PS 266 CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS IN AMERICAN GOVERMENT

PS 266 CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS IN AMERICAN GOVERMENT
Fall 2013
Wednesday, 1:00pm – 3:50pm
Professor Bruce Bimber
UC Santa Barbara
This seminar provides a survey of contemporary research topics in American democracy. The
purpose is to familiarize students with especially active areas of contemporary scholarly debate,
where theoretical or empirical issues are unsettled or are evolving rapidly, or where new
paradigms challenge traditional perspectives. The seminar is in some respects opposite to a
survey course focusing on classics or seminal works, though a few of those will appear in our
reading. Much of the literature we will read is recent, and we will consider topics in some depth
including debates among scholars over specific claims. Students are expected to have prior
preparation in PS 215 or its equivalent. The seminar will cover four topics, as follows.
A. Changing character of citizenship. For decades, one of the primary normative
concerns in the study of American politics has been declining and unequal political
participation, especially in the case of voting. This declinist concern has been challenged
by research suggesting that citizenship norms and practices are changing rather than
simply declining. We will consider this debate about how to interpret the character and
quality of citizenship in the US.
B. Biology and politics. Since the late 2000’s, a highly controversial new body of work
has emerged suggesting several ways in which human biology may be associated with
political behavior and attitudes, especially though genetic pathways. A sometimes
emotionally heated debate has taken in the pages of the discipline’s elite journals about
factual findings as well as the theoretical value of pursuing this line of research. We will
read some of the key pieces in this debate.
C. Political advertising & commentary. One of the most prominent features of electoral
politics in the US is political advertising. It may come as a surprise that research on the
persuasive effects of advertising and its consequences for turnout has long produced
conflicting findings, especially around questions of negative advertising. We will consider
current debates over advertising and turnout. We will also read literature on incivility and
the coarsening of politics through political commentary.
D. Institutions and policy change. For two decades, questions about legislative
productivity, gridlock, divided control, and policy output have been pursued and debated
empirically using some key traditional tools, including rational choice models and OLS
regression. We will review some of this work and then consider a model of stochastic,
non-linear change in institutions involving punctuated equilibrium. This model also has
origins in biology and challenges common ways that many scholars think about
causation.
COURSE REQUIREMENTS
1. Regular participation in discussion is required and contributes 25% of the grade.
1
2. Analytic responses to discussion questions for the reading are due each week and contribute
35% of the course grade.
Discussion questions for each week’s reading will be available in advance. These questions will
structure our weekly discussions and provide a focus for short weekly writing assignments of
approximately 500 words -- roughly one single-spaced page. The weekly analyses are due by
Noon on Tuesday, the day before class. They should be posted on GauchoSpace for everyone
to see. They will be graded Not Pass, Pass, or Pass+. The expected grade each week for good
work is Pass, with Pass+ reserved for exceptional work.
3. Final project: 40% of seminar grade. Due Dec 10.
The final project requirement can be fulfilled in more than one way, depending on the student’s
intellectual interests and needs.
Traditional Seminar Paper (Deep Option). Write a paper pursuing one of topics in this
class in further depth. For instance, you might explore the application of changing
citizenship norms to a particular problem of interest, develop a comparison of alternative
models of policy change and complexity, or provide an assessment of the sources of
disagreement in the literature on political advertising. Students pursuing this option
should develop and demonstrate a deeper knowledge about the specific problem than
provided only in the required reading.
AP Exam Prep (Wide Option). Write a paper that situates one of the topics from this
seminar in the broader literatures on American politics. If you pursue this option, you
should develop a broad perspective on how the assigned reading fits into the study of
American politics by drawing on literature from outside the class.
Books for Purchase
Macedo, S. [et al.] (2005). Democracy at risk: How political choices undermine citizen
participation and what we can do about it. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. (2005). The politics of attention: How government prioritizes
problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mayhew, D. (2005). Divided we govern: Party control, lawmaking, and investigations, 19461990 (2nd ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Dalton, R. (2009). The good citizen: How a younger generation is reshaping American politics
(revised ed.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
Articles & Chapters
Required articles and book chapters are available in electronic form on GauchoSpace.
Note also that articles and books labeled “Further Reading” are not required, but are intended
as a guide for students interested in pursuing a topic beyond the scope of the weekly
discussions. These typically contain a mix of classic literature and new work.
2
SCHEDULE OF READING
Week 1. Oct. 2 - Introduction
No required reading. However, you may wish to obtain and peruse a copy of Robert Putnam’s
Bowling Alone if you are not already familiar with his argument. His very long book is not
required for this course but is an important optional further reading for next week. Note that the
reading for Week 9 is heavy with a book and four articles, so you may wish to get a head start
on Mayhew’s Divided We Govern, which is an easy read. And, for the last week of class we are
reading Jones & Baumgartner’s The Politics of Attention. Many students find this book quite
challenging and therefore time consuming. You may wish to start on it early.
In preparation for discussion this week, be prepared to discuss the following sets of questions:
Which theory or research finding about American politics that you have learned in previous
classes do you find to be the most convincing or airtight? What are the reasons that you
are convinced? Focus on this second part of the question.
What theory or finding is the least so, and why? What evidence would be required to
persuade you?
Consider the following problem that arises in all disciplines: a tension between the drive to
refine and improve existing theories so they are stronger and more powerful, and on the
other hand the impetus to discard theories in favor of new ideas that entail radically
different assumptions and approaches. What are the conditions when one might be
preferable to the other? How in practice do you think this tension is worked out in
political science?
A. Changing Character of Citizenship
Week 2. Oct. 9 - The Declinist Story of Citizenship
Macedo, S. [et al.] (2005). Democracy at risk: How political choices undermine citizen
participation and what we can do about it. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Further Reading
Putnam, R. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Thomson, I. T. (2005). The theory that won’t die: From mass society to the decline of
social capital. Sociological Forum, 20, 421-448.
Patterson, T. (2003). The vanishing voter: Public involvement in an age of uncertainty.
New York: Vintage.
Wattenberg, M. (2002) Where Have All the Voters Gone? Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Wattenberg, M. (2006) Is Voting for the Young? New York: Longman.
Teixeira, R. (1992). The disappearing American voter. Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution.
Abramson, P., & Aldrich, J. (1982). The decline of electoral participation in America.
American Political Science Review, 76(3), 502-521.
Rosenstone, S., & Hansen, J. (1993) Mobilization, participation and democracy in
America. New York: Macmillan.
3
Week 3. Oct. 16 – The Transformational Tradition
Dalton, R. (2009). The good citizen: How a younger generation is reshaping American politics
(revised ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Stolle, D., & Hooghe, M. (2006). Consumers as political participants? Shifts in political action
repertoires in Western societies. In M. Micheletti, A. Follesdal & D. Stolle (Eds.), Politics,
products, and markets: Exploring political consumerism past and present (2nd ed.) (pp.
265-288). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Bennett, W.L. (2004). Branded political communication: Lifestyle politics, logo campaigns, and
the rise of global citizenship. In M. Micheletti, A. Follesdal, and D. Stolle (Eds.), Politics,
products, and markets: Exploring political consumerism past and present (pp. 101-125).
New Brunswick: Transaction Books.
Niemi, R., Weisberg, H., & Kimball, D. (2011). Is political participation declining or simply
changing form? In R. Niemi, H. Weisberg, & D. Kimball (Eds.), Controversies in voting
behavior (5th ed.)(pp.23-40). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Further Reading
Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and
political change in 43 societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Zukin, C., Keeter, S., Andolina, M., Jenkins, K., Delli Carpini, M.X. (2006). A new
engagement? Political participation, civic life, and the changing American citizen.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Castells, M. (2007). Communication, power and counter-power in the network society,
International Journal of Communication, 1, 238-266.
Castells, M. (2012). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the Internet
age. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
McDonald, M., & Popkin, S. (2001). The myth of the vanishing voter. American Political
Science Review, 95(4), 963-974.
Norris, P. (2002). Democratic phoenix: Reinventing political activism. Cambridge:
Cambridge University.
Bennett, W. L. (1998). 1998 Ithiel De Sola Pool Lecture: The uncivic culture:
Communication, identity, and the rise of lifestyle politics. PS: Political Science
and Politics, 31(4), 740-761.
Catherine Bolzendahl, C., & Coffé, H. (2013). Are ‘good’ citizens ‘good’ participants?
Testing citizenship norms and political participation across 25 nations. Political
Studies, 61, 45–65.
Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2011). Connection strategies: Social capital
implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media &
Society 13(6), 873-892.
Romer, D., Jamieson, K. H., & Pasek, J. (2009). Building social capital in young people:
The role of mass media and life outlook. Political Communication, 26, 65-83.
B. Biology and Politics
Week 4. Oct. 23 - The Case for Biological Contributions to Political Attitudes & Behavior
Alford, J. R., Funk, C. L., & Hibbing, J. R. (2005). Are political orientations genetically
transmitted? American Political Science Review, 99, 153-167.
4
Fowler, J., & Dawes, C. (2008). Two genes predict voter turnout. Journal of Politics, 70(3), 579594.
Fowler, J.H., Baker, L.A., & Dawes, C.T. (2008). Genetic variation in participation. American
Political Science Review, 102, 233-248.
Donaldson, Z.R., & Young. L.J. (2008). Oxytocin, vasopressin, and the neurogenetics of
sociability. Science, 322, 900-903
Hatemi, P., & McDermott, R. (2012). The genetics of politics: discovery, challenges, and
progress. Trends in Genetics, 28(10), 525-533.
Deppe, K, Stoltenberg, S., Smith, K., & Hibbing, J. (2013). Candidate genes and voter turnout:
Further evidence on the role of 5-HTTLPR. American Political Science Review, 107(2),
375-381.
Further Reading
Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Mondak, J., Hibbing, M., Canache, D., Seligson, M., & Anderson, M. (2010) Personality
and civic engagement: An integrative framework for the study of trait effects on
political behavior. American Political Science Review, 104, 85-110.
Barkow, J.H., Cosmides L., & Tooby J., Eds. (1992). The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary
Psychology and the Generation of Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
Buller, D. J. (2005). Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest
for Human Nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gruszczynksi, M., Balzer, A., Jacobs, C., Smith, K., & Hibbing, J. (2013). The physiology
of political participation. Political Behavior, 35(1), 135-152.
Sturgis, P., Read, S., Hatemi, P., Gu, Z., Trull, T., Wright, M., & Martin. N. (2010). A
genetic basis for trust? Political Behavior, 32, 205-230.
Alford, J.R., Funk, C.L., Hibbing, J.R. (2008). Beyond liberals and conservatives to
political genotypes and phenotypes. Perspectives on Politics, 6, 321-328.
Amodio, D., Jost, J., Master, S., & Yee, C. (2007). Neurocognitive correlates of
liberalism and conservatism. Nature Neuroscience, 10(10), 1246-1247.
Alford, J.R., Funk, C.L., & Hibbing, J.R. (2008). Twin studies, molecular genetics, politics,
and tolerance: A response to Beckwith and Morris. Perspectives on Politics, 6,
793-798.
Hatemi, P.K., Alford, J.R., Hibbing, J.R., Martin, N.G., & Eaves, L.J. (2009). Is there a
“party” in your genes? Political Research Quarterly, 62, 584-600.
Holden, C. (2008). Parsing the genetics of behavior. Science, 322, 892-895.
Robinson, G., Fernald, R.D., & Clayton, D.F. (2008). Genes and social behavior.
Science, 322, 896-899.
Hatemi, P, K., Funk, C.L, Medland, S.E., Maes, H.M., Silberg, J.L., Martin, N.G., &
Eaves, L.J. (2009). Genetic and environmental transmission of political attitudes
over a life time. Journal of Politics, 71, 111-1156.
Wallace, B., Cesarin, D., Lichtenstein, P., & Johannesson, M. (2007). Heritability of
ultimatum game responder behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States, 104(40), 15631-15634.
Dodd, M., Hibbing, J.R., & Smith, K.B. (2011). The politics of attention: Gaze-cueing
effects are moderated by political temperament. Attention, Perception &
Psychophysics, 73, 24-29.
Oxley, D., Smith, K., Alford, J., Hibbing, M., Miller, J., Scalora, M., Hatemi, P., & Hibbing,
J. (2008). Political attitudes vary with physiological traits. Science, 321, 16671670.
5
Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P.J., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2005). Oxytocin
increases trust in humans. Nature, 435, 673-676.
Smith, K. B., Larimer, C. W., Littvay, L., & Hibbing, J.R. (2007). Evolutionary theory and
political leadership: Why certain people do not trust decision makers. Journal of
Politics, 69, 285-299.
Kirzinger, A., Weber, C., & Johnson, M. (2012). Genetic and environmental influences
on media use and communication behaviors. Human Communication Research,
38, 144-171.
Week 5. Oct. 30 – Critics and Reaction to the Biological Perspective
Charney, E. (2008). Genes and ideologies. Perspectives on Politics, 6, 299-320.
Charney, E. (2008). Politics, genetics, and “greedy reductionism.” Perspectives on Politics, 6,
337-344.
Beckwith, J., & Morris, C.A. (2008). “Twin studies of political behavior: Untenable assumptions?
Perspectives on Politics, 6, 785-792.
Charney, E., & English, W. (2013). Genopolitics and the science of genetics. American Political
Science Review, 107(2), 382-395.
Hibbing, J. (2013). Ten misconceptions concerning neurobiology and politics. Perspectives on
politics, 11(2), 475-489.
Schlozman, K. (2013). Two concerns about ten misconceptions. Perspectives on politics, 11(2),
490-491.
Further Reading
Evan Charney, E.,& English, W. (2012). Candidate genes and political behavior.
American Political Science Review, 106 (1), 1-34.
Fowler, J., & Dawes, C. (2013). In defense of genopolitics. American Political Science
Review, 107(2), 362-374.
Isaac, J. (2013). Nature and politics. (Editor’s introduction). Perspectives on politics,
11(2), 363-366.
Duster, T. (2013). Emergence vs. reductionism in the debate over the role of biology in
politics. Perspectives on politics, 11(2), 495-499.
Hibbing, J. (2013). Neurobiology and politics: A response to commentators. Perspectives
on politics, 11(2), 520-524.
C. Political Advertising & Commentary
Week 6. Nov. 6 – The Negative Advertising Debate
Ansolabahere, S. Iyengar, S., Simon, A., & Valentino, N. (1994). Does attack advertising
demobilize the electorate? American Political Science Review, 88, 829-838.
Wattenberg, M. P., & Brians, C. L. (1999). Negative campaign advertising: demobilizer or
mobilizer? American Political Science Review, 93, 891-899.
Lau, R. R., Sigelman, L., & Rovner, I. B. (2007). The effects of negative political campaigns: a
meta-analytic reassessment. Journal of Politics, 69, 1176-1209.
Lau, R., & Rovner, I. (2009). Negative campaigning. Annual Review of Political Science, 12,
285-306.
6
Krupnikov, Y. (2011). When does negativity demobilize? Tracing the conditional effect of
negative campaigning on voter turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 55(4),
796-812.
Further Reading
Brooks, D. (2011). A negativity gap? Voter gender, attack politics, and participation in
American elections. Politics & Gender, 6(3), 319-341.
Sides, J., Lipsitz, K., & Grossman, M. (2010). Do voters perceive negative campaigns as
informative campaigns? American Politics Research, 38(3), 502-530.
Stevens, D. (2009). Elements of negativity: Volume and proportion in exposure to
negative advertising. Political Behavior, 31, 429-454.
Fridkin, K., & Kenney, P. (2011). Variability in citizens’ reactions to different types of
negative campaigns. American Journal of Political Science, 55(2), 307-325.
Wang, M., Gabay, I., & Shah, D. (2012). The civic consequences of “going negative:”
Attack ads and adolescents’ knowledge, consumption, and participation. Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 644, 256-271.
Brooks, D., & Murov, M. (2012). Assessing accountability in a post-Citizens United era:
The effects of attack ad sponsorship by unknown independent groups. American
Politics Research, 40, 383-418.
Ridout, T., & Fowler, E. (2010). Explaining perceptions of advertising tone. Political
Research Quarterly, 65 (1), 62-75
Geer, J. (2012). The news media and the rise of negativity in presidential campaigns. PS:
Political Science & Politics, 45(3), 422-427.
Gerber, A., Malhotra, N., Dowling, C, & Doherty, D. (2010). Publication bias in two
political behavior literatures. American Politics Research, 38(4), 591-613.
Brooks, D. (2010) A negativity gap? Voter gender, attack politics, and participation in
American elections. Politics & Gender, 6(3), 319-341.
Ansolabahere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1995). Going negative: How political advertisements
shrink and polarize the electorate. New York: Free Press.
Lau, R. R., Sigelman, L., Heldman, C., & Babbitt, P. (1999). The effects of negative
political advertisements: A meta-analytic assessment. American Political Science
Review, 93(4), 851-875.
Kahn, K., & Kenney, P. (1999). Do negative campaigns mobilize or suppress turnout?
Clarifying the relationship between negativity and participation. American Political
Science Review, 93 (4), 877-889.
Geer, J.G. (2007). In defense of negativity: Attack ads in presidential campaigns.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jackson, R.A., Mondak, J., & Huckfeldt, R. (2009). Examining the possible corrosive
impact of negative advertising on citizens’ attitudes toward politics. Political
Research Quarterly, 62, 55-69.
Lau, R. R., & Rovner, I. B. (2009). Negative campaigning. Annual Review of Political
Science, 12, 285-306.
Week 7. Nov. 13 – Advertising Effects in General
Krasno, J. S., & Green, D.P. (2008). Do televised presidential ads increase voter turnout?
Evidence from a natural experiment. Journal of Politics, 70(1), 245-261.
Franz, M.M, Freedman, P., Goldstein, K., & Ridout, T. N. (2008). Understanding the effect of
political advertising on voter turnout: A response to Krasno and Green. Journal of
Politics, 70(1), 262-268.
7
Krasno, J., & Green, D. (2008). Response to Franz, Freeman, Goldstein, and Ridout. Journal of
Politics, 70(1), 269-271.
Sides, J., & Karch, A. (2008). Messages that mobilize? Issue publics and the content of
campaign advertising. Journal of Politics, 70, 466-476.
Gerber, A., Gimpel, J., Green, D., & Shaw, D. (2011). How large and long-lasting are the
persuasive effects of televised campaign ads? Results from a randomized field
experiment. American Political Science Review, 105(1), 135-150.
Mitchell, D-G. (2012). It’s about time: The lifespan of information effects in a multi-week
campaign. American Journal of Political Science, 56(2), 298-311.
Further Reading
Holbrook, T., & McClurg, S. (2005). The mobilization of core supporters: Campaigns,
turnout, and electoral composition in United States presidential elections.
American Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 689-703.
Huber, G. A., & Arceneaux, K. (2007). Identifying the persuasive effects of presidential
advertising. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 957-977.
West, D. (2009). Air wars: Television advertising in election campaigns 1952-2008, 5th
ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Just, M.R., Crigler, A.N., Alger, D.E., Cook, T.E., Kern, M., & West, D. M. (1996).
Crosstalk: Citizens, candidates, and the media in a presidential campaign.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Goldstein, K., & Ridout, T.N. (2004). Measuring the effects of televised political
advertising in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 205-226.
Patterson, T. (1993). Out of order. New York: Knopf.
Week 8. Nov. 20 – Effects of Incivility and Hostility in Political Communication
Mutz, D. C., & Reeves, B. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on
political trust.” American Political Science Review, 99, 1-15.
Brooks, D. J., & Geer, J. G. (2007). Beyond negativity: The effects of incivility on the
electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 1-16.
Weber, C. (2013). Emotions, campaigns, and political participation. Political Research
Quarterly, 66 (2), 414-428.
Vraga, E., Edgerly, S., Bode, L., Carr, J., Bard, M., Johnson, C., Kim, Y., & Shah, D.
(2012). The correspondent, the comic, and the combatant: The consequences of
host style in political talk shows. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,
89(1), 5-22.
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity
perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431.
Further reading
Mutz, D. (2007). Effects of ‘in-your-face’ television discourse on perceptions of legitimate
opposition. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 621-635.
Arceneaux, K., Johnson, M., & Murphy, C. (2012). Polarized political communication,
oppositional media hostility, and selective exposure. Journal of Politics, 74(1),
174–186.
Cao, X. (2010). Hearing it from Jon Stewart: The impact of The Daily Show on public
attentiveness to politics. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22 (1),
26-46.
Jamieson, K. & Cappella, J. (2008). Echo chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the
conservative media establishment. New York: Oxford University Press.
8
D. Institutions and Policy Change
Week 9. Nov. 27 – Traditional Conceptualizations of Legislative Productivity and “Gridlock”
Mayhew, D. (2005). Divided we govern: Party control, lawmaking, and investigations, 19461990 (2nd ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Binder. S. (1999). The dynamics of legislative gridlock, 1947-1996. American Political Science
Review, 93, 519-533.
Chiou, F., & Rothenberg, L.S. (2008). Comparing legislators and legislatures: The dynamics of
legislative gridlock revisited. Political Analysis, 16(2), 197-212.
Binder, S. (2008). Taking the measure of Congress: Reply to Chiou and Rothenberg. Political
Analysis, 16(2), 213-225.
Klarner, C., Phillips, J., & Muckler, M. (2012). Overcoming fiscal gridlock: Institutions and budget
bargaining. Journal of Politics, 74(4), 992-1009.
Further Reading
Chiou, F., & Rothenberg. (2008). The search for comparability: Response to Binder.
Political Analysis, 16(2), 226-233.
Chiou, F., & Rothenberg, L. (2009). A unified theory of U.S. lawmaking: Preferences,
institutions, and party discipline. Journal of Politics, 71(4), 1257-1272.
Saeki, M. (2009). Gridlock in the government of the United States: Influence of divided
government and veto players. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 587-607.
Binder, S. (2003). Stalemate: Causes and consequences of legislative gridlock.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Barrett, A.W., & Eshbaugh-Soha, M. (2007). Presidential Success on the Substance of
Legislation. Political Research Quarterly, 60, 100-112.
Brady, D., & Volden, C. (2005). Revolving gridlock: politics and policy from Jimmy Carter
to George W. Bush (2nd ed.). Boulder: Westview Press.
Krehbiel, K. (1998). Pivotal politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Week 10: Dec. 4 - Non-linearity, Punctuated Equilibria, and Complex Models of Change
Jones, B., & Baumgartner, F. (2012). From there to here: Punctuated equilibrium to the general
punctuation thesis to a theory of government information processing. Policy Studies
Journal, 40(1), 1-19. [This is an introduction to a special issue of the journal dedicated
to the topic of punctuated equilibrium.]
Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. (2005). The politics of attention: How government prioritizes
problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Further Reading
Wolfe, M., Jones, B., & Baumgartner, F. (2013). A failure to communicate: Agendasetting in media and policy studies. Political Communication, 30(2), 175-192.
Prindle, D. (2012). Importing concepts from biology into political science: The case of
punctuated equilibrium. Policy Studies Journal, 40(1), 21-43.
Baumgartner, F., Breunig, C., Green-Pedersen, C., Jones, B.R., Mortensen, P.B.,
Nuytemans, M., & Walgrave, S. (2009). Punctuated equilibrium in comparative
perspective. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 603-620
Howlett, M. (2009). Process sequencing policy dynamics: Beyond homeostasis and path
dependency. Journal of Public Policy, 29, 241-262.
9
Jones, B. D., Sulkin, T., & Larsen, H.A. (2003). Policy punctuations in American political
institutions. American Political Science Review, 97, 151-169.
Jones, B.D., Baumgartner, F.R, Breunig, C., Wlezien, C., Soroka, S., Foucault, M.,
François, A., Green-Pedersen, C., Koski, C., John, P., Mortensen, P.B., Varone,
F., & Walgrave, S. (2009). A general empirical law of public budgets: A
comparative analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 855-873.
Mortensen, P.B. (2009). Political Attention and Public Spending in the United States.
Policy Studies Journal, 37, 435-455.
Carmines, E., & Stimson, J. (1981). Issue evolution, population replacement, and normal
partisan change. American Political Science Review, 75(1), 107-118.
Baumgartner, F., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jervis, R. (1997). System effects: Complexity in social and political life. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
10