Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Dollarization is an increasingly important subject in the IPE literature. While the process of dollarization is driven by economic concerns, the way in which it occurs is contingent upon a political decision by government officials to allow citizens to possess foreign currency deposits. Allowing citizens to maintain FC deposits is a potentially puzzling choice for developing countries, as it sacrifices some, but not all, sovereignty over monetary affairs. I argue that the decision to allow FC deposits is done as a commitment device, binding governments to orthodox macroeconomic policies. Thus, I expect a change in regulation to be most likely soon after introduction of macroeconomic policy reform. I use event history analysis on a sample of 95 countries to test my hypotheses and present preliminary results of weak support for my hypothesis.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Commonly accepted explanations for party divergence are based on assumptions about the ideological polarization of partisans. This paper challenges these explanations in the British case by re-examining a) the distribution of partisans on five ideological scales of the British Election Survey cross-sections (1987 and 2001), and b) the effects of issue proximity upon the likelihood of being a Conservative identifier between 1992 and 2001, using the British Election Panel Studies, 1992-1997 and 1997-2001. I demonstrate that partisan preferences are now more consensual, leading to a ‘valence electorate’ in the UK. I also argue, due to the endogenous nature of issue proximity, that issue distance has not contributed to a significant reduction in partisan support for the Conservative Party. These findings call into question the application of ‘core vote’ theories of party behaviour.

Publication Type: Proceeding

Publication Type: Proceeding
Abstract: In their analysis of the legitimacy of the United States Supreme Court in the aftermath of Bush v. Gore, Gibson, Caldeira, and Spence expound the theory of positivity bias. This theory asserts that pre-existing institutional loyalty shapes perceptions of and judgments about court decisions and events. In this paper, we use the theory of positivity bias to investigate the preferences of Americans regarding the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to a seat on the United States Supreme Court. More specifically, we derive from that theory the hypothesis that Alito confirmation preferences are shaped by pre-existing commitments to the Supreme Court. We demonstrate that those who have a high level of loyalty toward the Supreme Court rely much more heavily on criteria of judiciousness in forming their opinions on whether to confirm Alito. We conclude that institutional loyalty is an important frame through which Americans view the activity of their Supreme Court, and overcoming the presumptions built into that frame is essential if an opposition is to succeed in opposing a presidential nomination.