Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper begins with the question: “Does Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), apply to expert valuation testimony?” Considering theories of poetry from Aristotle through Shelley and Nietzsche to Eliot and Stevens, and taking “detours” through Plato’s Phaedrus, iterations of the Amleth/Hamlet myth, Derrida’s Spectres of Marx, and case law on both valuation standards and haunted properties, it suggests the question, at least in a legal system devoted to capitalism and the “rule of law,” is the semi-Foucauldian question: “Who is the arbiter of the Supreme Fiction?”

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper is another unapologetic contribution to ‘the gentle art of Rational Choice Bashing.’ The debate over Rational Choice Theory (RCT) may appear to have tired out; yet RCT is as dominant in the political sciences as ever. The reason is that criticisms of RCT typically take aim its flawed predictions, while ignoring the theory’s deeper failings. The lack of methodological openness (Hausman 1992), of empirical results (Green and Shapiro, 1995), and the limits of the economic concept of rationality (Sen, 1979, Elster 1983a) have only managed to modify RCT’s ambition in its most superficial aspects. It is assumed that RCT can adapt to any circumstances merely by borrowing new hypotheses from psychology and sociology, refining existing models, adding greater detail to the concept of rationality, and applying the theory in novel ways. In this paper, however, I contend that the problem runs deeper: to the epistemology of RCT and, more specifically, to its ambition of being the ‘science of choice.’ I argue that RCT fails twice, first as a science of choice and then as a science of choice. Both failures suggest that the political sciences need an epistemologic (re)conversion away from the ideal of a deductive and universal science of choice towards a more inductive and pluralist paradigm. While advocates of RCT rightly insist that ‘you can’t beat something with nothing,’ I take their advice, with a grain of salt: in order for alternatives to appear, maybe the frame of references needs to be modified. I draw a few perspectives for the political sciences.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Building on research on electoral coverage, this study develops seven possible frames for Latin American elections: horserace, leaders, policies, instability, foreign relations, background and party identifier. Through a content analysis of Time and The Economist magazines, findings suggest the region is not a priority for U.S. media. Similarities in both magazines include a preference for descriptive stories, the use of left party identifiers more than right ones and a link to Venezuela President Hugo Chavez.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: I analyze the impact of US Supreme Court antitrust decisions on the conduct and makeup of the aggregate domestic economy over the latter half of the 20th century. I find that the goals of the Court for antitrust policy appear to have shifted.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The paper discusses the rise and fall of neo-liberal structural re-adjustment policies as the engine of globalization. The argument will be that, in light of the dismal effects of these policies in terms of increased poverty and inequality, different methods of ordering the world in a more just way will have to be devised.