Political Thought and Philosophy

Angelia Means, Dartmouth College Angelia.Means@Dartmouth.Edu

“Beacon on a Hill?” Is Western democracy a model for democratization or not? Theorists have long contemplated the historical conditions of democratization. And, today, the topic is more important than ever since the U.S. has taken on “democratization” projects in Afghanistan and Iraq. U.S. intervention has provoked anew classical political theory questions about the relation between imperialism and democracy. (Is imperialism opposed to democracy or is there a complicated historical and/or analytic relation between the two?) In addition to the theory questions suggested by the U.S.'s role in the world, we might also consider the extent to which the European Union models both old and new concepts of democracy. Does Europeanization, and its accompanying “democratization” process, model an idea of democracy that is stronger or weaker? In general, does regional governance aid in the democratization projects of new (relatively undemocratic) members or does it actually stall political development?

In the wake of postcolonialism, should we just give up on American and European models altogether? Have we reached the point when others are no longer willing to learn from the “canon” of political theory, and hence has this canon exhausted itself just as it is called upon to play a truly global role? Or can we salvage political theory by attempting to develop comparative political theory? In some sense, is Western democratic theory uniquely capable of generating models of intercultural democracy? In today's world, what, if anything, does the West have to teach the rest?

Foundations of Political Theory

Timothy Kaufman-Osborn, Whitman College kaufmatv@whitman.edu

The Foundations section seeks to explore the theoretical dimensions of political life. Political theorists whose aim is to think through the principles and practices of that life can offer distinctive insights into the conference theme of “mobilizing democracy.” What has the phrase “democratic politics” signified in the past, what does it mean now, and what sense might it come to acquire in the future? Received conceptions of democratic politics, as well as the institutionalization of those conceptions, are now challenged by the emergence of transnational social movements, multi-national corporations, non-state security forces and sub-state violence, and various global environmental, migration, and human rights dilemmas. At the same time, growing cynicism about the formal institutions of democracy, combined with erosion of the liberal distinction between public and private, render increasingly problematic the question of what is and is not political and, so, what it might mean to explore the possibilities as well as the limits of specifically democratic politics. As always, proposed papers and panels that advance persuasive perspectives and themes, especially those that cross intellectual and disciplinary boundaries, will be given careful consideration, even if they are not directly related to the conference theme.

Normative Political Theory

Melissa Schwartzberg, George Washington University maschwar@gwu.edu

In keeping with this year's theme, the Normative Political Theory division especially welcomes proposals in the area of democratic theory. The presence of political, moral, and cultural divisions may pose a challenge to efforts at “mobilizing democracy.” In this light, although papers advancing deliberative models are encouraged, of equal interest are papers critical of the capacity of deliberation to reduce disagreement and to promote convergence on a common good. (Proposals for panels that unite deliberative democrats and their critics are particularly invited.) Also sought are papers analyzing key problems faced by divided or transitional societies, such as structuring political representation, developing norms of trust, or managing conflict through the rule of law. Of course, proposals exploring dimensions of normative political theory outside of the conference theme will be given full consideration.

Formal Political Theory

Jenna Bednar, University of Michigan jbednar@umich.edu

This division welcomes papers within the broad array of formal analytical approaches: game theory, social choice theory, agent-based modeling, information theory, and other behavioral, evolutionary, and computational Papers of a purely theoretical nature as well as those that display empirical applications are welcomed. Our meeting's theme of “Mobilizing Democracy” suggests an opportunity within formal theory for papers and panels on a variety of problems including applied models of mass behavior and comparative institutional performance, as well as pure theory models of information transmission, problem representation, institutional change, and collective action.

Political Psychology

David Redlawski, University of Iowa david-redlawsk@uiowa.edu

Political psychology is an incredibly diverse field both in terms of research interests and methodologies. The political psychology section seeks papers that represent this range, while especially welcoming work that connects to this year's theme of mobilizing democracy. While not intending to be limiting, submissions that examine how both elites and mass publics respond to democratic trends, how linkages between the two work to create or ensure democratic support, and on broader issues of political participation in democracies are encouraged. At the same time, given the wide range represented by the field, an important goal of the division is to showcase how the work of political psychologists provides individual and group level insights into mass behavior, institutional and elite actions, and perceptions of how politics works (or doesn't). Among other topics, papers might examine the social- or cognitive-psychological underpinnings of politics; roles played by affect and emotion; processes of political understanding and reasoning; media and campaign response; ideology; identity, and decision making by mass publics and elites in domestic or international political environments. Applications of innovative methodologies (both qualitative and quantitative) are particularly welcome.

Political Economy

William Clark, New York University william.clark@nyu.edu

Political economy is a field of political science that asks and answers questions about a) the economic sources of political behavior, institutions, and outcomes and b) the political sources of economic behavior, policy, and welfare outcomes. As such, it is particularly well equipped to contribute to the conference theme Mobilizing Democracy. Consequently, papers that explore (1) the economic conditions (wealth, growth, price stability, production profile, equality, etc.) under which democracy is likely to emerge and/or survive; (2) the ways economic factors influence specific aspects of democratic political behavior (voting, lobbying, campaign contributions, political demonstrations, partisan competition, etc.); (3) the ways in which democracy affects the incentives of policy-makers to adopt policies that promote social welfare; and (4) the economic consequences of the tremendous institutional variety found within democracies (electoral laws; executive-legislative relations; bicameralism; federalism; party systems; modes of interest representation, etc.) would be particularly welcome this year.

Politics and History

Hendrik Spruyt, Northwestern University h-spruyt@northwestern.edu Elisabeth Clemens, University of Chicago clemens@uchicago.edu

In keeping with the overall theme this section is particularly interested in proposals that utilize historical methods in the study of democracy. We are particularly interested in papers that examine the conditions under which democracies might emerge or falter as well as papers that study the consequences of democratization on preferences, identities, and institutionalization. The section thus encourages papers that analyze the connections between social movements and democratization; the role of historical trajectories and contingency in nurturing democracy; the causes of social upheaval that might erode democratic institutions; and the domestic costs associated with democratization. We are similarly interested in theoretically informed historical accounts of why democratization sometimes seems to occur in relatively swiftly and across several countries simultaneously rather than incrementally in individual countries. Paper proposals that enrich our methodological understanding of temporality and sequencing are also appreciated. We encourage longitudinal investigations and cross case comparisons. Paper and panel proposals that address other topics in the area of politics and history are also welcome. Proposals for panels should clearly indicate how the various papers speak to a common theme.

Political Methodology

Kevin Quinn, Harvard University kquinn@fas.harvard.edu

The Political Methodology division welcomes proposals across the full spectrum of methodology. Examples include, but are not limited to: methods for causal inference, improved methods of data collection (both qualitative and quantitative), the assessment and comparison of existing techniques and methods, the derivation of new statistical models, improved methods of measurement, theoretical work on competing approaches to inference, and substantive applications that involve an innovative methodological component.

In light of this year's theme of Mobilizing Democracy, I am particularly interested in receiving proposals that relate to issues of democratic governance. Examples include: new methods for detecting vote fraud and voting irregularities, accurate estimation of the causal effects of policy interventions, and the analysis of voting bodies.

Teaching and Learning in Political Science

Juan Carlos Huerta, Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi Juan_Carlos.Huerta@mail.tamucc.edu

The Teaching and Learning in Political Science Division welcomes proposals that are consistent with the program theme of “Mobilizing Democracy”. Proposals that investigate what and how political scientists teach are fitting. Moreover, proposals that incorporate the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning are especially welcome. Political scientists make use of many engaging pedagogies (simulations, civic engagement, learning communities, active learning strategies, and many others), but how does one determine the impact on student learning? In other words, what is the evidence that these diverse pedagogies enhance student learning? Also, how do political scientists measure student learning? Positive evaluations from students alone do not make one an effective teacher if the students are not learning. Hence, effective teaching needs to be linked to learning. These issues are all central in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.

Undergraduate Education

Quentin Kidd, Christopher Newport College qkidd@cnu.edu

While democratic societies evidence varying levels of participation, two trends seem destined to cause great concern for further mobilization of democracy across the globe. First, civic life is becoming more complex and citizens are having an increasingly difficult time understanding the output of politics. Second, the level of information available about politics to citizens is far outstripping their ability to make sense of it all. Democracies are about encouraging wide spread participation from their citizens. Yet, fundamental to citizens' understanding how to participate, the results of participation, and the meaning of participation, is enlightening citizens about expectations, rewards and alternatives. In short, the civic culture of a democracy must not only encourage and reward civic participation but it must also help citizens understand what their participation means and what they should expect from their participation.

We are wise to continually think about our undergraduate educational offerings in the context of these societal-level concerns. The Undergraduate Education section thus invites papers that address the relationship between undergraduate teaching and democratic development and mobilization generally. What is the role of undergraduate education to democracy both in societies with democratic traditions and those with few or no democratic traditions? How should shortcomings such as low voter turnout and wide spread distrust of democratic institutions be dealt with? To what extent have the undergraduate offerings in political science encouraged and facilitated democratic debate, and to what end?

For the 2005 Annual Meeting the division would like to see papers, posters, and panels that examine these and other related questions from a variety of pedagogical perspectives. Papers on innovative methods of delivery are also encouraged. The Undergraduate Education section is strongly committed to honoring the diversity of institutions with which APSA members are associated and we welcome submissions from political scientists at community colleges and two-year colleges as well as four-year colleges and universities.

Comparative Politics

Carles Boix, University of Chicago cboix@midway.uchicago.edu

The division welcomes paper, panel and roundtable proposals that reflect the full range of the field's empirical breadth and theoretical diversity. We invite proposals dealing with any aspect of comparative politics, either comparative or historical in orientation, which engage important substantive questions in a theoretically self-conscious way. Paper or panel proposals that situate the United States in comparative perspective are very welcome.

The study of comparative politics includes a broad range of important theoretical and empirical issues: the foundations of political order and legitimacy; national identity formation and nationalism; democratization theory; economic transitions; the political dynamics of authoritarianism; the politics of imperialism and colonialism; political instability and violence; the mobilization, representation and coordination of political demands, including party and interest group formation; the origins, workings and effects of political institutions such as electoral systems, federalism, legislatures, judiciaries and bureaucracies; the political management of the economy; the formation of welfare states; and the institutional basis of development. Innovative and well-designed research, either quantitative or qualitative in its approach, will be given special attention.

Well-designed panel proposals, in which the logic is explicitly spelled out, are specially welcome. For example, panels could be organized around bringing a number of different methods or approaches to bear on a particular theoretical or empirical problem. Innovative proposals and ideas are encouraged. The division will particularly value those proposals that connect central theoretical problems in the study of politics with empirical and comparative research.

Comparative Politics of Developing Countries

Leonard Wantchekon, New York University leonard.wantchekon@nyu.edu

The end of the cold war has led the demise of authoritarian regimes and a spectacular increase in the number of democracies around the world. Democracy is taking roots in political environments as diverse as post Apartheid South Africa, post civil war El Salvador, and post authoritarian Indonesia. However, democratization has also led to widespread misgovernance, state failure and political violence. This indicates the existence of an intimate and perhaps circular relationship between democratic consolidation and state-building, especially in developing countries.

The division of comparative politics of developing countries invites papers focusing on, but not limited to, the theoretical and empirical investigation of the effect of institutional forms on democratic governance and state capacity. Studies centered on the effects of structural factors such as ethnic fragmentation, natural resource dependence, colonial legacy are also welcome. We particularly invite papers discussing specific aspects of democratic governance such as ethnic mobilization and voting, clientelism and provision of public goods, federalism and decentralization, and the political economy of corruption. Papers that concentrate on one country, or engage in large or small cross-country comparison are all welcome

The Politics of Communist and Former Communist Countries

Tim Frye, Ohio State University frye.51@osu.edu

The division invites proposals for papers, panels, and roundtables on theoretical and substantive issues of communist and postcommunist politics. In the past fifteen years, the theories and methods used to study communist and postcommunist politics have become increasingly diverse and the division aims to capture the full richness and breadth of this research.

The great variation in regime trajectories among communist and postcommunist countries makes this year's APSA theme especially exciting for this division. The division welcomes proposals that examine the causes and consequences of democracy including, but not limited to: 1) the role of parties, elections, institutions and interest groups in translating public preferences into policy; 2) the relationship between the quality of governance and accountability; 3) the interaction of economic policy and democracy; 4) the influence ethnicity and identity on representation; 5) the possibility of transplanting democratic institutions from abroad; and 6) the impact of democracy on the daily lives of citizens. Proposals using original data are especially encouraged.

Finally, after fifteen years of postcommunist transformation, it is important to ask whether the obstacles to mobilizing democracy in the countries under study are unique to the postcommunist world or are general to low and middle-income countries in other regions. Proposals that examine democracy from a cross-regional perspective are especially welcome.

Comparative Politics of Advanced Industrial Societies

Margarita Estevez-Abe, Harvard University mestevez@latte.harvard.edu

I welcome papers and panels that explore qualitative differences of democracy in advanced industrial societies. With the 2005 Annual Meeting theme of “Mobilizing Democracy” in mind, I am especially interested in innovative studies that address the following questions: (1) are some democratic institutions including electoral and party systems more representative than others?; (2) to what degree do electoral systems shape policy; (3) when and why do democratic institutions—such as constitution and electoral rules—change?; (4) what are the institutional and societal prerequisites for successful democracy? Although this division focuses on advanced industrial societies, I encourage proposals that take advantage of the longer democratic tradition in advanced industrial societies to generate useful ideas for newer democracies in the world. Proposals may employ any methodological approach; I welcome historical comparative papers as well as formal and quantitative papers.

European Politics and Society

Mark Franklin, Trinity College Mark.Franklin@trincoll.edu

Proposals for papers and panels on any aspect of European politics are welcome. The division solicits proposals from those studying national, subnational, and/or local politics in one or more countries in Western, Central, and/or Eastern Europe and from those studying the European Union. Our panels will not be restricted to topics fitting the theme of the conference, but many topics relating to Europe do fit the theme “Mobilizing Democracy” by shedding light on the following sorts of questions. What is the role, empirically or normatively, of collective actors and organizations such as labor unions, social movements and corporations in democratic politics? How do fledgling democracies balance pressures to participate in international coalitions, reduce barriers to trade, and conform to the criteria of international financial institutions while also responding to the aspirations of their citizens? What kinds of elections accurately and legitimately express pubic preferences, in established and new democracies alike? What reforms in electoral arrangements might be desirable from this perspective? How do the mechanics of voting influence electoral outcomes, and what produces changes in these mechanics? When cross-border conflicts are played out less between states and more between states and non-state forces with some capacity to threaten states' security, how can democracies respond without lowering standards of civil liberties and international norms of human rights? Can democratic institutions be introduced from abroad and flourish in deeply divided societies? Can democratic institutions flourish in societies with few democratic traditions? Many other topics will be equally suitable.

International Political Economy

Henry Farrell, University of Toronto farrell@utsc.utoronto.ca

The relationship between democratic politics and the international economy is a perennial issue for international political economy. On the one hand, scholars have studied the consequences of international institutions, and of changes in the international economy for domestic politics in electoral democracies. On the other, they have examined the consequences of electoral cycles and different forms of political representation for states' international economic policy. As the relationship between international economy and the domestic capacity for political choice has become more topical, these academic debates have assumed a wider political significance.

The 2004 APSA program theme is “Mobilizing Democracy.” The IPE division invites papers that speak to the relationship between international economy and domestic political systems, as well as papers that address the potential for the democratic reform of international institutions. How does the international economy affect the capacity of different collective actors to press their interests within democracies, and does this have knock-on consequences for the basic principles of democratic representation? How does it affect the capacity of actors to mobilize within non-democratic systems, and thus the likelihood of democratization? Are the economic policies pursued by democracies likely to help or hinder democratization in other, non-democratic countries? Finally, given the increasing challenges that international economic institutions face, would the “democratization” of these institutions help, or hinder these institutions' efforts to legitimate themselves?

International Collaboration

Nathan Jensen, Washington University, St. Louis njensen@artsci.wustl.edu

The International Collaboration Division welcomes papers, panels, and roundtables utilizing any methodological approach in exploring the relationship between international collaboration and this year's conference theme, “Mobilizing Democracy.” We define international collaboration as either formal or informal interactions between nation-states, multinational corporations, international institutions, or other actors. We are especially interested in papers exploring the impact of globalization on democratic governance, the construction and function of international regimes, the creation and enforcement of international law, third party mediation in civil wars and ethnic conflicts, and the impact of political institutions on international conflict.

International Security

Hein Goemans, University of Rochester hgoemans@mail.rochester.edu

How domestic political institutions affect the security of states and vice versa have long been important questions in international security. The 2005 program theme - mobilizing democracy - fits well with this tradition, but also points in new directions. This division welcomes papers, panels and roundtables that examine the relationship between domestic institutions and international security, but is particularly interested in innovative proposals that examine how societies are mobilized for the use of force. Around the world, democracies are mobilizing to deal with new threats from non-state actors. How they go about that, and how successful they will be is of obvious real world importance. In turn, preparations to deal with the new threats may well affect democracies at home, and their international cooperation. How do domestic institutions affect conventional and unconventional conflict, in both preparation and execution? How are domestic audiences mobilized? What are the factors that affect domestic support for protracted conflict, casualty-phobia or belief in ultimate victory? Are democracies more or less casualty-phobic? How does the composition of the armed forces affect the prospects of democracy or transitions to democracy? What are the consequences of the switch from draft to volunteer armies in Western Europe since the 1990s? The division welcomes proposals from all methodological traditions, but particularly welcomes proposals that integrate levels of analysis.

International Security and Arms Control

Jeffrey A. Larsen, Science Applications International Corporation JEFFREY.A.LARSEN@saic.com

The theme of the 2005 APSA meeting is “Mobilizing Democracy.” While democracy holds out great promise, it is clearer today than it has been for decades that the struggle for democracy is ongoing in many ways—to achieve it, to keep it, and to protect it. The ISAC section calls for papers, panels, and roundtable discussion topics that address the issues of international security, arms control, disarmament, and related subjects of current interest, particularly as they relate to the overall APSA theme for this convention. In particular, given the proximity of this meeting to the 2004 national elections, we foresee value in papers that address the new government's approach toward our section's key concerns (such as the future of arms control, nuclear policy, and the use of military force under the new administration), as well as U.S. strategic plan, progress, and future prospects on the global war on terrorism. Also, with the publication of a new Nuclear Posture Review in 2001, a National Security Strategy and National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction in 2002, and a National Military Strategy in 2004, there is plenty of grist for your analytical mill to grind.

ISAC traditionally provides a large number of panels and independent papers at APSA conventions, and we want to continue doing so. There are few issues in modern society as important as international security, particularly at a time of global conflict and the clash of wills we see on the news every day. We welcome inputs from both members of the section and nonmembers, and are particularly interested in graduate student participation.

Foreign Policy

Patrick James, University of Missouri jamesp@missouri.edu

The Foreign Policy division welcomes proposals that address any aspect of foreign policy or the foreign policymaking process. The division is committed to serving as a broad and inclusive home for foreign policy analysis. Proposals should seek to convey ideas clearly and, to the extent possible, without relying on narrow disciplinary jargon. Ideally, they should be theoretically aware, empirically grounded, and pragmatically relevant. Comparative analysis and integrative research that seeks to build bridges across levels of analysis or among theories, is particularly desirable.

The transformation of foreign policy problems after the outset of the twenty-first century deservedly commands the attention of scholars in this division. Not only the international system but also the state and its agents have evolved. Indeed, the continued relevance and meaning of “foreign” policy appears subject to challenges posed by the diffusion of authority and threats in some parts of the world, and their concentration in other places. New actors are poised to play a greater policy role while others lose ground in a world of mobilizing democracy. At the same time, some of the changes associated with the conference theme of mobilizing democracy and the enduring drama of statecraft suggest that foreign policy scholarship should not hastily abandon or ignore established research agendas. Nor should scholars ignore the normative problems associated with these matters, and even with their own analyses.

Proposals addressing the foreign policymaking process itself might examine the effects of differences among individual decision makers, the impact of bureaucratic and governmental processes, interest groups, state-society relations, public opinion, mobilization of democracy, and the cultural, economic, legal and social settings in which policy is made. The impact on foreign policy of decision making in non-governmental and sub-national organizations also deserves attention. Needless to say, the topics listed here are illustrative rather than exhaustive.

Conflict Processes

Will Moore, Florida State University will.moore@fsu.edu

The Conflict Processes Section invites proposals that focus on the conditions, consequences, and mechanisms of politically motivated violent conflict. Papers that examine civil war, interstate war, state and/or dissident use of terror, coercive foreign policy behavior, riots, etc. are relevant. I am especially interested in papers that strive to build rigorous generalizable contributions to our understanding of the processes that produce, sustain, and terminate the use of coercion and violence in political competition. I will favor research that contains a clearly posed theoretical contribution, but more empirically driven research is also welcome.

Legislative Studies

Eric Schickler, Harvard University Eschickler@latte.harvard.edu

Representation and electoral accountability are core features of legislative politics. The 2004 APSA theme of “Mobilizing Democracy” is thus especially relevant to the subject matter of the legislative studies division. In keeping with this theme, the division is particularly seeking panels and papers that add to our understanding of representative-constituency linkages, the impact of electoral laws and procedures on legislative politics, and the interaction of legislatures with the broader political system. The legislative studies division is also looking for papers that address the array of topics that arise naturally in the study of legislative politics: parties, deliberation, committees, rules, budgets, staff, leadership, elections, and the historical development of legislative institutions. Comparative studies of state legislatures or national legislatures are encouraged. Although both panel and individual paper proposals are welcome, individual paper proposals are typically easier to accommodate. Paper proposals that contain a clearly posed theoretical and/or empirical question will be favored.

Presidency Research

Terri Bimes, Harvard University tbimes@latte.harvard.edu

The study of presidential politics offers numerous opportunities to explore “Mobilizing Democracy,” the theme for the 2005 American Political Science Association meeting. The president represents both the promise of democracy in that he is the only officer elected by the whole nation and a challenge to democratic control as evidenced by charges of secrecy, accountability, and unilateralism often directed at the office. Drawing upon our section's broad array of theoretical and empirical approaches, we hope to form panels that explore presidential leadership in times of war; the use of executive power vis-a-vis other institutional actors including Congress, the Courts, political parties, interest groups, and international governing bodies and politicians; the growth and operation of the executive branch and its implications for democratic outcomes; and the development, as well as the effectiveness, of presidential popular leadership.

Panels, papers, posters, and roundtables emphasizing the theme of mobilizing democracy will be given special priority. In addition, we are also looking for papers and roundtables that explore the wartime presidency of George W. Bush and the legacy of the presidency of Ronald Reagan. We also welcome proposals in the following areas: comparative research on executive leadership at the international or state level, analyses of the 2004 elections, and studies of presidential campaign finance. Finally, recommendations for short courses that explore timely topics, empirical and theoretical research approaches to the study of the presidency, new data sets, and teaching concerns are requested.

Public Administration

Katherine C. Naff, San Francisco State University, kcnaff@sfsu.edu

Proposals for papers and panels on a broad array of public administration topics are welcome. In particular, this year's conference theme provides an opportunity to examine the role of public and nonprofit administrators in a democracy. Among other questions that may be addressed are the following: What are the ways that public agencies translate citizen preferences, as expressed through democratic institutions such as the ballot box, into effective programs and policies? What mechanisms are necessary to ensure these organizations are accountable and responsive to the citizenry? Should citizens be viewed as passive “customers” of public agencies, or as “owners” who have a responsibility to actively improve government service? Finally, what can comparative studies show us about the necessary conditions under which effective and accessible public agencies can flourish?

Public Policy

Denise Scheberle, University of Wisconsin, Green Bay scheberd@uwgb.edu

The 2005 conference theme, “Mobilizing Democracy,” often lies at the heart of public policy research. Public policy scholars generally agree that public policies created in democratic systems should be a reflection of public preferences, when citizens are involved in all stages of the policy process, across substantive policy areas. At the same time, scholars note that citizen voices are often either absent or muted by more organized and particularized interests when governmental actors debate and decide policy directions. Proposals are welcomed that approach the topic of mobilizing democracy by exploring any of the following questions, or similar questions: To what extent have policymakers in a particular policy field (or fields) responded to public preferences? Are citizens adequately represented and/or influential in the policy process? Has policy implementation or policy change reflected citizen participation? Are people sufficiently mobilized within policy arenas? Will campaign finance reforms or emerging national hot-button issues within health care, education, same-sex marriage or the environment mobilize citizen engagement in policy development and implementation? How do institutions involved in all stages of the policy process at the national, state or local level, engage citizens, and to what extent have these approaches worked? How do the media, interest groups, political parties or other actors mobilize citizens in the policy process? Papers that address other empirical or normative questions regarding democracy and public policy will also be considered. The division especially welcomes papers that offer fresh explorations of existing theories or new theoretical approaches, using qualitative or quantitative approaches that extend beyond single policy areas or single events. Beyond individual paper proposals, the division encourages whole panel proposals embracing the conference theme.

Law and Courts

Cornell Clayton, Washington State University cornell@mail.wsu.edu

The theme for the 2005 annual meeting invites us to explore the ongoing struggle to spread democracy and defend its basic institutions from encroachment and decline. Courts and the rule of law are intrinsic to democracy, and the relationship between them has long been at the heart of law and courts scholarship. Consequently, this year's theme presents ample opportunities for our division. Proposals might explore the ways in which courts and legal institutions foster or subvert democracy; consider the ways that law structures electoral processes and democratic activity; examine the distribution of power between courts and elected institutions; focus on how judicial action influences social movements and democratic mobilization; or examine the capacity, and conditions under which, courts effect democratic change. More broadly, this year's theme is an invitation to reconsider many of the perennial research questions and problems in our field: Do courts behave in “non-majoritarian” ways? To what degree do courts operate independently from elected regimes? What factors influence judicial behavior in democratic systems?

In keeping with this year's theme and broader developments in the discipline, the division encourages problem-driven proposals that employ multiple theoretical and/or methodological strategies. Proposals that deal with courts and legal institutions from a comparative, international, and/or longitudinal perspective are also strongly encouraged. As always, the division seeks scholarship that will stimulate attendance, provoke critical thought, and address major political problems of interest to scholars and the public at large.

Constitutional Law and Jurisprudence

Susan R. Burgess, Ohio University burgess@ohiou.edu

While all proposals are welcome, the division especially wants to encourage submissions that address constitutional law and jurisprudence in the context of the meeting's focus on the continuing struggle to mobilize democracy domestically and internationally. In light of the 2005 meeting's location in Washington, DC, proposals addressing recent constitutional developments on same-sex marriage and related issues would also be especially topical. Proposals that address constitutionality in comparative context or international law that focus on these themes and related questions are also encouraged. Proposals that address perennial themes in constitutional law and jurisprudence consistent with the meeting's theme are welcome (e.g., the vexed relationship between courts and democracy in constitutional law and jurisprudence), as are proposals grounded in cultural studies, feminist legal theory, critical race theory, and other critical work that challenges the dominance of the perennial approaches. For example, proposals might follow up on last year's short course and address constitutional and jurisprudential questions from the standpoint of popular culture. In short, I hope to receive proposals that reflect the diversity of scholarly work on constitutional law and jurisprudence that characterizes the field.

Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations

Dale Krane, University of Nebraska-Omaha dkrane@mail.unomaha.edu

Democracy and Federalism are among the oldest ideas about the organization and operation of a polity. Although they share the twin purposes of limiting the power of government officials and enhancing popular sovereignty, the relationship, both in theory and in practice, between these two classic political forms remains open to debate. Some scholars view federalism as compatible only with certain forms of democracy, while others contend that true federal states must be democratic. The current global struggle for democracy to be examined during the 2005 annual meeting includes a search for governments that are effective, inclusive, and responsive. Governments constructed on federal principles of “shared rule, self-rule” offer officials and citizens flexibility in institutional arrangements and administrative operations that balance local autonomy with varying degrees of coordinated action necessary to address regional, national and supra-national issues. The capacity of federal forms to accommodate ethnic, religious, and social diversity while providing a politically acceptable framework for resolving conflict accounts for the growing world-wide appeal of federalism.

This year's theme of “Mobilizing Democracy” offers an excellent opportunity to explore various aspects of the relationship between democracy and federalism. Proposals providing theoretical insights into as well as empirical evidence on the interaction of democracy and federalism will be especially welcome. In particular, proposals are sought that address the compatibility of federalism and democracy, the ability of federalism to integrate diverse cultures into a functioning nation, and the difference federalism makes for modernization, citizen participation, and conflict reduction.

Traditional topics within federalism and intergovernmental relations can also illuminate the role of federalism in advancing the cause of democracy. Research proposals are sought on intergovernmental policymaking and program implementation, on fiscal, judicial, and regulatory federalism, and on emerging intersectoral collaboration and partnerships. Diversity of conceptual, methodological, and theoretical approaches is encouraged. The division also welcomes papers discussing normative issues at the intersection of democracy and federalism.

State Politics and Policy

Don Haider-Markel, University of Kansas prex@ku.edu

The American states represent perhaps the most intriguing area for the revitalization of American democracy. However, even as state institutions have become more representative and responsive, states have also increasingly become battlegrounds in national political debates, including education reform, same-sex marriage, and the cost of health care. And even as the field of state politics research has become reinvigorated, many empirical and normative questions regarding democracy in the states have remained unanswered. Therefore, we encourage research addressing the following issues, but all state politics and policy proposals will be considered. Do direct democracy mechanisms, including recall elections, that some states have constitute the ultimate in democratic institutions or simply their excesses? Given increasing rhetoric about state policy being made by judicial fiat, do we need to rethink the role of state courts and how we select judges? How do electoral institutions, and changes to existing laws and voting procedures, influence citizen participation and voting patterns? What is the current status of state parties versus interest groups in enhancing or detracting from democracy? As “laboratories of democracy,” have state, and even local, governments fulfilled the promises of America's founders, or having nationalizing forces and information sharing made the states more alike and less innovative? Likewise, has the evolving balance of power between states and the national government meant more top-down or bottom-up policymaking pressures, and what implications do either have for American democracy? Finally, as state officials tend to follow the whims of the majority, who gets left out of the process and what are the long term implications for state politics and policy?

Urban Politics

Michael Fauntroy, George Mason University mfauntro@gmu.edu J. Phillip Thompson, MIT, jt71@MIT.EDU

The power of city democratic institutions in the U.S. has increasingly been encroached upon by fiscal poverty and consequentially by economic imperatives to maintain and attract private businesses and investment. Basic questions now arise as to the capacity of local governments to maintain quality institutions (such as schools, libraries, parks, health clinics, housing, courts, enforcement agencies) and to support private businesses and networks of non-profit service intermediaries active in low-income neighborhoods. There is also concern that local government has been often been unable to prevent whole-scale abandonment of the poorest neighborhoods, and in some cases may even promote abandonment to encourage poor people to move out and to attract more affluent taxpaying residents. In response to these problems, some have argued for political reform to regionalize government across fiscally poor jurisdictions and wealthy suburbs. However, in addition to suburban resistance, this raises other questions regarding minority participation and voting power. Already, voter participation in low-income urban black communities is low, while the voting power of the rapidly burgeoning urban Latino population is severely diminished due to high-rates of non-citizenship and state restrictions on non-citizen voting. We therefore ask for papers to address the following questions:

1. Are regional governments desirable and politically realistic? If so, what kinds of regional electoral arrangements would best facilitate voter participation and voice? If regional governments are not desirable or politically realistic, what alternatives should be considered?
2. What role should non-citizen immigrants play in the local democratic process? What effect does the presence of large numbers of undocumented, politically-disempowered, workers have in city politics? What are the political implications of growing Latino populations but limited Latino political power in cities?
3. What kinds of political reforms are needed to strengthen democratic participation in elections, particularly in poor urban communities?
4. Does low voter turnout in local elections signal a need for alternative mechanisms for political engagement? What kinds of civic organizations and organizing methods best engage city residents, and develop their democratic capacities, in-between elections? How can they be nurtured in a period of city government retrenchment and fiscal constraint?
5. What should be done to address problems of social abandonment, long-term joblessness, crime, and institutional breakdown in the poorest urban neighborhoods?

Women and Politics

Lee Ann Banaszak, Pennsylvania State University lab14@psu.edu

This year's theme “Mobilizing Democracy” is particularly apt for the study of women and politics since issues of women's representation motivates most women and politics research. Women's under-representation in government and in the exercise of power vexes both established and new democracies raising many key research questions: What are women's political preferences and are they are represented in democratic governments; how do women in both elected and appointed positions in democracies represent women; how does institutional design gender democracy and constrain women's representation; and when and how can women best mobilize to influence democratic systems? Of course, gender intersects with other cleavages such as race or ethnicity, sexuality, class and religion, complicating issues of what women want, how they mobilize and whether they are represented. Even in non-democratic systems, issues of women's representation raise many questions including: When do women gain descriptive representation or manage to influence the agendas of authoritarian regimes? What role do women play in the outbreak of internal conflict or revolutionary, ethnic or nationalist movements and how is women's representation affected by these conflicts?

As always, this division invites all submissions that advance the study of women and politics. However, proposals for papers, panels, and round tables that critically explore the issues of women's representation are especially encouraged. I am particularly interested in papers that provide an innovative look at the topic through new theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence (both qualitative and quantitative). Proposals for interdisciplinary projects and joint sessions with other APSA divisions are also especially encouraged.

Race, Ethnicity, and Politics

Gary Segura, University of Iowa gary-segura@uiowa.edu Paula Mohan, University of Wisconsin, Whitewater mohanp@uww.edu

The theme of the 2005 meeting, “Mobilizing Democracy,” is particularly appropriate for scholars of Race and Ethnicity. For people of color, the stakes in ongoing struggles regarding the preservation, broadening and deepening of democratic institutions are quite high. Structural disparities based on race and ethnicity in economic equity, cultural positioning, and political participation continue despite the ideal of “equality of influence” for all citizens and call into question the inclusivity of democratic institutions in practice. Further, the foundational concepts of democratic processes: representation, governance, participation, and elections-(to name a few)- are all shaped by the particularizing influence of race and ethnicity both as a disabling force but also as the foundation for collective political power. The fluidity of racial and ethnic identity, coupled with the transformative power of diasporic and generational changes, contradicts the historically entrenched and the reified categories of ‘difference’, creating endless variations and opportunities for new political configurations and campaigns to achieve political goals. We seek to explore both dynamics.

Thus, the notion of “Mobilizing Democracy,” with its emphasis on agency, change, directed action, strategic engagement, and working to more clearly translate popular will into policy, is an especially good fit for Racial and Ethnic Politics with our critical focus on institutions and processes from the perspective of marginalized groups. We welcome papers, panels, roundtables, and Hyde Park sessions that focus on the relationship between race and ethnicity (broadly defined) and all variations and modes of political activity and inactivity as well as those that seek to explore how the basic concepts of democratic theory play out within and across racial and ethnic groups at both the macro and micro-political level. We especially welcome proposals that privilege praxis or engagement or those that explore a current debate or involve a contemporary issue. Panels and papers are welcome from a broad array of theoretical and methodological approaches, those that deal with the particularities of a single group as well as those that deal with comparisons between groups or across generations and using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies and data.

Religion and Politics

Jim Penning, Calvin College penn@calvin.edu

For the 2005 APSA, the Religion and Politics Section invites paper and panel proposals that address the connection between religion and politics employing a variety of theoretical and methodological approaches. Particularly welcome are proposals which (1) address issues related to the overall APSA Meeting theme, “Mobilizing Democracy” (2) offer fresh theoretical perspectives or methodological approaches or (3) have a comparative focus.

However, given the diversity of the field, proposals on a wide variety of topics are encouraged. These might include the roles of religious faith and religious communities in fostering or inhibiting democracy; possible connections between religion and violence or peace-making; the relationship between religion and electoral or legislative politics; the activity, fate, and efficacy of social movements with religious roots; the connection between faith and tolerance as well as other normative concerns; the role of religion in policy-making and the application of constitutional provisions to government and private activities concerning religion.

Representation and Electoral Systems

Richard Matland, University of Houston matland@uh.edu

We welcome proposals on a broad range of questions in the area of representation and electoral systems, looking both at the United States and other countries. As this conference's topic is mobilizing democracy, proposals for panels or papers dealing with the effects of electoral systems and electoral laws on various aspects of mobilization are particularly of interest. These could include studies of how electoral systems affect turnout and political interest, lead to variations in mobilization across different communities, and how electoral regulations promote or inhibit various types of political mobilization.

In addition, studies that assess the political consequences of electoral systems on representation of historically underrepresented groups, system legitimacy, and in terms of how electoral rules perform compared to the ideals found in normative theories of political representation are encouraged. Discussion of which electoral systems contribute to system stability in newly established democracies, especially in ethnically divided societies, would be particularly appreciated. We are also interested in analyses of the factors that explain the choice of electoral rules, i.e. the politics driving the choices that are made in the establishment of new electoral systems.

We would welcome papers that go beyond the act of voting when considering political mobilization. For example, does the massive grassroots fund raising efforts in the 2004 presidential primaries in the United States indicate a newly engaged and more mobilized public, or does it merely represent a more sophisticated manner of tapping the same resources and individuals? In general, the role of money and the regulation of money in political systems deserve greater consideration. What are the consequences of changes in the political financing system within the U.S. and other polities on mobilization and participation? In the United States, the Presidential and Congressional election rules produce completely uncompetitive elections in large parts of the country. What are the consequences of this, both in terms of political mobilization, and in terms of normative theories of political representation? Finally, papers taking a normative bent and applying theories of representation to a variety of relevant questions in the field, for example the appropriateness of various electoral system designs, or the consequences of the use of direct democracy institutions for the functioning of representative government, would be appreciated.

Political Organizations and Parties

Kevin Esterling, University of California, Riverside kevine@citrus.ucr.edu

This year's conference theme, “Mobilizing Democracy,” touches on many of the research interests of the political organizations and parties division. The freedom to form associations is one of the core principles of democracy, enabling some degree of mass participation, public debate, and accountability. At the same time, the warnings of Madison and Washington are still relevant in this day of seemingly unimpeded access and bitter partisanship. Under what conditions do political organizations and parties foster or impair democratic politics?

As always, the POP division invites all submissions that advance the systematic understanding of parties, social movements, and political organizations broadly understood. The division welcomes single country and comparative research, as well as all theoretical and methodological orientations. Papers exploring the role of political organizations and parties in mobilizing democracy are especially encouraged. Are there effects on social capital and trust, positive or negative, which come from embeddedness in various types of organizational social networks? Do elite debates help to mobilize expertise and improve the informedness of public policy? What role do groups and parties play in building new institutions of accountability and governance in emerging democracies?

This year, the POP division will strongly encourage panels to adopt a discursive structure, where presenters and discussants will give brief presentations and leave time for audience members to participate in the discussion. Because of this, the division particularly seeks interested people to serve as activist panel chairs who are willing to set firm time limits and to cajole panel-audience interaction.

Elections and Voting Behavior

Pippa Norris, Harvard University Pippa_Norris@Harvard.edu

The overall theme of the 2005 APSA program is Mobilizing Democracy. This theme is central to the research of the Section and we would welcome panels and papers on a range of topics concerning the following sorts of questions. What kinds of electoral systems are most suitable for overcoming ethnic conflict and promoting stability in deeply divided societies? What kinds of reforms facilitate elections which accurately and legitimately express public preferences, in established and new democracies alike, and what political coalitions are likely to bring about such reforms? How do the mechanics of registration and voting procedures influence electoral outcomes, and what changes these mechanics? What is the role, empirically or normatively, of collective actors and organizations such as labor unions, social movements, and parties in mobilizing electoral turnout? How do campaign finance regulations serve to either activate or depress participation? What are the newer opportunities for mobilizing democracies through protest politics and direct action, and what are the consequences of these developments for supplementing or displacing electoral channels of participation? Finally, can democratic institutions flourish in societies with few democratic traditions? Other panels & papers involving elections & political behavior, in both the domestic and international arenas, that do not touch on the topics described above are also welcome.

Public Opinion

Vincent Hutchings, University of Michigan vincenth@umich.edu

The overall theme of the 2005 APSA program is “Mobilizing Democracy.” This theme is central to the Public Opinion Section and we welcome panels and papers on a range of topics concerning the following sorts of questions. What are the attitudinal determinants of candidate preferences at the international, national, state, and local levels? What accounts for ethnic, racial, and gender differences in policy preferences? What role does the mass media play in informing and shaping public opinion? What accounts for the variation in political knowledge and what are the implications of this variance for our democratic system? What role do emerging technologies such as the Internet play in shaping public opinion? What effect have dramatic international events such as the war in Iraq or the war on terror had on public opinion? Other panels & papers involving public opinion, in both the domestic and international arenas, that do not touch on the topics described above are also welcome.

Political Communication

Scott Althaus, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign salthaus@uiuc.edu

Communication is the central feature of any effort to mobilize citizens in democratic societies. Indeed, its Latin root communicare means both to participate and to make common. But do our contemporary systems of political communication end up helping or hindering citizen involvement in politics? Has the emergence and maturation of “new” media like cable and the Internet provided novel ways for citizens to influence governments, or do these media encourage citizens to become ever less thoughtful about pressing issues of the day? Are parties, candidates, and interest groups using political communication to mobilize, pacify, or manipulate citizens?

Traditionally, our field has seen news as the core vehicle and elections as the central context for political communication. Proposals might consider new developments in electioneering, differences in the information flows produced by campaigns versus news outlets, how an adversarial and commercialized news system affects how parties and candidates mobilize voters, and implications arising from the increasingly fragmented, polarized and distracted audience for political communications. Our field has also been moving in new directions, and proposals might consider “soft” sources of political news such as entertainment shows, the growing prevalence of interactivity in mass communication flows, environmental factors that stimulate citizens to seek information about politics, the “bottom-up” flows of communication that convey the preferences of citizens to their governments, and new divisions of labor within the highly segmented and decentralized information systems common to advanced democracies.

Proposals that explore historical, cross-national, and philosophical perspectives on political communication are encouraged, as are those using unconventional approaches to study political communication. In your proposal, please detail why the proposed research is important, the relevant literature(s) which it addresses, its general methodological approach and data sources, and a rough sense of the hypotheses to be explored or argument to be developed.

Science, Technology and Environmental Politics

Mark Lubell, University of California, Davis mnlubell@ucdavis.edu Paul Sabatier, University of California, Davis pasabatier@ucdavis.edu

The 2005 theme of “Mobilizing Democracy” is an excellent opportunity for STEP scholars to demonstrate the importance their research to core questions in political science. We encourage papers that use quantitative and qualitative methodologies that pay attention to theory development, hypothesis testing, and research design. An emphasis on a social scientific approach to issues of democratic governance will increase this section's connection with the broader disciplinary discourse.

The section welcomes proposals along two broad themes. First, many STEP topics are experiencing the emergence of democratic institutions or some other type of institutional change. For example, there has been an explosion of local collaborative institutions for addressing environmental problems in the United States and several other OECD countries. In 1996, the National Research Council altered its recommended strategy for doing risk management from a “science first, then policy” model to a much more collaborative and iterative model. How do these new institutions function? What types of decisions do they produce? Do these new institutions lead to better science or more relevant science for policy processes and outcomes?

Second, science and technology are increasingly used to facilitate democratic decision-making. For example, computer models help decision-makers understand the potential outcomes of different policies. Scientific information about problem severity and causes has long been an important component of environmental policy-making. Following the conflict of the 2000 Presidential election, voting systems in the United States are undergoing a major infusion of new technology. How do these scientific and technological tools affect the attitudes and behaviors of political actors? How should these tools be integrated into democratic processes, and how do they affect the quality of decisions? Both of these themes emphasize the relevance of STEP for democratic governance across the globe.

Information Technology and Politics:

Alexandra Samuel, Harvard University alex@alexandrasamuel.com

In the relatively short period of time that information technology (IT) has been available, it has become generally accepted that IT has had, and continues to have, a significant and widespread influence on the political process. At the same time, there is no consensus regarding the broad impact of IT on the understanding and practice of politics, leading to intense debates over the meaning and impact of “e-democracy”, “e-voting” and “e-government.” These debates yield many research questions that directly speak to this year's APSA theme of “mobilizing democracy”.

These questions include: How does information technology help or hinder “mobilizing democracy”? Does IT offer countries the potential for “leapfrogging” to new levels of political and economic development, and how can this potential be realized? How can the Internet and other information and communication technologies be used to broaden and deepen citizen engagement? Will electronic voting create more fair and reliable outcomes? How does campaigning on the Internet affect public deliberation? Have computers fundamentally changed the creation of electoral districts and the resulting electoral competitions? How does the global reach of the Internet enable new cross-national forms of democratic mobilization, and how does this affect democratic processes within nation-states?

The Information Technology and Politics (ITP) section welcomes paper, panel, short course, roundtable, and poster session proposals that contribute to our understanding of these questions or to other ways in which information technology has exacerbated, mitigated, and/or fundamentally altered the existence and awareness of inequalities in the context of democracy, justice, and politics. The section encourages proposals that consider the evolving role of information technology at the local, national, and/or global level, as well as the theoretical and policy implications for interactions between these levels of governance.

In addition to proposals directly tied to the conference theme, we also invite presentations on innovative instructional and scholarly applications of IT. Especially encouraged are systematic analyses of the effects of using IT in the political science classroom, the profession, the scholarly community, scholarly communication, and publishing. Demonstrations of innovative instructional applications, such as dedicated course web sites, are generally excellent candidates for poster sessions. Hands on workshops to demonstrate innovative approaches to teaching, data collection, dissemination, or analysis, are highly appropriate candidates for short courses. Furthermore, we encourage presenters to make appropriate use of IT in their presentations when possible.

Politics and Literature

Eduardo Velasquez, Washington and Lee University velasqueze@wlu.edu

For all of the material benefits that accrue to citizens of liberal, democratic regimes, doubts persist about the goodness and viability of popular government. In the shadow of 9/11, recurring questions have been raised with new urgency about the capacity of an open and pluralistic society to defend itself against militant challenges to the principles and institutions of free government. Yet that same rise of patriotic fervor precipitated reactions (often virulent) against citizens who just hail from a religious, cultural, and ethnic background some would not consider “mainstream America.” It would seem then that James Madison's concern about the dangers of over-bearing majorities, and the threats posed to individuals and minorities of all kinds, is alive and well in the Twenty-First Century as it was in the Eighteenth. Madison anticipated the need of various precautions against majority rule, among them representative institutions and mechanisms through to filter, refine, temper and humanize popular opinion. What do we make of these representative institutions in the post 9/11 age? Are they sufficiently democratic to meet demands and needs of today's citizenry? Are they adequate to guard against the internal and external threats to free government, while at the same time laying claim to the respect of an increasingly diverse and multi-cultural citizenry? To the extent that democracy also lays claim to the aspirations of various peoples searching for freedom and prosperity, would the imposition or recreation of democratic institutions inspired by Western models alone provide the conditions for freedom? These are some of the questions that animate the theme of the 2005 APSA Annual Meeting, “Mobilizing Democracy.” We invite paper and panel proposals that deal with these and related questions as they are expressed, wrestled and dealt with in various cultural artifacts, among them, film, fiction, poetry, theater, television, and music. These cultural artifacts are arguably the primary means by which we detect the content and character of democratic sensibilities. They are also the means by which those very sentiments are educated and transformed.

New Political Science

Bradley Macdonald, Colorado State University bmacd@lamar.colostate.edu

As a section whose raison d'etre lies in the felt need to link scholarship within political science to the progressive goals of democracy, liberty, and justice, we are particularly excited by this year's theme. We will be looking for papers and panels that discuss and critically analyze the conditions for enacting and sustaining democracy, the latter widely construed to include both political institutions and extra-institutional practices and discourses.

In this respect, we would like to see discussions and presentations that explore how political science as a discipline can be better utilized to engage and engender democratic discourses and practices. If we, as scholars, are concerned about democracy as an ideal and a practice, what methods and conceptual strategies should we employ? If actually existing liberal democracies fall short of deeper, more radical, forms of democracy, what should be our position as engaged scholars? How can we think about and analyze democracy in such a way that we are continually open to the diverse, multi-layered, struggles for democracy transpiring in our increasingly globalized world?

While these issues may seem abstract and theoretical, we are interested that such discussions take into consideration the political, social, and economic conditions in which democratic practices can be understood. Thus, we would be interested in papers and panels that explore the following issues and themes, to name a few: the role of anti-globalism movements in engendering democracy on a global scale; the way in which feminist, anti-racist, gay and lesbian, and indigenous political movements, etc., are conceiving, contesting, and expanding the ideals and practices of democracy; the dilemmas associated with the current US neoconservative policies on “mobilizing democracy” in Iraq and in the Middle East in general; the way in which “democracy” is being deployed in various contexts in ways that are ultimately destructive of democratic aims; and, the connections between instituting democratic ideals and transforming the capitalist economy.

International History and Politics

Emily Goldman, University of California, Davis eogoldman@ucdavis.edu

In conjunction with the conference theme, “Mobilizing Democracy,” the International History and Politics (IHAP) section welcomes paper, panel, roundtable, and poster-session proposals that examine democracy as cause and effect from an historical perspective. As effect, the section welcomes proposals investigating the circumstances or conditions leading to the emergence, development and breakdown of democratic political institutions and norms. Since the history of democratization suggests that failure may be as likely as success, the section especially encourages proposals that address ways to use information about past attempts at nation building to create stable democratic societies and institutions in places like Iraq; and that systematically analyze the successes or failures of past examples at nation building and their relevance for the present. With respect to democracy as cause, the section welcomes proposals that address how democratic institutions and norms have affected economic, military, and political relations between states. In addition to proposals directly tied to the conference theme, the section welcomes all proposals that lie at the intersection of international history and politics.

Comparative Democratization

Eva Bellin, Hunter College, CUNY ebellin@hunter.cuny.edu

In line with the APSA 2005 conference theme “Mobilizing Democracy” the division on comparative democratization welcomes papers that return to the foundational questions of the section, namely, the institutional, cultural, social structural, and international determinants of democratic transition and consolidation. Of particular, though by no means exclusive, interest is the explanatory range of these variables and the universality of their reach versus their containment to particular historical and geographical contexts. Does comparison across time and space suggest that certain variables are decisive at some points and places and not others? (For example, does ethnic fragmentation constitute more of an obstacle to democratization in one region rather than another? Does economic development improve the quality of democracy more in one period than another?) Are epochal and regional patterns salient and if so why? Participants are encouraged to incorporate inter-regional and/or inter-temporal comparison into individual papers or to structure a set of papers around such comparison to form integrated panels. As ever, the division embraces methodological diversity and encourages a mix of approaches: large-n comparison, comparative historical analysis, as well as in-depth case studies to illuminate the dynamics of democracy.

Human Rights

Mark Gibney, University of North Carolina, Asheville mgibney@unca Clair Apodaca, Florida International University Clair.Apodaca@fiu.edu Henry Chip Carey, Georgia State University polhfc@panther.gsu.edu

Papers and panels that address central topics related to the study of democracy and its impact on human rights are solicited. Human rights are broadly defined to include such categories of rights as political, civil, personal integrity, economic, social, group or cultural rights. Human rights advocates, legal scholars and politicians have posited the primacy of democracy as fundamental to the protection and promotion of human rights. We live in a world where there are a myriad of international human rights standards and a much touted spread of democracy, but where the protection of human rights remains tenuous at best.

The overarching theme of the Human Rights Section papers and panels will be the disconnect between the promise of human rights and the reality of human rights protection in an era of expanded democracy. There are several sub-themes. The first sub-theme is the relationship between human rights and democracy. These two concepts are commonly viewed as going hand-in-hand, but there are also many times when the two notions are at odds with one another. A second sub-theme is the relationship between human rights and political terrorism. Is terrorism the negation of human rights? Or could this be an indication that human rights have not been protected? A third sub-theme is the concept of human rights and democratization of allegedly non-democratic countries. More particularly, is the theorized relationship between human rights and democratization little more than a Western construct? A fourth sub-theme is the relationship between the measurement of rights or democracy and the protection of human rights. The final sub-theme is the international enforcement of human rights. Can the establishment of formal legal institutions (courts, independent judiciaries, political parties, electoral processes, etc.) prevent human rights violations? Or, to put it another way, how can the promise of the rule of law, democracy, human rights and political reality all be reconciled?

Qualitative Methods

Gary Goertz, University of Arizona Ggoertz@email.arizona.edu Ted Hopf, Ohio State University hopf.2@osu.edu

The new Organized Section on Qualitative Methods welcomes panel proposals and papers focused on the broad spectrum of research tools associated with qualitative methodology. These include but are not limited to: the case study method; small-N analysis; concept analysis; the logic of inquiry; comparative and historical methods; constructivism; and interpretive methods. We also encourage proposals that explore commonalities and contrasts among different qualitative methods, and among qualitative and quantitative methods. We welcome submissions from all subfields of political science: international relations, comparative politics, American politics, and political theory. Also welcome are proposals for complete panels. In addition, we encourage paper or panel proposals that deal with recent symposia in the qualitative methods newsletter, e.g., content analysis, discourse analysis, field research, interpretive methods, and the like.

The overall theme for APSA 2005 is “Mobilizing Democracy”. We encourage proposals that deal with the methodology of conceptualizing or measuring democracy, along with topics that examine theories with strong links to qualitative methods such path dependency, critical junctions, punctuated equilibrium and comparative historical methods in general. In particular, we encourage proposals that deal the historical and/or temporal dimensions of theory or method that are often downplaying in traditional quantitative methods.

Guidelines for Participation

When submitting panel and individual paper proposals, keep in mind the five participation rules developed by the APSA Council.

Rule #1 Participation Limitation

Participation in the Annual Meeting is limited to two (2) appearances on sessions organized by the APSA Program Committee, Organized Sections, and Related Groups. An appearance may take the form of paper or roundtable presenter, discussant, or chair. Appearances in workshops, poster sessions, evening sessions, and panels sponsored or co-sponsored by the Annual Meeting program chair(s) do not count against the participation limit.

If a person is appearing during a panel session as a paper giver, roundtable presenter, or discussant, serving as chair of the same session does not count as an additional appearance. A person may appear on the program only once as the sole author of a paper unless one of his/her single-authored papers is on a panel organized by Division 9: Teaching and Learning in Political Science or Division 10: Undergraduate Education.

Rule #2 Preregistration

The APSA Council requires all program participants to preregister by April 30, 2005. Participants who do not preregister by April 30 will not be listed in the Preliminary Program. Participants added to the program after April 30 should pre-register within 10 days of their notification.

Rule #3 Exempt Participants

Prospective participants may request of a division chair or panel organizer an exemption from the preregistration requirement if they are:

A) not a political scientist;

B) appearing on only one panel; and

C) not an exempt participant in 2004.

An exempt participant receives a badge for admission to all Annual Meeting activities but will not receive an Annual Meeting Program or the reduced hotel rate.

Rule #4 Paper Delivery

As a paper presenter, you have two important obligations:

1) to ensure that the members of your panel, especially discussants, receive your paper in time to read it carefully prior to the meeting; and

2) to submit your paper to PROceedings, APSA's online collection of Annual Meeting papers.

Rule #5 Panel Schedule

Panels are scheduled in fourteen (14) time slots beginning at 8:00 a.m. on Thursday and concluding at 12:00 p.m. on Sunday. Participants are expected to be available for any of the fourteen time slots.

If your schedule is limited by a teaching or travel constraint, inform the division chair or panel organizer upon your acceptance as a participant, or by March 1, 2005.

2004 Proposal Submission Process

All proposals submitted through the 2005 Annual Meeting Call for Papers system will be acknowledged immediately upon receipt and tracked by an ID number. Notification of acceptance and rejection will be done electronically in February 2005. Please pay special attention to the submission instructions below.

Submission Requirements [established by the APSA Committee on the Annual Meeting]

• You may submit up to two papers or two organized panel proposals. Additional proposals from the same author or organizer will not be accepted.
• You may submit each proposal to no more than two Divisions.
• All paper proposals will be considered for poster presentation.
• All submissions must be received electronically by November 15, 2004.

Confirmation of Proposal Receipt at APSA

• All electronic proposal submissions will receivea uninumber and email confirmation within 24 hours. Please print the confirmation page and ID number for future reference.
• Please contact the APSA office at meeting@apsanet. if you do not receive an email confirmation of your submission within 24 hours.

Acceptance Notification

In early March 2005, you will receive an acceptance or rejection email from the division chair for each proposal you submitted. If accepted for a panel or poster presentation, the email will indicate the division for which you are accepted.

If your proposal is not immediately accepted for a panel or poster, you may be contacted at a later date serve as a chair or discussant. You will receive additional detailed information regarding your panel or poster session from the division chair.