Explore the vast range of titles available.

Capitalism, Not Globalism shows that, while much has been made of recent changes in the international economy, the mechanisms by which politicians control the economy have not changed throughout the postwar period. Challenging both traditional and revisionist globalization theorists, William Roberts Clark argues that increased financial integration has led to neither a widening nor a narrowing of partisan differences in macroeconomic polices or outcomes. Rather, he shows that the absence of partisan differences in macroeconomic policy is a long-standing feature of democratic capitalist societies that can be traced to politicians' attempts to use the economy to help them survive in office. Changes in the structural landscape such as increased capital mobility and central bank independence do not necessarily diminish the ability of politicians to control the economy, but they do shape the strategies they use to do so. In a world of highly mobile capital, politicians manipulate monetary policy to create macroeconomic expansions prior to elections only if the exchange rate is flexible and the central bank is subservient. But they use fiscal policy to induce political business cycles when the exchange rate is fixed or the central bank is independent. William Roberts Clark is Assistant Professor, Department of Politics, New York University.

Multiplicative interaction models are common in the quantitative political science literature. This is so for good reason. Institutional arguments frequently imply that the relationship between political inputs and outcomes varies depending on the institutional context. Models of strategic interaction typically produce conditional hypotheses as well. Although conditional hypotheses are ubiquitous in political science and multiplicative interaction models have been found to capture their intuition quite well, a survey of the top three political science journals from 1998 to 2002 suggests that the execution of these models is often flawed and inferential errors are common. We believe that considerable progress in our understanding of the political world can occur if scholars follow the simple checklist of dos and don'ts for using multiplicative interaction models presented in this article. Only 10% of the articles in our survey followed the checklist.

Political scientists typically develop different models to examine distinct political phenomena such as lobbying, protests, elections and conflict. These specific models can provide important insights into a particular event, process or outcome of interest. This article takes a different tack. Rather than focus on the specificities of a given political phenomenon, this study constructs a model that captures the key elements common to most political situations. This model represents a reformulation and extension of Albert Hirschman’s famous Exit, Voice and Loyalty framework. To highlight the value that comes from focusing on the commonalities that exist across apparently disparate political phenomena, the article applies the model to several issues in the democratization literature related to modernization theory, the political resource curse, inequality, foreign aid and economic performance.

The literature on global integration and national policy autonomy often ignores a central result from open economy macroeconomics: Capital mobility constrains monetary policy when the exchange rate is fixed and fiscal policy when the exchange rate is flexible. Similarly, examinations of the electoral determinants of monetary and fiscal policy typically ignore international pressures altogether. We develop a formal model to analyze the interaction between fiscal and monetary policymakers under various exchange rate regimes and the degrees of central bank independence. We test the model using data from OECD countries. We find evidence that preelectoral monetary expansions occur only when the exchange rate is flexible and central bank independence is low; preelectoral fiscal expansions occur when the exchange rate is fixed. We then explore the implications of our model for arguments that emphasize the partisan sources of macroeconomic policy and for the conduct of fiscal policy after economic and monetary union in Europe.

Two analytically distinct approaches to the study of domestic politics have been referred to as the \"new institutionalism.\" The fundamental difference between the two brands of institutionalism can be seen in the way they handle the relationship between \"agents\" and \"structures.\" \"Structure-based\" approaches to institutions give ontological primacy to structures and view agents as being constituted by them. \"Agency-centered\" approaches view human agents as ontologically primitive and view institutions as structures that are created by goal-maximizing individuals. The two approaches are compared, with special attention given to the way they treat the preferences that actors hold. I argue that contrary to arguments made by many structure-based theorists, the agency-centered approach is capable of contributing to discussions regarding the sources of actor preferences. A limited-information model of the strategic interaction between workers and capitalists is used to demonstrate ways in which the agency-centered approach can begin to make preferences endogenous.

In recent decades, countries have experimented with a variety of monetary institutions, including alternative exchange-rate arrangements and different levels of central bank independence. Political economists have analyzed the choice of these institutions, emphasizing their role in resolving both the time-inconsistency problem and dilemmas created by an open economy. This “first-generation” work, however, suffers from a central limitation: it studies exchange-rate regimes and central bank institutions in isolation from one another without investigating how one monetary institution affects the costs and benefits of the other. By contrast, the contributors to this volume analyze the choice of exchange-rate regime and central bank independence together and, in so doing, present a “second generation” of research on the determinants of monetary institutions. The articles incorporate both economic and political factors in explaining the choice of monetary institutions, investigating how political institutions, democratic processes, political party competition, and interest group pressures affect the balance between economic and distributional policy objectives.

In this paper, we argue that claims of necessity and sufficiency involve a type of asymmetric causal claim that is useful in many social scientific contexts. Contrary to some qualitative researchers, we maintain that there is nothing about such asymmetries that should lead scholars to depart from standard social science practice. We take as given that deterministic and monocausal tests are inappropriate in the social world and demonstrate that standard multiplicative interaction models are up to the task of handling asymmetric causal claims in a multivariate, probabilistic manner. We illustrate our argument with examples from the empirical literature linking electoral institutions and party system size.

In our introduction, we use insights from a simple microeconomic model to frame the ensuing symposium discussion. To what extent are big data, causal inference, and formal theory substitutes or complements? Before we begin, we clarify some terminology. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the symposium contributors fail to agree on what is meant by big data, formal theory, and causal inference. For us, 'big data' refers to the idea that technological innovations such as machine learning have allowed scholars to gather either new types of data, such as social media data, or vast quantities of traditional data with less expense. 'Formal theory' refers to the use of formal logic or mathematics to state and interrogate the implications of propositions about political behavior or institutions, predominantly in the form of noncooperative game theory. 'Causal inference' refers to a recent trend in political science that questions the use of regression-based observational studies and advocates the use of alternative research designs, such as experiments, regression discontinuities, instrumental variables, and matching, to address threats to causal inference. Adapted from the source document.

Extant theoretical work on the political resource curse implies that dependence on resource revenues should decrease autocracies' likelihood of democratizing but not necessarily affect democracies' chances of survival. Yet most previous empirical studies estimate models that are ill-suited to address this claim. We improve upon previous studies, estimating a dynamic logit model using data from 166 countries, covering the period from 1816 to 2006. We find that an increase in resource dependence decreases an autocracy's likelihood of being democratic over both the short term and long term but has no appreciable effect on democracies' likelihood of persisting.

Clark and Golder use insights from a simple microeconomic model to frame the ensuing symposium discussion. They explore to what extent big data, causal inference and formal theory are substitutes or complements. For them, \"big data\" refers to the idea that technological innovations such as machine learning have allowed scholars to gather either new types of data, such as social media data, or vast quantities of traditional data with less expense. \"Formal theory\" refers to the use of formal logic or mathematics to state and interrogate the implications of propositions about political behavior or institutions, predominantly in the form of noncooperative game theory. \"Causal inference\" refers to a recent trend in political science that questions the use of regression-based observational studies and advocates the use of alternative research designs, such as experiments, regression discontinuities, instrumental variables, and matching, to address threats to causal inference.