We introduce this issue with a thought. There has been much made of the need for our discipline to be “policy relevant,” and much ridicule has been directed at the Review recently that comments how little the Review offers that is relevant for decision makers. But what does it mean to be policy relevant? Generally, scholarly journals publish the best in basic research, which hopefully can be used by those in positions of authority to good effect. This often means that there are no catchy titles, nor opinion-editorial pieces that are so often portrayed as the model of policy relevant work. In our view, the role of the Review is to expand knowledge on important scholarly questions, not only to publish work that is currently popular or somehow ordained as useful by pundits. There is certainly a place for such work, but not in the pages of the Review. On the other hand, we as the editors of the Review understand the need to make the Review accessible to as broad an audience as possible, and we have made great efforts to do just that.
In this issue of the Review, as with previous issues, we present articles that ask important questions, such as the following: What role does a legislature perform in terms of “returns to office” in an authoritarian setting? Are legislatures in authoritarian settings similar or different with regard to the rewards of holding office that are often seen in the West (and particularly the United States)? Do single-member district elections, used in the United States, benefit minority candidates? Do quota for the representation of minorities actually benefit minorities (and reduce stereotypes about minorities) in developing countries? Are acute conflicts in places like Africa resolvable, or are they the product of long-standing historical conflicts that cannot be resolved by commonly considered conflict reduction mechanisms? Were the suppositions of Max Weber, upon whose work much of the common wisdom regarding capitalism and state building is based, actually correct? And, finally, do we measure fundamental concepts like “human rights” performance cross-nationally accurately in the data we use, which have so many implications for policy makers? These and other questions are addressed by the articles that appear in this issue of the Review, and we leave it to our colleagues to decide whether or not they are “relevant.”
In This Issue
Our lead article highlights how research that transcends subdisciplinary boundaries in political science can help scholars gain new insights on new issues. In the first article of this issue, Rory Truex considers how members from both democratic and authoritarian regimes benefit from their legislative positions albeit for different reasons. Truex ultimately asks in “The Returns to Office in a ‘Rubber Stamp’ Parliament” whether there are “returns to office” in an authoritarian parliament. Using literature from U.S. politics to frame the argument he asks the question of how do representatives and their affiliates obtain benefits in such constrained environments? Truex investigates these questions using original data on the backgrounds and behaviors of deputies to China's National People's Congress (NPC)—an institution widely dismissed as a meaningless “rubber stamp.” The article has important implications for the study of the role of legislatures in authoritarian regimes. Truex concludes with a brief discussion on future research directions in the study of authoritarian parliaments.
Olena Hankivsky in “Rethinking Care Ethics: On the Promise and Potential of an Intersectional Analysis” applies intersectionality—the notion that people fall under many intersecting categories, rather than simply the category of gender, for example—to care ethics. The result is a more nuanced understanding of the lives of caregivers, an often-exploited group. Bringing together the rich conversations in intersectionality and in care ethics promises to enrich both approaches, and to increase our understanding of the social construction of diversity, the politics of inclusion/exclusion, the dynamics between power and resulting inequities, and social justice. The article covers an overview of care ethics including critiques, followed by a discussion on how care theory can benefit from the insights of intersectionality.
For some time now the conventional wisdom is that single-member districts facilitate the descriptive representation of minority candidates while at-large elections place minority candidates at a distinct disadvantage. In “Partisanship, Structure, and Representation: The Puzzle of African American Education Politics,” Kenneth J. Meier and Amanda Rutherford revisit the relationship between electoral structures and minority representation. Specifically they examine the impact of at-large elections on African American representation on school boards, using data for 2001, 2004, and 2008 from the 1800 largest districts in the United States. Their findings will surprise many scholars as their analysis reveals that African Americans are over-represented on school boards in districts with at-large elections where Democratic voting majorities exist.
In the next article, “Voting Equilibria Under Proportional Representation,” Seok-ju Cho sets out to improve our understanding of election outcomes under Proportional Representation (PR) by building a model that accounts for strategic voting among the electorate. Since policy outcomes are determined in negotiations by representatives after the election, voters may vote strategically, with an eye to these negotiations and policy outcomes, rather than simply voting for their preferred candidates. Cho finds that PR promotes representation of small parties in general, even when voters are strategic. Predictions of this study can be used for the purpose of theoretical comparisons of PR systems and majoritarian systems as the latter systems are extensively studied under the assumption of outcome-oriented strategic actors.
Have human rights practices improved over the past three decades? Christopher J. Fariss’s article “Respect for Human Rights has Improved Over Time: Modeling the Changing Standard of Accountability” suggests that political indicators do not show stagnating human rights practices but rather reflect a systematic change in how monitoring agencies—like Amnesty International and the U.S. State Department—encounter and interpret information about human rights abuses. In this article, Fariss provides a fresh approach and interpretation of existing empirical evidence and an unexpected outcome. Comparing information derived from an existing dynamic ordinal item response theory model (constant standard model) to a new extension of this model (dynamic standard model), Fariss demonstrates unobserved changes to the standard of accountability, which explains why average levels of repression have appeared to remain constant as existing models of human rights suggest. Considering coded documents over an extended period of time, Fariss's research reveals several valuable contributions to the study of international relations.
“The Legacy of Historical Conflict: Evidence from Africa” by Timothy Besley and Mara Reynal-Querol contributes to an emerging body of research that examines the precolonial period in Africa in order to better understand contemporary economic and political outcomes. Employing a variety of analytical techniques examines the impact on historical conflict in Africa during the precolonial period and how that has affected levels of conflict currently, they find that conflict zones on the continent that have persisted over time. Using data that document 91 conflicts between 1400 and 1700, they find that patterns of conflict in postcolonial countries are directly related to historical conflicts within their borders. Thus patterns of current conflict are a direct product of precolonial conflicts, a consequence independent of other correlates of conflict on the continent.
Did having politically autonomous cities contribute to Europe's political and economic development? Certainly there are reasons to believe city autonomy contributed to European economic growth (consistent with the classic argument made by Max Weber) On the other hand, scholars have argued that such autonomy was a hindrance to growth. In “Was Weber Right? The Role of Urban Autonomy in Europe's Rise,” David Stasavage provides an approach that reconciles the two views regarding the impact of city autonomy. He finds that, although initially autonomous cities progressed over time, the situation reversed itself, where autonomous cities grew less rapidly then princely cities. Further, the article suggests institutional reasons for the disappearance of autonomous cities over time in Europe.
How can states be restrained from excessive, unsustainable borrowing? This is one of several questions R. Daniel Kelemen and Terence Teo consider in their topical study “Law, Focal Points, and Fiscal Discipline in the United States and European Union.” Kelemen and Teo note that many studies of balanced budget rules in U.S. states suggest that strict rules play a role in restraining sovereign debt and lowering sovereign borrowing costs. However, they also note that these rules are seldom enforced. Existing literature points to legal deterrence logic as an explanation for the latter. Kelemen and Teo argue that instead of the threat of judicial enforcement, the more decentralized punishment by bond markets provides a more compelling explanation for adherence to balanced budget rules.
In The “Wisdom of the State,” Ryan Patrick Hanley argues that Adam Smith's extensive engagement with China and neighboring Tartary sheds new light on his general theory of economic development and decline. Smith's detailed treatment of China and Tartary, according to Hanley, highlights the key role that the state has to play in fostering healthy economic development and forestalling decline.
Ben Ansell, in “The Political Economy of Ownership: Housing Markets and the Welfare State,” develops a novel theoretical argument linking housing prices with social policy preferences and policy outcomes. Ansell addresses how—over the last decade—the global surge and collapse of house prices have affected citizens’ welfare, not to mention their demands from government. Ansell identifies several gaps in previous research pertaining to social policy, which he sets out to fill by drawing from existing literature and testing propositions using microdata on social preferences from panel surveys in the United States, the United Kingdom, and a cross-national survey of 29 countries, and a macrodate of national social spending for 18 countries between 1975 and 2001.
Simon Chauchard's findings contribute to several ongoing debates in the social sciences, and in particular, “Can Descriptive Representation Change Beliefs about a Stigmatized Group?” This article informs of discussions on how to reduce stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination by suggesting that a group's access to political representation positively affect the nature of intergroup relations. However, unlike scholars who suggest that descriptive representation can reduce stereotypes about disadvantaged groups, Chauchard questions whether or not this is true. Using the case of recent efforts to enhance descriptive representation of historically disadvantaged castes in rural Rajasthan, India, he finds that despite several inclusive policies, members of scheduled castes continue to experience discrimination in their interactions with other groups.
Existing research shows social policies play a significant part in regime survival; however, Xiaobo Lu's article “Social Policy and Regime Legitimacy: The Effects of Education Reform in China” depicts multifaceted effects of social policies on political attitudes. Lu found that recent education policy in China has increased Chinese citizens’ preference for government responsibility in financing compulsory education specifically among rural residents—a rising demand that he found to be driven by policy awareness, not policy benefits. Lu evaluates the impact of the policy on regime support and shows that it only bolsters citizens’ trust in the central government, not their trust in local governments.
Andrej Kokkonen and Anders Sundell, in “Delivering Stability---Primogeniture and Autocratic Survival in European Monarchies 1000–1800,” consider the difficulty in arranging a succession of leadership in autocracies which is of fundamental importance to understanding both leader survival and state-building efforts in autocracies. They argue that a succession based on primogeniture addresses these issues by providing the regime with a successor who can afford to wait to inherit the throne peacefully. Arguing that this autocratic survival in the modern world can be augmented by primogeniture, they test their hypothesis historically on a dataset covering 961 monarchs ruling 42 European states between 1000 and 1800. The results show that fewer monarchs were deposed in states practicing primogeniture than in states practicing alternative succession orders. Primogeniture also contributed to building strong states.
In our final piece, “Elite Parties and Poor Voters: Theory and Evidence from India,” Tariq Thachil addresses the “poor voter paradox,” a phenomenon that stretches from Kansas to India. Thachil raises several interesting questions, for example, why do disadvantaged voters routinely cast their ballots in favor of parties that represent the policy interests of wealthier classes? Thus far, as he points out, the “poor voter paradox” has been exclusively studied within wealthy democracies—Thachil extends the scope of research by turning to the country that has the world's largest poor electorate: India. He outlines a novel strategy adopted by elite parties in Indian based on an electoral division of labor enabling elite parties to recruit the poor while retaining the rich. Essentially, recruitment is outsourced to nonparty affiliates who provide basic services to appeal to poor communities. Such outsourcing permits the party to maintain programmatic linkages to its elite core. He test this explanation with both qualitative and quantitative evidence, including a survey of over 9000 voters, and finds support for this truly novel explanation for the “poor voter paradox.”
INSTRUCTIONS TO CONTRIBUTORS
The American Political Science Review (APSR) publishes scholarly research of exceptional merit, focusing on important issues and demonstrating the highest standards of excellence in conceptualization, exposition, methodology, and craftsmanship. A significant advance in understanding of politics—whether empirical, interpretive, or theoretical—is the criterion for publication in the Review. Because the APSR reaches a diverse audience, authors must demonstrate how their analysis illuminates or answers an important research question of general interest in political science. For the same reason, authors must strive to be understandable to as many scholars as possible, consistent with the nature of their material.
The APSR publishes original work. Submissions should not include tables, figures, or substantial amounts of text that already have been published or are forthcoming in other places. In many cases, republication of such material would violate the copyright of the other publisher. Neither does the APSR consider submissions that are currently under review at other journals or that duplicate or overlap with parts of larger manuscripts submitted to other publishers (whether of books, printed periodicals, or online journals). If you have any questions about whether these policies apply in your case, you should address the issues in a cover letter to the editors or as part of the author comments section during online submission. You should also notify the editors of any related submissions to other publishers, whether for book or periodical publication, during the pendency of your submission's review at the APSR—regardless of whether they have yet been accepted. The editors may request copies of related publications.
The APSR uses a double-blind review process. You should follow the guidelines for preparing an anonymous submission in the “Specific Procedures” section that follows.
If your manuscript contains quantitative evidence and analysis, you should describe your procedures in sufficient detail to permit reviewers to understand and evaluate what has been done and—in the event the article is accepted for publication—to permit other scholars to replicate your results and to carry out similar analyses on other data sets. With surveys, for example, provide sampling procedures, response rates, and question wordings; calculate response rates according to one of the standard formulas given by the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys (Lenexa, KS: AAPOR, 2006).Footnote 1 For experiments, provide full descriptions of experimental protocols, methods of subject recruitment and selection, payments to subjects, debriefing procedures, and so on. In any case involving human subjects, the editors may require certification of appropriate institutional review and/or conformity with generally accepted norms.Footnote 2
The strength of evidence necessary for publication of quantitative empirical findings cannot be captured by any single criterion, such as the conventional .05 level of statistical significance. The journal's coeditors— following the evolving disciplinary standard among reviewers—will evaluate the strength of findings on a range of criteria beyond statistical significance, including substantive significance, theoretical aptness, the importance of the problem under study, and the feasibility of obtaining additional evidence.
In addition, authors of quantitative or experimental articles are expected to address the issue of data availability. You must normally indicate both where (online) you will deposit the information that is necessary to reproduce the numerical results and when that information will be posted (such as “on publication” or “by [definite date]”). You should be prepared, when posting, to provide not only the data used in the analysis but also the syntax files, specialized software, and any other information necessary to reproduce the numerical results in the manuscript. Where an exception is claimed, you should clearly explain why the data or other critical materials used in the manuscript cannot be shared, or why they must be embargoed for a limited period beyond publication.
Similarly, authors of qualitative, observational, or textual articles, or of articles that combine such methods with quantitative analysis, should indicate their sources fully and clearly enough to permit ready verification by other scholars—including precise page references to any published material cited and clear specification (e.g., file number) of any archival sources. Wherever possible, use of interactive citations is encouraged. Where field or observational research is involved, anonymity of participants will always be respected; but the texts of interviews, group discussions, observers’ notes, etc., should be made available on the same basis (and subject to the same exceptions) as with quantitative data.
For articles that include candidate gene or candidate gene-by-environment studies, APSR uses the same policy as the journal Behavior Genetics.Footnote 3 In relevant part, that policy states that an article will normally be considered for publication only if it meets one or more of the following criteria:
-
• It was an exploratory study or test of a novel hypothesis, but with an adequately powered, direct replication study reported in the same paper.
-
• It was an exploratory analysis or test of a novel hypothesis in the context of an adequately powered study, and the finding meets the statistical criteria for genome wide significance—taking into account all sources of multiple testing (e.g. phenotypes, genotypes, environments, covariates, subgroups).
-
• It is a rigorously conducted, adequately powered, direct replication study of a previously reported result.
Articles should be self-contained; you should not simply refer readers to other publications for descriptions of these basic research procedures.
Please indicate variables included in statistical analyses by italicizing the entire name of the variable—the first time it is mentioned in the text—and by capitalizing its first letter in all uses. You should also use the same names for variables in text, tables, and figures. Do not use acronyms or computational abbreviations when discussing variables in the text. All variables that appear in tables or figures should have been mentioned in the text, standard summary statistics (n, mean, median, standard deviation, range, etc.) provided, and the reason for their inclusion discussed. However, tables and figures should also be comprehensible without reference to the text (e.g., in any figures, axes should be clearly labeled). Please bear in mind also that neither the published or online versions of the Review normally can provide figures in color; be sure that a grayscale version will be comprehensible to referees and readers.
You may be asked to submit additional documentation if procedures are not sufficiently clear. If you advise readers that additional information is available on request, you should submit equally anonymous copies of that information with your manuscript as “supplemental materials.” If this additional information is extensive, please inquire about alternate procedures.
Manuscripts that, in the judgment of the co-editors, are largely or entirely critiques of, or commentaries on, articles previously published in the Review will be reviewed for possible inclusion in a forum section, using the same general procedures as for other manuscripts. Well before any publication, however, such manuscripts will also be sent to the scholar(s) whose work is being addressed. The author(s) of the previously published article will be invited to comment to the editors and to submit a rejoinder, which also will be peer-reviewed. While the Review does publish forums these are published very rarely. We do not publish rejoinders to rejoinders.
The APSR accepts only electronic submissions (at www.editorialmanager.com/apsr). The website provides detailed information about how to submit, what formatting is required, and what type of digital files may be uploaded. Please direct any questions regarding new submissions to the journal's editorial offices at apsr@unt.edu.
Manuscript Formatting
Manuscripts should be no longer than 12,000 words including text, all tables and figures, notes, references, and appendices intended for publication. Font size must be at least 12 point for all parts of the submission, including notes and references, and all body text (including references) should be double-spaced. Include an abstract of no more than 150 words. Explanatory footnotes may be included but should not be used for simple citations. Do not use endnotes. Observe all of the further formatting instructions given on our website. Doing so lightens the burden on reviewers, copyeditors, and compositors. Submissions that violate our guidelines on formatting or length will be rejected without review.
For submission and review purposes, you may locate tables and figures (on separate pages and only one to a page) approximately where they fall in the text, but with an in-text locator for each, in any case (e.g., [Table 3 about here]). If your submission is accepted for publication, you may also be asked to submit high resolution digital source files of graphs, charts, or other types of figures. Following acceptance, all elements within any tables submitted (text, numerals, symbols, etc.) should be accessible for editing and reformatting to meet the journal's print specifications (e.g., they should not be included as single images not subject to reformatting). If you have any doubts about how to format the required in-text citations and/or bibliographic reference sections, please consult the latest edition of The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010) and review recent issues of the APSR.
Specific Procedures
Please follow these specific procedures for submission:
-
1. Before submitting any manuscript to the APSR, download a PDF of the Transfer of Copyright Agreement from the Editorial Manager login page at http://www.editorialmanager.com/apsr and be sure its terms and requirements, as well as the permissions granted to authors under its provisions, are acceptable to you. A signed agreement will be required for all work published in this journal.
-
2. When you submit (at www.editorialmanager.com/ apsr), you will be invited to provide a short list of appropriate reviewers of your manuscript. Do not include on this list anyone who has already commented on the research included in your submission. Likewise, exclude any of your current or recent collaborators, institutional colleagues, mentors, students, or close friends. You may also “oppose” potential reviewers by name, as potentially biased or otherwise inappropriate, but you will be expected to provide specific reasons. The editors will refer to these lists in selecting reviewers, though there can be no guarantee that this will influence final reviewer selections.
-
3. You will also be required to upload a minimum of two separate files.
-
a) An “anonymous” digital file of your submission, which should not include any information that identifies the authors. Also excluded should be the names of any other collaborators in the work (including research assistants or creators of tables or figures). Likewise do not provide in-text links to any online databases used that are stored on any personal websites or at institutions with which any of the co-authors are affiliated. Do not otherwise thank colleagues or include institution names, web addresses, or other potentially identifying information.
-
b) A separate title page should include the full manuscript title, plus names and contact information (mailing address, telephone, fax, and e-mail address) for all credited authors, in the order their names should appear, as well as each author's academic rank and institutional affiliation. You may also include any acknowledgements or other author notes about the development of the research (e.g., previous presentations of it) as part of this separate title page. In the case of multiple authors, indicate which should receive all correspondence from the APSR. You may also choose to include a cover letter.
-
-
4. Please make sure the file contains all tables, figures, appendices, and references cited in the manuscript.
-
5. If your previous publications are cited, please do so in a way that does not make the authorship of the work being submitted to the APSR obvious. This is usually best accomplished by referring to yourself and any co-authors in the third person and including normal references to the work cited within the list of references. Your prior publications should be included in the reference section in their normal alphabetical location. Assuming that in-text references to your previous work are in the third person, you should not redact self-citations and references (possible exceptions being any work that is “forthcoming” in publication, and which may not be generally accessible to others). Manuscripts with potentially compromised anonymity may be returned, potentially delaying the review processes.
-
6. Charges apply for all color figures that appear in the print version of the journal. At the time of submission, contributors should clearly state whether their figures should appear in color in the online version only, or whether they should appear in color online and in the print version. There is no charge for including color figures in the online version of the Journal but it must be clear that color is needed to enhance the meaning of the figure, rather than simply being for esthetic purposes. If you request color figures in the printed version, you will be contacted by CCC-Rightslink who are acting on our behalf to collect Author Charges. Please follow their instructions in order to avoid any delay in the publication of your article.
Further questions
Do not hesitate, in any cases of doubt, to consult the APSR Editorial Offices with more specific questions by telephone (940–891–6803) or by sending an e-mail to: apsr@unt.edu
ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO THE APSR
Back issues of the APSR are available in several electronic formats and through several vendors. Except for the last three years (as an annually “moving wall”), back issues of the APSR beginning with Volume 1, Number 1 (November 1906), are available online through JSTOR (http://www.jstor.org/). At present, JSTOR's complete journal collection is available only via institutional subscription, e.g., through many college and university libraries. For APSA members who do not have access to an institutional subscription to JSTOR, individual subscriptions to its APSR content are available. Please contact Member Services at APSA for further information, including annual subscription fees.
Individual members of the American Political Science Association can access recent issues of the APSR, Perspectives, and PS through the APSA website (www.apsanet.org) with their username and password. Individual nonmember access to the online edition will also be available, but only through institutions that hold either a print-plus-electronic subscription or an electronic-only subscription, provided the institution has registered and activated its online subscription.
Full text access to current issues of the APSR, Perspectives, and PS is also available on-line by library subscription from a number of database vendors. Currently, these include University Microfilms Inc. (UMI) (via its CD-ROMs General Periodicals Online and Social Science Index and the on-line database ProQuest Direct), Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) (through its on-line database First Search as well as on CD-ROMs and magnetic tape), and the Information Access Company (IAC) (through its products Expanded Academic Index, InfoTrac, and several on-line services [see below]). Others may be added from time to time.
The APSR is also available on databases through six online services: Datastar (Datastar), Business Library (Dow Jones), Cognito (IAC), Encarta Online Library (IAC), IAC Business (Dialog), and Newsearch (Dialog).
The editorial office of theAPSRis not involved in the subscription process to either JSTOR for back issues or the other vendors for current issues. Please contact APSA, your reference librarian, or the database vendor for further information about availability.
OTHER CORRESPONDENCE
The American Political Science Association's address, telephone, and fax are 1527 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 483–2512 (voice), and (202) 483–2657 (fax). E-mail: apsa@apsanet.org. Please direct correspondence as follows.
-
Information, including news and notes, for PS:
-
Dr. Robert J-P. Hauck, Editor, PS
-
E-mail: rhauck@apsanet.org
Circulation and subscription correspondence (domestic claims for non receipt of issues must be made within four months of the month of publication; overseas claims, within eight months):
-
Director of Member Services
-
E-mail: membership@apsanet.org
-
Reprint permissions:
-
E-mail: Rights@cambridge.org
-
Advertising information and rates:
-
Advertising Coordinator,
-
Cambridge University Press
EXPEDITING REQUESTS FOR COPYING APSR, PERSPECTIVES, AND PS ARTICLES FOR CLASS USE AND OTHER PURPOSES
Class Use
The Comprehensive Publisher Photocopy Agreement between APSA and the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) permits bookstores and copy centers to receive expedited clearance to copy articles from the APSR and PS in compliance with the Association's policies and applicable fees. The general fee for articles is 75 cents per copy. However, current Association policy levies no fee for the first 10 copies of a printed article, whether in course packs or on reserve. Smaller classes that rely heavily on articles (i.e., upper-level undergraduate and graduate classes) can take advantage of this provision, and faculty ordering 10 or fewer course packs should bring it to the attention of course pack providers. APSA policy also permits free use of the electronic library reserve, with no limit on the number of students who can access the electronic reserve. Both large and small classes that rely on these articles can take advantage of this provision. The CCC's address, telephone, and fax are 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750–8400 (voice), and (978) 750–4474 (fax). This agreement pertains only to the reproduction and distribution of APSA materials as hard copies (e.g., photocopies, microfilm, and microfiche).
The Association of American Publishers (AAP) has created a standardized form for college faculty to submit to a copy center or bookstore to request copyrighted material for course packs. The form is available through the CCC, which will handle copyright permissions.
APSA also has a separate agreement pertaining to CCC's Academic E-Reserve Service. This agreement allows electronic access for students and instructors of a designated class at a designated institution for a specified article or set of articles in electronic format. Access is by password for the duration of a class.
Please contact your librarian, the CCC, or the APSA Reprints Department for further information.
APSR Authors
If you are the author of an APSR article, you may use your article in course packs or other printed materials without payment of royalty fees and you may post it at personal or institutional websites as long as the APSA copyright notice is included.
Other Uses of APSA-Copyrighted Materials
For any further copyright issues, please contact the APSA Reprints Department.
INDEXING
Articles appearing in the APSR before June 1953 were indexed in The Reader's Guide to PeriodicalLiterature. Current issues are indexed in ABC Pol Sci; America, History and Life 1954–; Book Review Index; Current Contents: Social and Behavioral Sciences; EconLit; Energy Information Abstracts; Environmental Abstracts; Historical Abstracts; Index of Economic Articles; Information Service Bulletin; International Bibliography of Book Reviews of Scholarly Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences; International Bibliography of Periodical Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences; International Index; International Political Science Abstracts; the Journal of Economic Literature; Periodical Abstracts; Public Affairs; Public Affairs Information Service International Recently Published Articles; Reference Sources; Social Sciences and Humanities Index; Social Sciences Index; Social Work Research and Abstracts; and Writings on American History. Some of these sources may be available in electronic form through local public or educational libraries. Microfilm of the APSR, beginning with Volume 1, and the index of the APSR through 1969 are available through University Microfilms Inc., 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 (www.umi.com). The Cumulative Index to the American Political Science Review, Volumes 63 to 89: 1969–95, is available through the APSA.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.