Publication Type: Paper/Poster Proposal
Abstract: Random digit dial (RDD) survey response rates have been declining despite increasing levels of effort in the form of extended calling protocols, advance and refusal mailings, and respondent incentives. While some recent research suggests that late responders and nonrespondents are not very different from survey respondents, concerns about the negative effect of nonresponse bias on survey quality remain. If significant improvements in survey response rates are to be achieved, or telephone nonresponse bias is to be more thoroughly evaluated, new approaches must be considered.

This paper presents the findings of an initial feasibility study using a dual-frame, dual-mode approach with in-person follow-up to complete interviews with telephone nonrespondents. The feasibility study was conducted during the field test of a large national RDD program and focused primarily on the household screening stage, at which most RDD nonresponse occurs. Conducted in four selected counties, the feasibility study used two designs, called forward and reverse designs. In the forward design, an address sample was selected in the sites and the addresses were matched to telephone numbers where possible. In the reverse design, a list-assisted RDD sample was selected and the telephone numbers were matched to addresses where possible. In both designs, the first phase of data collection was conducted by telephone. Advance and refusal mailings were used at the telephone interviewing stage. In-person data collection was attempted with address sample cases with no telephone number match, and with cases from both samples that refused the telephone survey or were not completed after many telephone attempts.

The presentation will cover the design of this study, the operational issues encountered, and the results of the in-field efforts to complete interviews. The potential of this approach for response improvement and for the assessment of telephone nonresponse bias will be considered.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Although social scientists have engaged in an extensive debate on the relationship between democratic regimes and independent central banks, to date this debate has focused almost exclusively on long-established democracies. The massive, simultaneous spread of both democracy and central bank independence to the post-communist world since the 1990s represents an important opportunity to revisit this debate. The existing literature frames the decision to grant independence to a central bank as a domestic decision made for domestic economic reasons after a domestic political debate. In contrast, post-communist central banks began their lives burdened with a “dual democratic deficit.” Not only were they predominantly developed by and for international actors, but this rapid process occurred without building extensive domestic support for these institutions. In this paper, I explore the implications of this dual democratic deficit and discuss how post-communist central banks might be better incorporated into democratic polities without compromising their countries’ economic health.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Hochschild's (1997) description of the "time bind" faced by many working parents has changed the way researchers, the media, and the public think about the relationship between home and work. Few researchers have empirically tested the generalizability of the "work as haven" model. Published analyses tend to be limited to nonrepresentative samples, and focus on workers' desired and actual work hours. In this paper, we use nationally representative data on full time employees to examine the predictors of viewing the job as a "haven" from home. Importantly, we include measures of job characteristics and the work environment itself. Our analyses show that dual-earner parents are not homogeneous in their likelihood of viewing work as a haven, and that workplace characteristics are key predictors of work-related affect.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: To understand the contribution of civil society to democratic transition and consolidation, the relationship between actors within civil society and the power-holders of the democratic polity must be elaborated. Among the plausible relationships between social movements and the state, an institutionalized form of creating linkages holds diverse political implications because it evokes changes in the respective character of both parties. Yet, studies of the impact of movement institutionalization upon democratization have lacked analytical rigor. In order to understand how movements are institutionalized and what effects they have upon the state and civil society during democratization, a systematic analysis of the conditions for movement institutionalization can serve as a steppingstone. Thus, this paper aims to provide a tentative framework that identifies the variables and web of contingencies that construct the conditions under which movement institutionalization within democratization occurs.
As a supplementation to existing approaches, I offer an integrated perspective that embraces multiple factors involved in movement institutionalization. Movement institutionalization depends on the conjuncture of mutual choices between social movements and countermovements and becomes possible when movements decide to participate and when countermovements choose to incorporate them. Conditioned by past experiences and dynamics of democratization, the strength, configuration, and nature of the state on the one hand and the internal characteristics of social movements on the other interact to constrain and empower each other, forming conditions under which movement institutionalization occurs. The conjunctural settings set by internal and external factors are scrutinized and developed into eight hypotheses in this paper.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper develops a critique of modern constructivist approaches to norms in international relations theory. To do that, it distinguishes between a behaviourist and a societal perspective on norms. The former seeks to explain compliance with norms and/or norm diffusion based on the logic of appropriateness and the logic of arguing, respectively, the latter seeks to understand divergence in normative meaning based on the logic of contestedness. By taking Habermas’s approach to facts and norms as a reference framework, the article discusses the possibilities of legitimate governance based on core constitutional norms such as democracy, the rule of law and fundamental and human rights and their role in contexts beyond the modern nation-state.