, can affect the balance of power between state and rebel actors such
that post-conflict stability is more or less fragile. Thormann focuses on four classes
of goods typed by a two-by-type matrix of lootability and obstructibility,
using as his/her empirical focus fuel rents, primary diamond production,
secondary diamond production, and contraband goods. The statistical analysis
suggests that variation in fuel endowments does not affect the likelihood of
conflict recurrence, a finding that contradicts indications in some existing
scholarship and thus deserves further investigation. A country's possession of
lootable resources, such as secondary diamonds and contraband resources such as
drugs, appear to increase the likelihood of conflict recurrence. The research
suggests that these latter resources have some sort of inherently destabilizing
impact, the causal mechanism needs further exploration. The research is
somewhat limited by its small n, the small number of resource types upon which
it focuses, the lack of fine-grained resource classification, and the need for
more thorough explication of the resource-related incentives of state and
non-state actors vis-a-vis conflict engagement. Nonetheless, the research
question is interesting, the theoretical approach is innovative, and the
results suggest productive paths for future research.
Best Undergraduate Poster
Award
A $250 award for the best poster presented by an undergraduate.
Title: Learning in Harm’s
Way: The Effects of Neighborhood Violence on School Performance
Author: Elizabeth Froom
Pelletier, The College of William and Mary
Award Committee: Jennifer
Hayes Clark, University of Houston (chair); Victor Asal, SUNY Albany; John
Hulsey, James Madison University
From the committee: The committee felt that this research was
strong both theoretically and methodologically, investigating the very
important and timely question of whether geographic proximity to violent crimes
affects school performance. Using
sophisticated GIS techniques, Pelletier finds a statistically significant and
negative association between proximity to violence and test score results.
Herbert A. Simon Award
A $500 award for a scholar who has made a significant contribution to the scientific study of bureaucracy. Submissions are handled by the Midwest Caucus on Policy Administration.
David Lewis
Award Committee: Midwest Caucus for Public Administration
Kellogg/Notre Dame Award
A $250 award for the best paper in comparative politics.
Title: Reverse Engineering
Chinese Censorship through Randomized Experimentation and Participant
Observation
Authors: Gary King,
Harvard University, Jennifer Pan, Harvard University, Margaret E. Roberts,
Harvard University
Award Committee: Robert
Rohrschneider, University of Kansas (chair); Chris Blattman, Columbia
University; Georgia Kernell, Northwestern University
From the committee: How
can one study censorship of internet activities China? This paper applies an
ingenious research design to investigate this question. It uses a twofold
strategy. First, the study creates numerous social media accounts across China.
It then randomly submits different types of messages to these sites. This
strategy allows the authors to assess which messages pass the censorship
bar-and which ones fail to clear it. Second, the study interviews participants
in the censorship process through one of its social media sites. Cumulative,
the study reveals that some topics (like corruption) are more likely to be
censored than others; but it also indicates that "obvious" topics
like government criticism are not automatically censored. The study makes a
major contribution by revealing a nuanced portrait of censorship-at-work in
China.
Lucius Barker Award
A
$250 award for the author or authors of the best paper presented at the annual
meeting on a topic investigating race or ethnicity and politics honoring the
spirit and work of Professor Barker.
Title: Assessing the
Causal Impact of Race-Based Districting on Voter Turnout
Author: Bernard L. Fraga,
Indiana University
Award Committee: Ismail
White, (chair) Ohio State University; Marisa Abrajano, University of
California, San Diego; D. Stephen Voss,University of Kentucky
From the committee: This
year’s nominations for the Lucius Barker paper award featured a number of
exceptional papers that all nicely embodied the spirit of Dr. Barker’s work and
his exceptional contributions to the study of race and ethnic politics. Although it was not easy given the quality of
the papers, the awards committee unanimously selected the paper, “Assessing the
Causal Impact of Race-Based Districting on Voter Turnout,” by Benard Fraga as
the recipient of the 2015 Lucius Barker paper award. This paper not only
addresses an important question within the race and ethnic politics literature
but it is meticulously researched and provides
convincing evidence about the causal link between co-racial/ethnic
candidates and racial differences in voter turnout. Leveraging the 2012 round
of redistricting and examining the turnout behavior of 65 million registered
voters from 10 states, Fraga demonstrates that the presence of a co-racial
candidate interacts with the racial makeup of an individual’s new congressional
district to alter the individual’s propensity to turnout and vote. He finds that when moved into districts that
feature both co-racial candidates and significantly greater proportions of
co-racial constitutes, the probability of voting increases for both blacks and
whites while it decreases for Latinos.
The paper is innovative, a pleasure to read and we look forward to seeing it in
print.
Patrick J. Fett Award
A
$250 award for best paper on the scientific study of Congress and the
presidency.
Title: Legislative Style
Authors: William Bernhard,
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Tracy Sulkin, University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign, Daniel Sewell, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Award Committee: George
Edwards, Texas A&M (chair); David Canon, University of Wisconsin, Madison;
Michael Ensley, Kent State University
From the committee: The authors focus on defining and analyzing
how members of the House allocate their time and effort, their “legislative
style.” They categorize a large number
of representatives’ activities them into indices composing legislative style
and then use model-based clustering approaches to uncover how these components
cluster together. Their sophisticated and rigorous analysis reveals that
representatives’ legislative styles are predictable and relatively stable
across time. Their findings have
important implications for our understanding of legislators’ careers, the
quality of constituency representation, and the nature of policy outcomes.
Review of Politics Award
A $250 award for the best paper in normative political theory.
Title: Corruption and the
Problem of Patronage in Machiavelli’s Florentine Histories
Author: Amanda Maher,
University of Chicago
Award Committee: Joan
Tronto, University of Minnesota (chair); Patrick Deneen, Notre Dame University;
Peter Lindsay, Georgia State University
From the committee: In this paper, part of her dissertation
project, Maher offers an original reading of Machiavelli, focusing on a work
(Florentine Histories) that is widely neglected among political theorists. She
argues that Machiavelli combined moral concerns with a socio-historical
analysis that offers us a powerful way to understand the nature of republican
virtue. This paper is sophisticated and well-argued, and will surely become an
important part of the scholarship on Machiavelli and republican virtue for
years to come.
Robert H. Durr Award
A
$250 award for best paper applying quantitative methods to a substantive
problem.
Title: Encouraging Small
Donor Contributions: Field Experiments Testing the Effects of Nonpartisan
Messages
Authors: Donald P. Green,
Columbia University, Jonathan S. Krasno, Binghamton University
Costas Panagopoulos,
Harvard University, Benjamin Farrer, Hobart and William Smith College, Michael
Schwam-Baird, Columbia University
Award Committee: Janet
Box-Steffensmeier, Ohio State University (chair); Andrew Gelman, Columbia
University; Gabriel Lenz,University of California, Berkeley
From the committee: The paper uses a field experiment conducted
in New York City, New Jersey, and Virginia during the 2013 election cycle to
examine the feasibility of using nonpartisan messages to increase donations
from small contributors, which is a particularly important question in the
current campaign finance system in place. The authors use a forecasting model
to identify those voters most likely to donate based on observed covariates
from voter registration and turnout records. Among those voters with
above-average estimated probabilities of donating, they randomize a variety of
non-partisan messages that encourage the recipients to give to the candidate of
their choice. They remind randomly selected subjects in New York City that
small donations are matched by public funds and in Virginia that small
donations are subject to a tax credit. Donations, the outcome variable, are
measured using donor surveys and public databases of campaign contributions.
The suite of experiments represents the first attempt to assess nonpartisan
outreach to small donors. They find that a simple, non‐partisan appeal can
increase the yield of donations. They also find that there was less success
growing the number of donors than in increasing the size of the average donation.
Sophonisba Breckinridge
Award
A $250 award for the best paper delivered on women and politics.
Title: Women and Men from
Different sides of the Wall: Gender
Attitudes, Institutions, and Political Participation in Unified Germany
Authors: Sarah Glatte,
Oxford University, Catherine E. de Vries, Oxford University
Award Committee: Kim
Fridkin, Arizona State University (chair); Alice Kang, University of
Nebraska-Lincoln; Christina Wolbrecht, University of Notre Dame
From the committee: The Glatte and de Vries paper proposes an
original theory that gender regimes have a long-term effect on citizens'
attitudes and political behavior, even after the regimes are no longer in
place. Leveraging the division and reunification of Germany in the second half
of the 20th century, the authors identify a novel natural experiment for
testing their theory. With data from the German General Social Survey
(1990-2010), the authors find that people who grew up in pre-unified West Germany
hold more traditional attitudes about gender than do their counterparts who
grew up in pre-unified East Germany. Further, the authors find that the
contemporary gender gap in political participation (specifically, being
politically interested and being a party member) is narrower in former East
Germany than in former West Germany. By comparing cohorts that were socialized
under different gender regimes and then brought together under one unified
system, Glatte and de Vries make a significant contribution to the scholarship
on gender institutionalism, political behavior, and political culture.
Westview Press Award
A
$250 award sponsored by Westview Press for best paper by delivered by a
graduate student.
Title: Can Inclusive
Institutional Reform Reduce Political Violence? Field Evidence on Village
Governance and Conflict in India
Author: Benjamin Pasquale,
New York University
Award Committee: Shaun
Bowler, University of California, Riverside (chair); Adam Seth-Levine, Cornell
University; Wendy Pearlman, Northwestern University
From the committee: His paper asks an important question, uses
innovative methods to answer it, involves a significant amount of original data
collection, and carefully examines several different mechanisms underlying the
pattern of results. It is a very clearly
written paper with a great balance between detailed knowledge of a particular
case and theorization of general relationships; convincing contribution with
empirical, theoretical, and policy implications. Pasquale uses a sophisticated
research design that shows high methodological skills (an original household
survey with special methods to protect respondents’ anonymity;
discontinuity-style field research design; great careful original data
collection involving overseas fieldwork and non-English language research.
Ultimately (perhaps most importantly) he makes an important contribution to our
understanding of the relationship between institutions and political violence.
It is a truly impressive paper.