Bingham Powell

http://www.jstor.org

Association NewsSource: PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 28, No. 4, (Dec., 1995), pp. 751-760+764-793Published by: American Political Science AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/420533Accessed: 16/06/2008 15:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=apsa.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We enable the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.org/stable/420533?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=apsa

Association News

Arend Lijphart, A Profile

Peter Gourevitch, University of California, San Diego Gary Jacobson, University of California, San Diego

How did Arend Lijphart come to be the world's leading theorist of democracy in sharply divided societies? Perhaps because he grew up in one. Holland is cleaved by deep religious and political divisions; it makes democracy work by formally incorporating its divisions into its representative institutions. Growing up there exposed Lijphart to processes that political scientists raised in, for example, the United States-a far more splintered and individualistic polity-rarely en- counter. So, absorbing the Dutch experience, Lijphart developed ideas about democracy so resonant that they have been published in English, Japanese, Arabic, Spanish, Polish, Turkish, and Portuguese. Or perhaps Lijphart's theories arose out of his university experiences: Berkeley in the sixties, Lei- den in the seventies-places that defined the turmoil of those years, ground-zero of student unrest and protest. Lijphart was assistant, then associate professor at Berke- ley, and chair at Leiden-time enough to wonder about conflict, choice, democracy, and institutions. Yet millions have grown up in sharply divided societies, and thousands experienced the campus wars of the 1960s and 1970s without distilling their experiences into an original conception of democracy. Lijphart's intellectual acuity, deep commitment to making democracy practical, and astonishing scholarly energy thus deserve at least equal credit. The career record is remarkable. Lijphart's oeuvre includes more than a dozen books and ten times that many scholarly articles, published all over the world. The Klingemann

survey ranks him among the top five most cited comparativists (1989, 258-70).

Perhaps foremost among Lijp- hart's contributions to understanding how democracies work, and certainly the best known, is his consociational (sometimes labled "power sharing") model of democracy. He presented the core statement of his consociational theory most fully in Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Explora- tion (1977), though Netherlands specialists and readers of Dutch already knew what was coming. The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the' Netherlands (1968) and Verzuiling, Pacificatie en kentering in de Ned- erlandse politiek (1968, now in its ninth edition, 1992) foreshadowed the larger argument. Lijphart ar- gued that, although deeply divided societies face special challenges in trying to sustain stable democratic polities, they can succeed if they devise institutional mechanisms that induce cooperation and protect minority interests. In Lijphart's own words.

[T]he two principal and complemen- tary characteristics of consociational democracy are grand coalition and segmented autonomy: shared decision making by representatives of all significant segments with regard to matters of common concern and autonomous decision making by and for each separate segment on all other issues. Two additional characteristics are proportionality in political representation, civil service appointments, and the allocation of public funds, and the minority veto for the protection of vital minority interests. A possible variant of strict proportionality is deliberate minority over-representation. In all four re-

Arend Lijphart

spects, consociational democracy contrasts sharply with majority rule democracy (Oxford Companion to Politics of the World 1993, 188-89).

Lijphart traces the term "consociationalism" back to Althusius in the early seventeenth century and, more recently, to David Apter, both of whom used it as a reference to federalism. Lijphart gave it its current meaning and its current widespread usage. By doing so, he expanded discussion of democracy beyond the narrow Anglo-American focus on autonomous individual citizens. His analysis reminded us that individuals are often bound politically, sometimes with great intensity, to specific social groups, and that making democracy work therefore requires thinking about how to reconcile conflicts among major social groupings as well as among individuals and more nar- rowly focused interest groups.

December 1995 751

Association News

While continuing to refine his analysis of consociationalism, Lijp- hart went on to explore a variety of other aspects of democratic polities. In Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Gov- ernment in Twenty One Countries (1984), he showed that while democratic institutions differ in a great many respects, these differences can be reduced to two basic dimen- sions. First is the distinction between majoritarianism vs. consensus building systems. The former are characterized by majoritarian electoral rules, two-party systems, and single-party governments, the latter by proportional representation, multiparty systems, and coalition governments. Second is the distinction between unitary and federal systems, between central- ized polities with unicameral legis- latures operating under flexible constitutions and decentralized polities with strong bicameral legisla- tures operating under rigid constitutional rules. The majoritarian model has remained the dominant normative model of democracy, even though the consensus model de- picts democracy as it is much more widely practiced.

The insights Lijphart drew from this analysis inspired his subsequent argument that presidential systems should be seen in terms of the majoritarian-consensus contrast, and, in that context, presidentialism is primarily a majoritarian institution. In his long introduc- tion to Parliamentary versus Presidential Government (1992), Lijphart draws precise definitions of presidentialism, semi-presidentialism, and parliamentarism pre- cisely as a basis for evaluating their advantages and disadvantages and assesses the limited systematic empirical evidence currently available. Ultimately, he concludes (in "Con- stitutional Choices for New De- mocracies") that parliamentarism and proportional representation are the better options for new democracies.

Lijphart's enduring concern with electoral systems culminated recently in Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty Seven Democracies, 1945-1990 (1994), a comprehensive examina-

tion of the impact of electoral systems on the disproportionality of electoral outcomes and on the party systems. The book is based on analyses of all elections in the 1945-1990 period in all 24 democracies that have been continuously democratic since or shortly after 1945 plus Spain, Portugal, and Greece. Lijphart finds that electoral systems have a very strong influence on electoral disproportionality and a moderately strong influence on party systems (the number of parties and the creation of majority parties). The most influential char- acteristic of electoral systems is the combination of district magnitude (the average number of representatives elected per district) and electoral threshold. The electoral for- mula (plurality, majority, or the various forms of proportional representation) comprises the second most influential dimension. Four additional factors also have significant explanatory power: the size of the legislature, ballot structure (whether or not voters can split their votes among two or more parties), presidentialism (whether or not presidential elections are conducted simultaneously with legislative elections) and the formation of formal interparty electoral alli- ances, technically called "apparen- tements."

This monumental work now stands as the most fully developed and important statement on its subject. The process by which the data were assembled also made an innovative contribution to the method of comparative politics. Lijphart recruited a team of experts on each of the 27 countries who provided essential data, interpretations, and feedback on the rules and operation of the electoral systems in their countries. Lijphart's strategy for the comparative study of a rela- tively large number of countries thus steered a middle course between the inevitably diffuse many- author project and the more cohesive, but necessarily more su- perficial, single-author project. It stands as a model for future large- scale comparative research. His ideas are central to the ongoing de- bates about how to design successful democratic institutions. He has

served as an advisor on constitutional and electoral law matters to four governments on three conti- nents: Israel, Lebanon, Chile, and South Africa) and to the U.S. State Department, which has sought his advice on South Africa, Angola, voting rules in Fiji, and voting patterns in the UN General Assembly. None of this activity has slowed Lijphart's research. He is currently working on a project on constitutional design and government performance that includes more than 30 democracies in its data set.

We have only sampled the high- lights of Lijphart's remarkable body of work; numerous articles and volumes deepen, elaborate, and extend the writings we have mentioned here. There is one final three-star article that deserves special acknowledgement, however: the classic "Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method" (1971), which has taught a genera- tion of comparativists how to design research projects.

Lijphart's contribution to political science extend far beyond his scholarship. He has served as vice president of both the American Po- litical Science Association and the International Political Science As- sociation. He helped found the APSA Section on Representation and Electoral Systems. He has served on the editorial boards of the American Political Science Re- view, the British Journal of Politi- cal Science, Comparative Political Studies, Electoral Studies, the Journal of Conflict Resolution, Government and Opposition, and the Review of Politics. He has ad- vised the National Science Founda- tion, the German Marshall Fund, the Fulbright program, the Guggen- heim Foundation, the Social Sci- ence Research Council, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and the Social Research Council of the United Kingdom. He has, in short, been an exemplary citizen of the profession throughout his career.

Lijphart's accomplishments have been acknowledged by a variety of awards and honors. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Nether- lands Academy of Sciences and has

PS: Political Science & Politics 752

Association News

been both a Guggenheim Fellow and a German Marshall Fund Fel- low. He was the first recipient of the Hendrick Muller Prize in the Social Behavioral Sciences, the Netherlands' highest award in the social sciences in 1992, and was awarded the Stein Rokkan Lecture- ship, the highest honor in European political science, by the European Consortium for Political Research in 1993.

Lijphart is a wonderful colleague-generous with his time to his department and the University of California, San Diego, commit- ted to his students, and a voice of fairness and reason in department and university deliberations. The concern with democratic practice that permeates. Lijphart's scholarship carries over into the way he conducts his life.

Arend Lijphart has devoted his career to the study of democracy. He has recast the way we think about it and the way we study it. His work will endure as long as democracies endure, for it addresses the continuing challenges that they must continually over- come to survive and prosper.

References and Selected Publications Bakker, E.A., and Arend Lijphart. 1980. "A

Crucial Test of Alphabetic Voting: The Elections at the University of Leiden, 1973-1978." British Journal of Political Science 10(4):521-25.

Crepaz, Markus M.L., and Arend Lijphart. 1995. Linking and Integrating Corporat- ism and Consensus Democracy: Theory, Concepts and Evidence." British Journal of Political Science 25(2):281-88.

Grofman, Bernard, Arend Lijphart, R.B. McKay, H.A. Scarrow, eds. 1982. Rep- resentation and Redistricting Issues. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Grofman, Bernard, and Arend Lijphart, eds. 1986. Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequences. New York: Agathon Press.

Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Bernard Grof- man, and Janet Compagna. 1989, "The Political Science 400: Citations by Ph.D. Cohort and by Ph.D.-Granting Institu- tion." PS: Political Science & Politics 21(1):258-69.

Lijphart, Arend. 1966. The Trauma of De- colonization: The Dutch and West New Guinea. New Haven: Yale University Press.

. ed. [1966] 1971. World Politics: The Writings of Theorists and Practitioners, Classical and Modern. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

. [1968] 1975. The Politics of Accom- modation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands. Berkeley: University of California Press.

. [1968] 1992. Verzuiling, pacificatie en kentering in de Nederlandse politiek. Amsterdam: De Bussy.

-. 1968. "Typologies of Democratic Systems." Comparative Political Studies 1(1):3-44.

. 1969. "Consociational Democracy." World Politics 21(2):207-25.

. 1971. "Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method." American Politi- cal Science Review 65(3):682-93.

. 1972. "Toward Empirical Demo- cratic Theory: Research Strategies and Tactics." Comparative Politics 4(3):417- 32.

. 1974. "The Structure of the Theo- retical Revolution in International Rela- tions." International Studies Quarterly 18(1):41-74.

. 1975. "The Northern Ireland Prob- lem: Cases, Theories, and Solutions." British Journal of Political Science 5(1): 83-106.

Lijphart, Arend, and J.A. Caporaso, eds. 1975. "Symposium on Comparative Methodology." Comparative Political Studies 8(2):131-99.

Lijphart, Arend. 1975. "The Comparable- Case Strategy in Comparative Research." Comparative Political Studies 8(2):158- 77.

. 1977. "Political Theories and the Explanation of Ethnic Conflict in the Western World: Falsified Predictions and Plausible Postdictions." In Ethnic Con- flict in the Western World, ed. M.J. Es- man. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

. 1977. Democracy in Plural Societ- ies: A Comparative Exploration. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Lijphart, Arend, and R.W. Gibberd. 1977. "Thresholds and Payoffs in List Systems of Proportional Representation." Euro- pean Journal of Political Research 5(3): 219-44.

Lijphart, Arend. 1979. "Religious vs. Lin- guistic vs. Class Voting: The 'Crucial Experiment' of Comparing Belgium, Canada, South Africa, and Switzerland." American Political Science Review 73(2): 442-58.

. 1979. "Consociation and Federa- tion: Conceptual and Empirical Links." Canadian Journal of Political Science 12(3):499-515.

---. 1980. "Federal, Confederal, and Consociational Options for the South Af- rican Plural Society." In Conflict and Compromise in South Africa, eds. R.I. Rotberg and J. Barratt, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

---. 1980. "The Structure of Inference." In The Civic Culture Revisited, eds. G.A. Almond and Sidney Verba. Boston: Lit- tle, Brown.

. 1980. "Language, Religion, Class and Party Choice: Belgium, Canada,

Switzerland and South Africa Com- pared." In Electoral Participation: A Comparative Analysis, ed. R. Rose. Bev- erly Hills: Sage.

. 1981. "Karl W. Deutsch and the New Paradigm in International Relations." In From National Development to Global Community: Essays in Honor of Karl W. Deutsch, eds. R.L. Merritt and B.M. Russett. London: Allen and Unwin.

. 1981. Political Parties: Ideologies and Programs." In Democracy at the Polls: A Comparative Study of Competi- tive National Elections, eds. D. Butler, H.R. Penniman, and A. Ranney. Wash- ington: American Enterprise Institute.

. "Consociational Theory: Problems and Prospects." Comparative Politics 13(3):355-60.

. 1981. "Power-Sharing versus Major- ity Rule: Patterns of Cabinet Formation in Twenty Democracies." Government and Opposition 16(4):395-413.

. 1982. "Governing Natal-KwaZulu: Some Suggestions." In The Require- ments for Stability and Development in KwaZulu and Natal, Buthelezi Commis- sion Report. Durban: H & H Publica- tions.

. 1982. "The Relative Salience of the Socio-Economic and Religious Issue Di- mensions: Coalition Formations in Ten Western Democracies, 1919-1979." Eu- ropean Journal of Political Research 10(3):201-11.

. 1984. Democracies: Patterns of Ma- joritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-one Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.

. "Advances in the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems." World Pol- itics 36(3):424-36.

Lijphart, Arend and Bernard Grofman, eds. 1984. Choosing an Electoral System: Is- sues and Alternatives. New York: Prae- ger.

Lijphart, Arend, ed. 1984. "New Approaches to the Study of Cabinet Coalitions." In Comparative Political Studies 17(2): 155- 279.

. 1984. "The Pattern of Electoral Rules in the United States: A Devient Case Among the Industrialized Democra- cies." Government and Opposition 20(1): 18-28.

. 1985. Power-Sharing in South Af- rica. Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, University of California.

Lijphart, Arend, T.C. Bruneau, P.N. Dia- mandouros, and R. Gunther. 1988. "A Mediterranean Model of Democracy? The Southern European Democracies in Comparative Perspective." In West Eu- ropean Politics 11(1):7-25.

Lijphart, Arend. 1989. "From the Politics of Accommodation to Adversarial Politics in the Netherlands: A Reassessment." West European Politics 12(1): 139-53.

. 1989. "Democratic Political Sys- tems: Types, Cases, Causes, and Conse- quences." Journal of Theoretical Politics 1(1):33-48.

. 1990. "The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws, 1945-85." American Political Science Review 84(2):481-96.

December 1995 753

Association News

. 1990. "The Southern European Ex- amples of Democratization: Six Lessons for Latin America." Government and Opposition 25(1):68-84.

. 1991. "Constitutional Choices for New Democracies." Journal of Democ- racy 2(1):72-84.

Lijphart, Arend, and M.M.L. Crepaz. 1991. "Corporatism and Consensus Democracy in Eighteen Countries: Conceptual and Empirical Linkages." British Journal of Political Science 21(2):235-46.

Lijphart, Arend. 1991. "Majority Rule in Theory and Practice: The Tenacity of a Flawed Paradigm." International Social Science Review 129:483-93.

. ed. 1992. Parliamentary versus Presidential Government. Oxford: Ox- ford University Press.

. 1992. "Democratization and Consti- tutional Choices in Czecho-Slovakia, Hungary, and Poland, 1989-1991," Jour- nal of Theoretical Politics 4(2):207-23.

. 1994. "Presidentialism and Majori- tarian Democracy: Theoretical Observa- tions" in The Failure of Presidential De- mocracy, eds. Juan J. Linz and Arturo Valenzuela. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

. 1994. Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven De- mocracies, 1945-1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

. 1994. "Democracies: Forms, Perfor- mance, and Constitutional Engineering." European Journal of Political Research 25(1):1-17.

. 1994. "On S.E. Finer's Electoral Theory." Goverment and Opposition 29(5):623-36.

Lijphart, Arend. 1995. "The Virtues of Par- liamentarism: But Which Kind of Parlia- mentarism?" In Politics, Society, and Democracy: Comparative Studies, eds. H.E. Chehabi and Alfred Stepan. Boul- der, CO: Westview Press.

. N.d. "Back to Basics: Who Really Practices Majority Rule?" In Democra- cy's Victory and Crisis, ed. Axel Hade- nius. Cambridge University Press. Forth- coming.

N.d. "About Peripheries, Centers, and Other Autobiographical Reflec- tions." In The Intellectual Autobiogra- phy of Comparative European Politics, ed. Hans Daalder. London: Frances Pinter. Forthcoming.

. N.d. "SNTV and STV Compared: Their Political Consequences in Japan, Ireland, and Malta." In Elections in Ja- pan, Korea, and Taiwan Under the Sin- gle Non-Transferable Vote: The Compar- ative Study of an Embedded Institution, eds. Bernard Grofman, Sung-Chull Lee, Edwin Winckler, and Brian Woodall. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Forthcoming.

Taylor, P.J., and Arend Lijphart. 1985. "Proportional Tenure vs. Proportional Representation: Introducing a New De- bate." European Journal of Political Re- search 13(4):387-99.

The Windy City Favors the 1995 Annual Meeting

At its new location in the Chi- cago Hilton and Towers, the 1995 Annual Meeting drew record-setting crowds second only to the exceptional 1994 New York meeting. With 5,559 attendees in 1995, the meeting surpassed the 1993 Wash- ington meeting [5,151] and out- shone the 1992 meeting [4,998], the last held in Chicago.

Credit for the attractiveness of the meeting to APSA members is due to the Program Committee co- chairs, Mary Fainsod Katzenstein of Cornell University and Peter J. Katzenstein of Cornell University, and the 46 division chairs of the Program Committee, as well as the 46 Related Group organizers. Pan- els and roundtables organized by the Program Committee, Related Groups, and APSA generated a meeting of 650 panels. It is possible to appreciate the size and complex- ity of the APSA meeting by comparing it to the numbers of panels offered at the annual meetings of our sister associations. Using 1994 data, and an APSA meeting of 620 panels over the course of 3.5 days, Anthropology's meeting offered 372

panels spread over 4.5 days; Geog- raphy, 560 panels over 4 days; His- tory, 148 panels over 3 days; and Sociology, 386 panels over 5 days.

Mary Katzenstein and Peter Katzenstein selected Liberalism at Century's End as the meeting's theme. Its relevance is attested to by the fact that 8 of the 10 most highly attended panels were organized around the theme. The largest single session being the roundtable, The End of Liberalism? Presidential Leadership and the 1994 Midterm Elections organized by Stanley Renshon of the City University of New York in the program division on presidency research chaired by Lyn Ragsdale of the University of Arizona.

Among the other program high- lights were Sidney Verba's Presi- dential Address, The Citizen as Re- spondent: Surveys, Representation, and American Democracy, to be featured in the March issue of the American Political Science Review. Other notable addresses include the first Ithiel de Sola Pool Lecture by Robert D. Putnam of Harvard Uni- versity, Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of So- cial Capital in America [featured in this issue of PS], and the John Gaus Lecture by Charles E. Lind- blom of Yale University, Market

APSA Book Exhibit-the largest such exhibit in the world


Association News

William Kristol

and Democracy-Obliquely [also featured in this issue of PS].

The 1995 Meeting also successfully integrated a variety of new or improved offerings: pre-convention short courses, a departmental chairs conference, "Hyde Park" sessions, poster sessions, and a record number of receptions and affiliated functions.

Poster Sessions

A poster session was organized by the Public Policy Division, chaired by David J. Webber of the University of Missouri, Columbia. Poster sessions offer a unique vi- sual aid to paper presenters and a one-on-one opportunity for attendees to discuss the work presented. Plans are already afoot for several program divisions to offer poster sessions at the 1996 Annual Meet- ing in San Francisco.

Hyde Park Sessions

First introduced at the 1993 An- nual Meeting, "Hyde Park" sessions enlivened the 1995 meeting. Three sessions were presented. How Angry is the Electorate? was moderated by Catherine E. Rudder of the APSA and included E.J. Dionne Jr. of the Washington Post, author of Why Americans Hate

Politics [1991]; To Die for What? Good and Bad Arguments for Us- ing American Troops in the Post- Cold War World, moderated by Peter Gourevitch of the University of California, San Diego; and Is There a Right to Discriminate Against Gays and Lesbians?, moderated by Martin Shapiro of the University of California, Berkeley. The sessions record audiences [75- 100].

Conference for Departmental Chairs

The fourth annual Conference for Departmental Chairs offered sessions on sources of data on political science faculty and programs; preparing for and evaluating under-

graduate teaching; organizing an external departmental review; and subtle discrimination in academic life. Participation in the Chairs Conference increases yearly as the Association's Departmental Ser- vices Committee responds to the need to assist political science chairs with information on the discipline and developments in higher education.

The 1995 sessions were well attended and provided information to assist political science chairpersons in resource acquisition and allocation, planning and evaluating programs, and constructing collegial, productive climates. The fall issue of "For the Chair. ..." will feature summaries of the Chairs Con- ference Session. This newsletter is distributed directly to political sci-

Luis Fraga (1) presents Career Achievement Award to Charles L. Cotrell.

The Committee on the Status of Latinos in the Profession honored two Latino political scientists at the annual meeting in Chicago. The first award went to Charles L. Cotrell, Vice President for Academic Affairs, St. Mary's University in San Antonio, TX. Cotrell received a Lifetime Achievement Award for his activism and for encouraging, promoting, and mentoring of Latinos and Latinas in the profession. He has also been active in promoting voting rights and affirmative action in the profession. Luis Fraga, chair, presented the award. The Committee also gave a posthumous award to Ralph Guzman, first chair of the Chicano/ Latino Committee, and former Chancellor, University of California- Santa Cruz. Guzman was honored for his activism and scholarship.

December 1995 755

Association News

I

Black Women in the Profession and Women's Caucus for Political Science Reception honoring black women in the profession. From right to left: Katie Tyler, Brandeis University; Maria Niles, University of Chicago; Patricia A. Garcia-Monet, Rice University; Michelle Boyd, Northwestern University; Georgia Persons, Georgia Institute of Technology; LaVonna Blair, Rice University; Toni-Michelle Travis, George Mason University; and Tabatha Robinson, Northwestern University.

ence departmental chairpersons who are asked to make it available to their faculty.

Related Groups

Always an integral and exciting element of the Annual Meeting, Related Group Organizers met with APSA officers and staff for the first of what will become annual events. The informal session offered Re- lated Group organizers an open forum to address problems and opportunities faced when putting together their group programs.

Large Audiences Drawn to 1995 Panels

Despite sunny skies, mild tem- peratures, and the Chicago Jazz Festival, over 650 panels at the 1995 Annual Meeting attracted consistently high attendance.

Among the program divisions,

five led average weighted attendance: Foundations of Political Theory [45.1] organized by Stephen K. White of Virginia Tech; Interna- tional Political Economy [42.9] organized by Louis W. Pauly of the University of Toronto; Politics and Literature [42.3] organized by Diana J. Schaub of Loyola College; Elections and Electoral Behavior [38.9] organized by Michael B. MacKuen of the University of Mis- souri, St. Louis; and Political Economy [37.1] organized by Barry Weingast of Stanford University.

Among groups of panels organized by related groups, those drawing the highest attendance included: the Association for the Study of Nationalities [44.2] organized by Lowell W. Barrington of the University of Michigan; The Claremont Institute [34.1] organized by Douglas Jeffrey and Julie A. Kessler; Conference Group on the Middle East [32.1] organized by Louis J. Cantori at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County;

and the Eric Voegelin Society [31.9] organized by Ellis Sandoz of Loui- siana State University.

The theme of the meeting, Liber- alism at Century's End, was the topic at eight of the ten most highly attended panels. The largest audience recorded [269] was drawn by a roundtable, The End of Liberal- ism? Presidential Leadership and the 1994 Midterm Elections. The roundtable featured Stanley Ren- shon of the City University of New York, William Kristol, Editor of The Standard, and Stephen Wayne of Georgetown University.

Second in attendance was the roundtable, Looking Back on Theo- dore Lowi's The End of Liberalism, chaired by Stephen Skowronek of Yale University. Participants included Robert Dahl of Yale Univer- sity, Margaret Weir of the Brook- ings Institution, Ira Katznelson of Columbia University, Karen Orren of UCLA, and Theodore Lowi of Cornell University.

The largest audience at a panel


Association News

Alan Rosenthal receives the 1995 Charles E. Merriam Award from Program Co-Chair Mary Fainsod Katzenstein. Katzenstein hosted the Presentation of Awards Ceremony with her Program Co-Chair Peter J. Katzenstein.

with a paper presented was Liber- alism and the American Political Condition, chaired by Jane Mans- bridge of Northwestern University. The paper presented was authored by Michael Sandel of Harvard Uni- versity, and discussed by Richard Rorty of the University of Virginia.

Other "top ten" panels included Liberalism and Its Alternative in International Relations: Are Para- digmatic and Methodological De- bates Obsolete? (organized by In- ternational Political Economy); The Critique of Liberalism at Century's End and Roundtable on Nietzsche and Liberalism (organized by Foun- dations of Political Theory); and Roundtable on Trust as a Political Variable (organized by Political Economy.)

Association Distributes Annual Awards

The 1995 APSA Awards Cere- mony, held August 31, featured a slate of 19 awards, including the

presentation of one new and one revived award. Robert D. Putnam, Harvard University, was selected as winner of the inaugural Ithiel de

Sola Pool Award and Lectureship given to a scholar exploring the implications of research on issues of politics in a global society and evoking the broad range of scholarship pursued by Ithiel de Sola Pool. On September 1, Putnam delivered the first of what will be triennial lectures. Entitled "Tuning In, Tun- ing Out: The Strange Disappear- ance of Social Capital in America," the piece appears in this issue of PS. The Charles E. Merriam Award, given for the first time since 1987, was presented to Alan Rosenthal of Rutgers University. The award honors a scholar whose published work and career represents a significant contribution to the art of government through the application of social science research. Merriam Award Committee chair Twiley Barker, University of Illinois-Chicago noted "this is a career award and Alan's career reflects, in a profound way, the critical attributes that characterized Merriam's work. ..." The revived Merriam Award will be presented on a biennial basis.

Seven dissertation prizes were presented at the Awards Cere- mony. Included among the winners were two recent University of Chi- cago Ph.Ds. David Pizza, Univer- sity of Chicago, was named winner of the William Anderson Award in

Winners of the Franklin L. Burdette/Pi Sigma Alpha Award, Barry Weingast (1) and Kenneth Schultz (r) with committee chair Robert S. Erikson.

December 1995 757

Association News

Peter Gourevitch, chair, Woodrow Wilson Foundation Award Committee and winner, Beth A. Simmons.

state and local politics and Walter Mattli, now at Columbia Univer- sity, accepted the Helen Dwight Reid Award in international relations, law and politics. Mark Hansen and Charles Lipson served as dissertation chairs respectively. The Gabriel A. Almond Award in comparative politics was given to Jonah Levy, University of Califor- nia-Berkeley; Suzanne Berger, Massachusetts Institute of Technol- ogy, dissertation chair. The Ed- ward S. Corwin Award had co-winners in Cary Coglianese, Harvard University, and James Spriggs III, University of California-Davis. Kim Lane Scheppele, University of Michigan, and Lee Epstein, Wash- ington University, served as dissertation chairs respectively. John Carey, University of Rochester, received the Harold D. Lasswell Award in policy studies. Arend Lijp- hart, University of California-San Diego, was his dissertation chair. Patrick Deneen, currently a post- doctoral fellow at the United States Information Agency received the Leo Strauss Award in political philosophy. Wilson Carey McWilliams, Rutgers University, served as his dissertation chair. Completing the year's dissertation awards, Robert C. Lieberman, Columbia Univer-

sity, was presented with the Leon- ard D. White Award in Public Ad- ministration; Paul E. Peterson, Harvard University, served as dissertation chair.

Barry Weingast and Kenneth Schultz of Stanford University were the recipients of the Franklin L. Burdette/Pi Sigma Alpha Award

for the best paper at the 1994 annual meeting for "The Democratic Advantage: The Institutional Sources of State Power in Interna- tional Competition." Gary King, Harvard University, and Andrew Gelman, University of California- Berkeley, were awarded the Heinz Eulau Award for the best article published in the American Political Science Review during 1994 for "Enhancing Democracy Through Legislative Redistricting."

Book award winners for 1995 included William H. Tucker, Rut- gers University-Camden, who was presented with the Ralph J. Bunche Award for the best scholarly work published in 1994 exploring the phenomenon of ethnic and cultural pluralism for The Science and Poli- tics of Racial Research (University of Illinois Press). Paul Pierson, Harvard University, accepted the Gladys M. Kammerer Award for the best political science publication in 1994 in the field of U.S. national policy for Dismantling the Welfare State (Cambridge Univer- sity Press). Women and Politics Worldwide (Yale University Press), edited by Barbara Nelson, Radcliffe College, and Najma Chowdhury, University of Dhaka, was named winner of the Victoria Schuck Award for the best book published

Barbara Nelson receives the Victoria Schuck Award from committee chair Eileen McDonagh.


Association News

in 1994 on women and politics. Beth A. Simmons, Duke Univer- sity, took home the 1995 Woodrow Wilson Foundation Award for the best book published in the United States during 1994 on government, politics or international affairs. Her winning book, Who Adjusts? Do- mestic Sources of Foreign Eco- nomic Policy During the Interwar Years, was published by Princeton University Press.

The Benjamin E. Lippincott Award, given to a work of exceptional quality by a living political theorist that is still considered significant after a span of at least 15 years since the original publication, was awarded to Charles E. Lind- blom of Yale University for Politics and Markets, The World's Politi- cal-Economic Systems. The 1978 winner of the Woodrow Wilson Foundation Award, Politics and Markets was published by Basic Books in 1977. Lindblom, a former APSA President (1981-82), later returned to the dais named as this year's John Gaus Distinguished Lecturer. The Gaus Award honors the recipient's lifetime of exemplary scholarship in the joint tradition of political science and public administration and, more generally, to encourage scholarship in public administration.

The Hubert H. Humphrey Award, presented each year in recognition of notable public service by a political scientist, was awarded to Madeleine Albright. Albright, formerly of Georgetown University, is currently U.S. Per- manent Representative to the United Nations. Recognizing his pioneering work and "original vision," Brian Lamb, President and CEO, C-SPAN, was named winner of the Carey McWilliams Award, honoring his contribution to our understanding of politics.

A number of departments cele- brated multiple award recipients. Harvard University faculty members Robert D. Putnam, Gary King and Paul Pierson each walked to the dais. Recent Harvard graduate Robert C. Lieberman was also a winner. Rutgers University APSA award winners, Patrick Deneen and Alan Rosenthal, were later joined by section award winners Elizabeth

Kelly, who received her Ph.D. from Rutgers in 1990, recipient of the Michael Harrington Award from the Caucus for a New Politi- cal Science and Gerry Pomper, winner of the Samuel Eldersveld Career Achievement and Jack Walker Awards from the Political Organizations and Parties section. Details on all the Organized Sec- tion Awards follows later in Asso- ciation News.

Travel Grants Bring International Scholars to Annual Meeting

In a continuing effort to interna- tionalize the annual meeting, the APSA secured travel funding for 51 international scholars to attend the 1996 Annual Meeting in Chicago. Twenty-four international graduate students, representing 16 countries, were selected to receive travel money. These international students,

Annual Meeting Perspectives

Participation by Women in the 1995 APSA Annual Meeting Martin Gruberg, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh

Participation by women in the 1995 annual meeting continues its positive trend.

CHAIRPERSONS

Year

1971 1981 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

Total

154 137 439 463 452 509 480

1971 1981 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

552 520

1940 1986 2053 2200 2160

1971 1981 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

Women

12 16

107 106 115 164 134

PAPERGIVERS

DISCUSSANTS

184 161 455 568 521 594 583

% 7.8

11.7 24.4 22.9 25.4 32.2 27.9

43 98

512 445 525 576 598

7.8 18.8 26.4 22.5 25.6 26.2 27.7

13 28

120 118 152 157 157

7.1 17.4 26.4 20.8 29.2 26.4 26.9

Where women head divisions or panels, there is a greater likelihood of other women being selected for program contributions. This year (and next) we have a male and a female co- chairing the Program Committee. In 1995 19 of the 49 division persons were women (38.8%). The divisions they headed had women as 30.7% (59 of 192) of the chairpersons, 34.2% (287 of 839) of the papergivers, and 31.0% (66 of 213) of the discussants. The program divisions led by women had 44.0% of the meeting's female panel chairs, 48.0% of the papergivers, and 42.0% of its discussants. Women-chaired panels had 41.0% female papergivers and 42.5% female discussants. These constituted 40.8% of the women giving papers at the 1994 convention and 43.3% of the women serving as discussants. The divisions with the strongest female representation were those on Normative Political Theory, Foundations of Political Theory, Public Policy, Women and Politics*, Race, Gen- der and Ethnicity*, Communist Politics and After*, and Political Psychology (* = headed by women). The divisions with the weakest female representation in 1995 were those on Political Meth- odology, Elections and Electoral Behavior, Foreign Policy Analysis, Representation and Electoral Systems, Conflict Processes, Applied Political Science, Computers and Multi- media, New Political Science, Internships and Experiential Education, and Teaching and Learning in Political Science.

December 1995 759

Association News

enrolled in American universities, were assisted through funds made available by the Huang Hsing Foundation (USA) and the APSA Council. Through the assistance of the United States Information Agency and the APSA Council, 27 senior scholars who had been invited to participate at the Annual Meeting were also awarded travel grants.

A list of international grantees, their countries, and their U.S. affiliations follows.

APSA Council Grantees

Yun Lin, P.R.C., University of New Orleans

Jongwoo Han, South Korea, Syracuse University

Rieko Mohara, Japan, Johns Hop- kins University

Ramayanto Basoeki, Indonesia, The Claremont School

Jung-Ki Kim, South Korea, Uni- versity of Houston

In-Sang Chong, South Korea, Uni- versity of Missouri-Columbia

Volker Franke, Germany, Syracuse University

Ming Xia, P.R.C., Temple Univer- sity

Duckjoon Chang, South Korea, SUNY-Buffalo

Svetlana V. Morozova, Russia, The Claremont School

Michael Clarke, Canada, Boston College

Samira Ali Atallah, Lebanon, Bos- ton University

Indrya De Soysa, Sri Lanka, Uni- versity of Alabama

Nicholas Ampomsah, Ghana, The Claremont School

Fran Lisa Buntman, South Africa, University of Texas at Austin

Rupen Cetinyan, Turkey, Univer- sity of California-Los Angeles

Silvia Colazingari, Argentina, Yale University

Jacqueline Leigh Pfeffer, Canada, Duke University

Andrew Reynolds, Great Britain, University of California-San Diego

Janusz Puzniak, Poland, University of Missouri-Columbia

Michael J. Hiscox, Australia, Har- vard University

Huang Hsing Foundation

Shing-Yuan Sheng, Taiwan, Uni- versity of Michigan

Chien-chung Yin, Taiwan, Univer- sity of California-Los Angeles

Bing Wu, University of Oklahoma

Senior Scholar Grants-APSA Council Grantees and USIA Grantees

Peter Hardi, Budapest University of Economic Sciences, Hungary

Detlef Sprinz, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany

Paloma Aguilar, Instituto Juan March de Estudios e Investiga- ciones, Spain

Desmond King, St. Johns College, United Kingdom

Janneke van der Rus, College of Lillehammer, Norway

Patrick Dunleavy, London School of Economics

Bob Jessop, Lancaster University, United Kingdom

Philip Ludlow, Center for European Studies, Belgium

Gerry Stoker, University of Strath- clyde, United Kingdom

Alan Harding, Liverpool John Moores University, United King- dom

Pradeep Saxena, University of Rajastan, India

Colin Hay, Lancaster University, United Kingdom

Jefferey Sellers, Humboldt-Univer- sitat Zu Berlin, Germany

Patricia Peterson, University of Toronto, Canada

Jan Skaloud, University of Eco- nomic, Czech Republic

Michael Minkenberg, University of Gottingen, Germany

Algis Kruoavicius, Lithuania Vyacheslav Cherepanov, Kharkov

State Polytechnic University Krishna Hachhethu, Tribhuvan

University, Nepal Dani Nabudere, Uganda Eduardo Barajas, Rosario Univer-

sity, Columbia Rene Armand Dreifuss, Federal

Fluminense University Teh Fu Huang, National Cheng Chi

University, Taiwan Mikhail M. Nazarov, Russian

Academy of Sciences

Georgi Mateev Karasimeonov, Sofia University, Bulgaria

Muhamed Masalha, University of Jordan

Michalis Spourdalakis, University of Athens, Greece

APSA Awards Advanced Graduate Student Travel Grants

For the second straight year the APSA issued 23 travel grants to advanced American graduate students presenting papers at the annual meeting. Funded through a variety of sources, including the APSA Council, T-shirt sales from the 1994 Annual Meeting, and a donation from the Kansas Political Science Association. Their names and affiliations follow:

Andrea K. Gerlack, University of Arizona

Sheri Leronda Wallace, Cornell University

Eric Schickler, Yale University Andrew Grossman, New School/

CSSC Diane Heith, Brown University Jason A. Scorza, Princeton Univer-

sity Richard Groper, University of

Southern California Laura Parisi, University of Arizona Gregory J. Wawro, Cornell Univer-

sity David Redlawsk, Rutgers University John Bohte, Texas A&M University Michael Link, University of South

Carolina Lori Weber, University of Colorado-

Boulder Shannon Blanton, University of

South Carolina Marcia A. Marshall, Georgetown

University Robert E. Bohrer, Texas A&M

University Charles Menifield, University of

Missouri-Columbia Stephanie A. Lindquist, University

of South Carolina Bernadette Kilroy, University of

California-Los Angeles Valerie O'Regan, University of

California-Riverside David Powell, Miami University


Association News

Julie Novkov, University of Michi- gan

Eric Ziegelmayer, SUNY-Albany

The APSA Advanced Graduate Student Travel Grant Program was established in 1994 to enable graduate students to attend the annual meeting. The need for such a program is evident given the decline in department travel funds and the increase in the numbers of graduate students presenting papers. The APSA urges its members to support this effort by contributing to the Travel Grant Program. If you would like to contribute to the Pro- gram, please make checks payable to "APSA Travel" and send to the APSA National Office, 1527 New Hampshire Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20036.

Annual Meeting Short Courses Provide Diverse Professional Development Opportunities

This year's Annual Meeting featured 14 short courses to inaugu- rate the meeting's Wednesday pre-session. A variety of APSA Organized Sections and related organizations sponsored the short courses, which provided nearly 100 early attendees with forums for professional development targeted to their particular interests and fields.

This year's Leading Scholars Se- ries featured Elinor Ostrom, APSA President-Elect and Co-Director of the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis at Indiana Uni- versity, and Vincent Ostrom, Co- Director of the Workshop in Politi- cal Theory and Policy Analysis. As in the past, the Leading Scholar Series served as a cost-free opportunity for graduate staudents to participate in an informal session with prominent scholars in the profession. The series emphasized the evolution of the leaders' intellectual and professional agendas and scholarship.

In addition to the Leading Scholar Series, short courses explored is-

sues such as race and political development, and cultural perspectives on the 1994 election which related to the Annual Meeting's theme, Liberalism at Century's End: Competing Perspectives. Be- yond topics directly representing the theme, some sessions also focused on diverse issues such as the role of technology in the profession, a retrospective assessment of nuclear proliferation since Hiro- shima, and teaching and professional development methods.

One workshop on foreign policy and opinion polling conducted a straw poll of more than 250 participants on United States foreign policy toward Bosnia. The survey, sponsored by the Section on Domes- tic Sources of Foreign Policy and the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, found widespread support in theory for a continuation of current policies, with isolated groups advocating significant policy shifts. Respondents identified two goals for United States Bosnia policy, the primary being humanitarian and the secondary being a concern for regional, and not necessarily United States, security. Survey results bol- stered Chicago Council findings indicating elites support the use of force more than the general public.

Report of the Managing Editor of the American Political Science Review, August 30, 1995

G. Bingham Powell, Jr., University of Rochester

Being editor of the American Po- litical Science Review is, as I have frequently remarked, the best job in the world-except that there's just a bit too much of it. The job is fascinating, diverse, challenging, worthy, well respected by one's peers (usually) and seldom involves a committee meeting. What more could one want? More hours in the day, perhaps, or the absence of other responsibilities, especially at exam time, when convergent editorial and university deadlines can

overwhelm the editor's system. A one-month moratorium to break up the relentless flow of two-plus manuscripts a day for 52 weeks a year would be nice. Referee reports that appeared on time would be a dream. But, overall, it's a wonderful job "as is." I am grateful to the Association for allowing me to hold it for four years.

Of course, for the "decisionally challenged" such as I, who have been known to agonize for an hour over giving an undergraduate paper a B+ or A-, each decision takes its toll. Small wonder that after 2,000 of them (not counting referee choices), I am glad to pass along the responsibility to fresh shoulders. After very hard work on both sides and close cooperation between Ada Finifter and me, as well as the old Rochester and new Michigan State associate editors, the transition of APSR editors is nearly complete. I am very grateful to Ada Finifter for facilitating the transition by under- taking so much hard work before her term officially begins; I am confident she will reap the rewards of these initial efforts in the years to come. I leave APSR exhausted, feeling that I have done all that I could do, but not without regret.

The Cumulative Statistical Record

Between July 1, 1991, and June 30, 1995, nearly 2,000 manuscripts were submitted to the APSR. Table 1 shows the distributions of these across the five standard subfields. These total 1,941 manuscripts. An- other 25 manuscripts or so that were received are not shown because they could not be classified as political science. Of the 1,941 political science manuscripts, some 216 were revisions of previously submitted manuscripts, while the other 1,725 were completely new submissions. About 100 of these new submissions were rejected without review, frequently for ex- cessive length; a number of these reappeared in the "revised" group in briefer form.

The other 1,600+ received the standard procedure that we developed in our first few months of operation. They were logged in and assigned to an APSR graduate stu-


Association News

TABLE 1 Distribution of Manuscripts Submitted to the APSR by Subfield in 1985-1991 and from 1991-1995

Average Subfield 1985-1991* 1991-1992 1992-1993 1993-1994 1994-1995

American Politics and 41% 34% 37% 34% 34% Public Policy

Comparative Politics 17 20 20 24 23 Normative Political Theory 19 21 24 21 20 International Relations 10 14 9 11 14 Formal Theory 13 10 10 10 9 Total 100% 99% 100% 100% 100%

Number of Manuscripts 426 479 487 480 495

*Calculated from Patterson, Bruce, and Crone 1991, p. 766, Table 1. Average number includes only last five years. Manuscripts submitted include both new manuscripts and revisions of previously submitted manuscripts. In the four most recent years there were 50, 47, 46 and 73 revisions respectively.

dent intern. The intern read the manuscript and prepared a brief summary (supplemental to the abstract) and a proposed list of 5-10 available referees. I read the intern's proposal, scanned the manuscript, approved and/or modified the language and suggestions, and returned it to the intern, who then faxed the abstract, supplement, and proposed Referee List to one or more members of the editorial board. The editorial board member approved, rejected, or modified the proposed referee list and often added additional comments and suggestions. The intern recommended three final choices (and some backups); I made the final choice of referees on the basis of all the information available. These 1,600+ consultations with the editorial board were followed, of course, by mailing well over 6,000 requests for reviews (counting both the initial three and an average of one cancellation per manuscript).

The fate of the manuscripts looks something like this. About 40% of all the submissions-about 800 manuscripts-were rejected on the basis of two or fewer reviews, usually in about two months. Another 50% of all the submissions, about 1,000 manuscripts, received at least one supportive review (at least one of the first two readers marked it as "important" in his or her summary evaluation) but were eventually rejected. This process took about twice as long, and sometimes, to my deepest regret, a very long time indeed. Only about 10% of the

manuscripts were eventually accepted for publication in the APSR. As Table 2 shows, we actually published 212 articles, research notes and controversies (plus four presidential addresses) over my four years as editor. I discussed in my last annual report (published in PS in December 1994) the extensive efforts that we make to determine and even improve, through the revision stage, the high quality of the manuscripts that actually appear in the Review.

While no process can be perfect, especially in a discipline as impre- cise as ours, our careful and extensive use of the peer review process, with the aid of the APSR interns and the editorial board, has at- tempted to offer fair treatment to manuscripts from all fields, representing a wide range of approaches. In many cases, the reception of thoughtful suggestions and critiques from the referees has, I am confi-

dent, improved the quality of the many manuscripts rejected by APSR, but subsequently published elsewhere. I hope and believe that it has resulted in a final product in whose quality we can have considerable confidence. Naturally, this confidence does not mean the published manuscripts are beyond challenge; the lively "Controversy" section, a popular feature (although an editor's nightmare), speaks to the degree to which our articles stimulate challenge and response. This is, in my view, essential in a vigorous scientific discipline.

To those authors whose manuscripts received brief, argumenta- tive, inappropriate, inaccurate, or (most commonly and especially) long-delayed reviews, I can only offer my most sincere apologies.

The Yearly Record: Continuity and Fluctuation

While there are fluctuations of various kinds from year to year, the most general pattern is one of consistency and continuity, both in the general number of manuscripts and in distribution across fields. As shown in Table 1, our range of incoming manuscripts was only from 479 in 1991-92 to 495 in 1994-1995. These figures are about 15% above Patterson's average of 426 during the last five years of his editorship.

The number of 495 manuscripts for 1994-95 conceals notable internal diversity. We had an extremely heavy inflow of manuscripts from about June 1994 through Novem- ber, about 20% above our usual rate, apparently stimulated by the

TABLE 2 Distribution of Manuscripts Published by the APSR by Subfield in 1985-91 and 1992-1995

Subfield 1985-91* 1992 1993 1994 1995 American Politics and Public Policy 42% 34% 39% 36% 38% Comparative Politics 16 17 19 23 18 Normative Political Theory 20 24 18 21 20 International Relations 10 13 14 9 6 Formal Theory 13 11 11 11 18 Total 100% 99% 101% 100% 100%

Number of Manuscripts 49 53 57 53 49

*Calculated from Patterson, Bruce and Crone, p. 766, Table 2; their figures are based on decisions made in the given academic year, not on date of receipt or publication; total manuscripts excludes 1990-91, for which only 31 new decisions were reported.

December 1995 765

Association News

TABLE 3 Publication Acceptance "Rates" by the APSR by Subfield in 1985-91 and in 1991-95: Overview

1985-1991 1991-1995 Average 1994-1995 Acceptance 1991-1995

Subfield Rates* Rate* Ratio** Cases** American Politics and Public Policy 11% 8.7 11.5% 678 Comparative Politics 11% 4.7 9.7% 422 Normative Political Theory 11% 12.9 10.5% 418 International Relations 11% 7.8 9.8% 233 Formal Theory 13% 9.3 13.6% 190

Overall 11% 8.6 11% 1941

*1985-1991 calculated from Patterson, Bruce and Crone, p. 766, Table 3. Figures based on decisions in a given year, not on date of receipt or publication. Number of decisions in base not available. For 1994-95, as in the Table 3 results published in this report previously, percentages are acceptances divided by acceptances plus rejections plus revise/resubmit, for manuscripts received from July 1 to June 30. Pending manuscripts are not included. (E.g., for 1994-95, 495 political science manuscripts had been received; decisions had been made on 378, of which 33 were accepted, while 97 remained pending, as of July 25, 1995.) **These "Ratios" are the number of published manuscripts in each field (see Table 2) divided by the number of manuscripts submitted in that field (see Table 1). Because of lags in the process, some of the publications in 1992 were received before the "received" period and some of the manuscripts received in 1995 had not yet been evaluated. Appro- priate correspondence of numerator and denominator of the "rate," depends on steadiness of the flows; see Tables 1 and 2.

heavy turnout at the APSA Meet- ing in New York. The flow of manuscripts was so great that it greatly burdened and clogged the review process at all stages. We were still dealing with its consequences into late spring of 1995. One consequence of this unexpected burden was somewhat poorer turn- around times as noted in Table 4 below. Fortunately for our system, the flow dropped precipitously in the early months of 1995, before returning to fairly high levels in the late spring and summer.

I received consistently a somewhat smaller proportion of manuscripts in American politics (from 41% down to 35%) than had the previous regime, but the absolute numbers declined only slightly (from about 175 a year to 170 a year.) Somewhat more manuscripts were received, both absolutely and comparatively, in comparative politics (especially), normative theory and international relations. But the general distribution remains rather similar to that experienced by Patterson: over a third of the

TABLE 4 Elapsed Time in the APSR Review Process (Work Days)

Average Average 1992- 1993- 1994- 1981- 1982- 1985-1988 1988- 1991- 1993 1994 1995

Processing Stage 1982 1983 (med) 1991 1992 (med) (med) (med) From receipt to -- - 7 11 26 22 16 16

referee assignment From assignment to - - 45 40 44 41 41 44

last review From last review - - 4 7 9 5 5 7

to decision From receipt to 71 64 55 52 72 65 63 66

final decision

Note: 1981-82 and 1982-83 are the first two years of the Zinnes editorship. Data from Zinnes 1983, pp. 811-812. Intermediate stages were not reported by Zinnes. 1985-1991 are the Patterson editorship; data from Patterson, Bruce and Crone, Table 4, p. 768. Data from Zinnes and Powell are converted to working days (absolute calendar days are multiplied by 5/7), for consistency with Patterson. 1992-95 are based on the months for which over half the manuscripts were completed and medians available at the time of report (9 months in 1992-93 and 11 months in 1993-95.) Reported figure is the average of the monthly medians.

manuscripts are in American politics; between a fifth and a quarter are in comparative politics and normative theory; around 10% each are in international relations and formal theory. The formal theory numbers seem to show a slight decline in comparison to the earlier years, but this may well represent the increased difficulties in coding decisions as more manuscripts use some formal tools in combination with other methodologies. The distinction is simply not as clear-cut as it once may have been.

As shown by Table 2, the pattern of manuscripts published closely reflects the pattern of submissions. I am fairly confident that the year- to-year fluctuations, especially in the smaller fields of international relations and formal theory, represent statistical fluctuations, not cross field biases. As we only pub- lish about 50 manuscripts a year, these fields would statistically ex- pect to have five or six manuscripts, so a swing of a few manuscripts looks large. For example, although 1994-95 shows unpleasantly low numbers in international relations manuscripts published, three IR manuscripts have already been accepted for 1996. These were long in the "pipe line" and will soon be in print.

Comparison of the totals for Ta- bles 1 and 2 shows a close overall match of submissions and acceptances by field. Table 3 shows this systematically, as well as the numbers based on decisions for the 1994-95 inflow. Acceptance rates are always a complex problem because of the "moving target" posed by the lag between receipt of manuscripts and publication decisions, as well as by the small numbers in some fields. (This is discussed exten- sively in previous Annual Reports.) The rather low rate for comparative politics among this set of manuscripts probably reflects in part the higher inflow in this area in the last 18 months (of which many remain in the "Revision" stage) as well as the small numbers that create yearly fluctuations.

However, this table gives a good overall picture of acceptance rates by the ratio of published manuscripts to submitted manuscripts by


Association News

subfield during the four years of my editorship. As long as we recognize that a number of the 1992 publications were based on earlier submissions and that a number of the 1995 submissions will result in 1996 publication, the steady flow of numbers makes this table a fair general picture. In it we see that the ratios are fairly similar across fields. Overall, we published 212 manuscripts and had 1,941 submissions, for an 11% "rate," which is identical to the 11% reported by Patterson. Our greater number of submissions was counterbalanced by somewhat greater space in the Review. Across the fields, we see these rates clus- tered closely around 11%, ranging from 9.8% in international relations and comparative politics to 13.6% in formal theory. Given the fact that we made no systematic effort to choose manuscripts to fill alloca- tions for different fields, but simply tried to find the "best" manuscripts according to the referees, the consistency of these numbers is remarkable. Of course, keeping an eye on the balance across fields is desirable so that we can have some sense that referees and editors are using vaguely comparable general standards. But although some fields are more divided than others, the standards of appropriateness for APSR seem fairly similar.

Table 4 shows the elapsed times each year. It is clear that we suc- ceeded in getting control of the process of selecting referees, despite the complications of the use of the editorial board, using only a week or so more than Patterson did. Although I have no proof of this, I am convinced that the quality of the referees in comparison to what I, at least, could have otherwise selected, justified the additional week. But we never suc- ceeded in getting our overall processing time close to Patterson's fine record, not to mention the ex- traordinary results reported by some other journals. As noted above, the very heavy and unexpected inflow of manuscripts this year actually led to somewhat slower turn-around than last year. I can only express once again my frustration with the long delays experienced by some authors and

state publicly, as I have to each of them, my deep regret.

As a final comment on the process, I want to repeat here my thanks to the members of my editorial board who worked so hard on giving us advice about referees for over 1,600 manuscripts. I am grateful to the APSR interns in 1994-95, Nathan Dietz, Jay Goodliffe, Peter Stone, and Lynn Vavreck for their exceptional work, including the "overtime" that Nathan, Peter, and Lynn put in to facilitate the transition during August 1995. Above all, I want to express my thanks to my associate editor, Linda Lindenfelser, who contributed both office management and copy editing, in a remarkable blend of hard work, dedication, and thoughtfulness. Her contribution was invaluable throughout my four years as managing editor, and she worked doubly hard to bring about the transition to a new team at Michigan State.

The Book Review

In 1994-95 the Book Review experienced a change of editors, as Melissa Collie of the University of Texas at Austin turned the Book Review editorship over to Mark Lichbach of the University of Colo- rado. Collie continued to edit all Book Review material through the December 1994 and March 1995 issues, which included very inter- esting review essays of recent

books in feminist scholarship, political culture, institutional analysis, and public opinion by four outstanding scholars in these fields. The September 1995 issue of PS contains a report by Melissa Collie that reviews her three years as Book Review editor.

Table 5 shows the 408 books reviewed in four different fields of political science in the five issues from September 1994 through Sep- tember 1995. There are, of course, fluctuations from issue to issue, as the Book Review contents are shaped by the responses of reviewers. Across the five issues, however, 29% of the reviews were of books in comparative politics, with 28%, 24% and 18% going to books in American politics, international relations and theory, respectively.

Mark Lichbach took over the process of receiving books and selecting those to review in Septem- ber 1994. Table 6 provides the first report from Mark Lichbach of the books received under his editorship. Because of the timing of this report it covers the period from September 1994 through July 1995, but does not include activity in Au- gust 1995. Even so, the huge flood of books continued remarkably un- abated, with 1,833 books received during this period and thus about 2,000 expected for the 12 months. This number compares to 1,743, 1,982, and 2,353 during the three years of Melissa Collie's editorship (Collie 1995). As usual, most books were received in comparative poli-

TABLE 5 APSR Book Review: Report on Books Reviewed September 1994-September 1995

American Comparative Theory IR Issue Reviewed % (N) % (N) % (N) % (N)

September 1994 32.5% 20.0% 26.3% 21.3% (26) (16) (21) (17)

December 1994 34.9% 26.7% 19.8% 18.6% (30) (23) (17) (16)

March 1995 29.9% 35.3% 6.2% 28.9% (29) (34) (6) (28)

June 1995 21.2% 27.9% 18.2% 22.7% (14) (25) (12) (15)

September 1995 21.5% 26.6% 22.8% 29.1% (17) (21) (18) (23)

Note: The N's include books reviewed in review essays and multiple- and single-book reviews.

December 1995 767

Association News

TABLE 6 APSR Book Review: Report on Books Processed September 1994-July 1995

Books Reviewed Books or Scheduled

Subfield Received for Review (N) American Politics and Public Policy 470 20.0% (94) Comparative Politics 669 21.4% (143) Normative Political Theory 276 28.7% (78) International Relations 418 23.0% (96)

Totals 1833 22.4% (411)

Note: The N is the number of books for which invitations have been issued.

tics, followed by American politics and public policy.

As shown by the last column in Table 6, invitations were extended to reviewers for about 22% of the books received (411 books.) This percentage falls in the middle of the range reported by Collie, whose invitation percentages were 26.9, 28.5, and 15.5 during her three years. The percentage is, of course, structured by the relationship between the number of books received and the available space, as well as by the quality and appropriateness of the books received. Col- lie discusses these issues at length in her report; no doubt Lichbach will do the same at some point. The invitation ratio was fairly similar across fields, ranging from 20% in American politics to 29% in normative political theory.

The first issue featuring Mark Lichbach as Book Review editor was June 1995, which contained not only regular book reviews, but a valuable and innovative review symposium, focusing on King, Keo- hane, and Verba's Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Mark Lich- bach had worked very hard even before he formally took over the post as Book Review editor to so- licit reviews from David Laitin, James Caporaso, David Collier, Ronald Rogowski, and Sidney Tar- row and have these worked into final form in time for King, Keo- hane, and Verba to prepare a reply. The exchange will, I am sure, be featured in graduate methods semi- nars for many years. After this remarkable start, I look forward to his fine continuing work as Book Review editor.

The Challenge of APSR

The American Political Science Review offers a tremendous challenge to all political scientists. For the research scholar in all parts of the discipline, I hope, it is the venue in which one aspires to pub- lish one's best articles, while recognizing the difficult odds and intense scrutiny the work will receive. For the referee whose advice is sought, the requests of the Review for assistance interrupt busy schedules, yet offer the opportunity to participate in the critical selection process, both critically and construc- tively. For the editor and his or her staff, the tremendous number and diversity of manuscripts and their generally strong quality (% of them receive an "important" rating from at least one expert reader) offer an extremely difficult task of management, equity, and balanced judgment, while the opportunities to serve the profession and learn while doing so are enormous.

Above all, the APSR offers an enormous challenge to its readers, the members of the Association. It is, of course, no news that we are members of an extremely diverse discipline. We political scientists are unified by our interest in politics, but as scholars, teachers and even practitioners, we apply that interest in many different ways: reflecting over the complex insights of past philosophers, applying the rigorous strictures of mathematics, analyzing diverse cultures and institutions, explaining and linking the individual and collective decisions of citizens, and many more. Our interests range from the voting booth to the system of global inter-

actions. Any issue of the APSR contains only about 12 research articles; on average about five of these will be in some aspect of American politics or public policy; two will be in comparative politics; two will be in normative theory; one will be in international relations; one will be in pure formal theory; one will be in some blend of these. I doubt that any other scholarly journal represents a wider range of interests and approaches. The chances are not large that any of us will find more than one article close to our personal interests, even if those interests are diverse. Moreover, all those articles have been certified by at least two scholars, usually more, that they are pushing the frontiers of research in their subfields. This very scholarly innovation frequently demands the application of methods and approaches unfamiliar to those not on the current frontier. No matter how the editor pushes the author to make the articles accessible to the non-specialist, such accessibility is never won without effort and can often be only partial without learning the field itself. No wonder the APSR is, I think, respected, but not popular!

The challenge to members of the Association is to respect what the APSR has to offer and respond to the challenge of its enormous diversity by taking the insights we can from the work less close to our own field. There are, I believe, few issues of the Review that will not repay close attention to at least one piece outside one's normal range. But, "no pain, no gain;" the re- ward of insight does not come without the cost of great effort. I believe that the American Political Science Review is also an achievement of which all members of the Association can be proud; it is no mean thing to support an institution that spurs the advancement of knowledge without offering easy rewards.

References

Collie, Melissa P. 1995. "The American Po- litical Science Review Book Review,


Association News

1991-1995." PS: Political Science & Pol- itics 28(3):557-61.

Patterson, Samuel C., John M. Bruce, and Martha Ellis Crone. 1991. "The Impact of the American Political Science Re- view." PS: Political Science & Politics 24(4):765-74.

Patterson, Samuel C., Brian D. Ripley, and Barbara Trish. 1988. "The American Po- litical Science Review: A Retrospective of Last Year and the Last Eight De- cades." PS: Political Science & Politics 21(4):908-25.

Patterson, Samuel C., and Shannon K. Smithey. 1990. "Monitoring Scholarly Journal Publication in Political Science: The Role of the APSR." PS: Political Science & Politics 23(4):647-56.

Zinnes, Dina A. 1983. "Report of the Man- aging Editor of the American Political Science Review." PS 16(Fall):810-13.

TABLE 2 Portfolio Summary-General Operating, Trust & Development, and Endowed Funds, June 30, 1995

Estimated Cost Market Current Annual

Fund Value Value Yield Income

General Operating Fund $ 798,320 $ 770,977 3.5% $27,707 Trust & Development Fund 2,115,171 2,807,182 1.0% 33,431 Congressional Fellowship and

Other Endowed Programs 6,292,974 7,774,290 0.9% 64,407

Cost Market Percent of Security Type Value Value Assets

Stocks 210 252 0.00% Government Obligations 172,324 165,232 1.46% Mutual Funds 9,033,931 11,186,965 98.54%

Total 9,206,465 11,352,449

APSA Treasurer's Report

Susan C. Bourque, Smith College

This September marked the end of my tenure as Treasurer of the APSA. Over the past two years it has been a pleasure to see, first hand, the Washington staffs fine management of the Association and to experience the memberships' willingness to bear their share of the responsibilities for the well being and the future of the Associa- tion. Financially speaking, I am pleased to report that the APSA closed fiscal year 1995 in excellent condition. Thoughtful planning and careful budgetary practices once again have brought us a balanced budget and a limited surplus. Our investment practices have allowed us to benefit from the strong stock

market and to increase the endowment while maintaining an accept- able level of risk. Gradual and well- timed alterations in our portfolio allowed us to eliminate several under-performing funds and to increase the diversity and balance in our holdings.

Table 1 summarizes our financial strength: the APSA's Total assets came to $10.2 million on June 30, 1995. Table 2 records the content and performance of our portfolio. The total market value of the Gen- eral Operating, Trust and Develop- ment, Congressional Fellowship and other Endowed funds stood at $11,352,449 on June 30; the T&D fund is valued at $2,807,182, and the Congressional Fellowship and endowed funds is valued at $7,774,290. Enjoying the stock market's excellent performance in the last half of fiscal 1995, the APSA portfolio ended the twelve month

period from July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1995 with a return of 21%.

Our spending rule with respect to our endowment allocates 4.5% of the market value of the Trust and Development funds to programs of the APSA. Total retained earnings from all APSA funds, including award funds, were $97,023.83 which went to support the work of the APSA. In addition, the Con- gressional Fellowship endowment finances the costs of 10 fellowships each year.

Over the past several years the APSA has moved to a program budget which more accurately reflects our costs in the areas in which they occur. It also allows valid comparisons in specific expenses across several years. Table 3 demonstrates that the Association has had a balanced budget for the past 16 years as well as a surplus in each of those years. The surplus

TABLE 1 APSA Balance Sheet

June 30, 1995 Total All Funds June 30

General Trust and Endowed Operating Development Program

Fund Fund Funds 1995 1994 1993 1992

Assets: Current $1,335,072 $2,077,665 $6,313,734 $ 9,726,471 $9,496,055 $8,759,789 $8,683,133 Property & Equipment 484,328 484,328 480,152 457,770 441,890

Liabilities and Fund Balances: Current 1,088,080 1,088,080 1,334,913 1,048,376 554,663 Fund Balances 731,320 2,077,665 6,313,734 9,122,719 8,641,294 8,169,183 8,570,360

Total $1,819,400 $2,077,665 $6,313,734 $10,210,799 $9,976,207 $9,217,559 $9,125,023 .

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

December 1995 769

Association News

TABLE 3 APSA Budget: A Multi-Year Perspective

Annual Surplus + Expenditure

Year Income Expenditures Deficit - Change (%) 1982-83 $1,202,078 $1,094,415 +107,663 + 4.9 1983-84 1,323,074 1,247,529 + 75,545 +14.0 1984-85 1,413,078 1,353,330 + 59,739 + 8.5 1985-86 1,505,224 1,453,248 + 51,976 + 6.9 1986-87 1,584,945 1,449,638 + 85,307 + 3.1 1987-88 1,637,637 1,563,252 + 74,385 + 4.2 1988-89 1,847,152 1,731,251 +115,901 +10.7 1989-90 1,891,773 1,871,305 + 20,464 + 8.1 1990-91 2,153,800 2,133,524 + 24,594 +14.0 1991-92 2,254,844 2,180,544 + 74,300 + 2.2

1992-93 2,405,023 2,321,830 + 83,193 * 1993-94 2,704,155 2,423,847 +280,308 + 4.4 1994-95 2,734,375 2,524,664 +209,711 + 4.2

*In FY 1992-93, APSA moved to a new budgeting system, not comparable with previous years.

will be essential to us as we face of $209,7 some potentially costly repairs to and impr the APSA building and the need to tributed upgrade our technology in the the orgai Washington office. creased )

Table 4 clarifies the sources of we do nc our revenues which in 1994-95 to- 1995-96 talled $2,734,375. Our expendi- or uninfl; tures, summarized in Table 5, to- near-hist tailed $2,524,664, giving us a surplus Table

making the figures in this year

71 1. Efforts to control costs rove productivity have con- to the financial success of nization. We have not in- APSA dues since 1991, and )t anticipate an increase for (indeed our dues-in real ated dollars-stand at a oric low). 6 reveals the sources of

revenue and expenses for 1994-95 and the percentage each contributed to the 1994-95 budget. The Table shows the budget for 1995-96 based on anticipated revenues and projected expenses. A preliminary version of this budget was approved by the Executive Council in April of 1995. This revised budget reflects important changes in our projected costs for paper, postage and publications. These are areas of expenditure which we will need to monitor closely as costs continue to escalate beyond revenues. This revised budget was adopted by the Council at it August 30th meeting. In reviewing this Table please note that Membership, both individual and institutional continues to provide 49% of the Association's income with the annual meeting providing another 18%. Table 7 summarizes the APSA's salary scale and compares it to the Fed- eral Government salary scale equivalents.

As we look to the future, the association's financial health should allow it to plan with confidence for the creation of a Second Century

TABLE 4 Revenue Trends, 1989-95

1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93* 1993-94 1994-95 Individual Membership $ 501,486 $ 650,434 $ 667,320 $ 679,663 $ 744,160 $ 805,786 Institutional Membership 305,345 380,996 395,972 399,081 410,566 434,649 Administrative 59,158 61,281 73,772 73,421 59,143 58,095 Annual Meeting Registration 109,670 143,585 201,720 182,715 224,330 266,370 Advertising 263,355 280,197 296,648 307,626 285,843 340,821 Dividends/Interest 201,180 101,185 103,709 151,848 211,895 97,024 Sales/Publications 102,215 138,208 130,697 166,064 231,889 212,042 Departmental Services 144,819 190,146 153,405 179,648 223,219 184,918 Other 204,545 212,076 231,601 264,957 313,110 334,670

Total $1,891,773 $2,158,118 $2,254,844 $2,405,023 $2,704,155 $2,734,375

*Because of APSA's new budgeting procedures begun in FY 1992-93, these figures are not directly comparable to previous years.

TABLE 5 Expenditure Trends, 1989-95

1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93* 1993-94 1994-95 Publications $ 399,375 $ 401,033 $ 438,286 $ 487,799 $ 541,746 $ 532,219 Annual Meeting 148,708 204,639 189,970 238,478 226,188 272,622 Special Programs 260,381 320,639 319,993 665,640 688,587 725,885 Governing the Association 68,960 60,930 68,443 123,132 130,992 127,964 Membership, Business Office 257,407 292,561 294,566 334,748 348,293 379,345

and Sales General Operating 736,474 853,722 869,286 472,032 488,041 486,629 Total $1,871,305 $2,133,524 $2,180,544 $2,321,830 $2,423,847 2,524,664

*Because of APSA's new budgeting procedures begun in FY 1992-93, these figures are not directly comparable to previous years.


Association News

TABLE 6 Program Budget Summary of Actual Revenue Line Items for Fiscal Year 1994-95 and Anticipated Revenues for Fiscal Year 1995-96

1994-95 1995-96 Percentage Actual Projected of Projected

Category Revenue Revenue Revenue

Membership Individual $ 805,786 $ 819,400 29% Other Memberships 550,445 569,000 20%

Annual Meeting 518,314 518,500 18% Sales & Advertising 305,936 300,450 11% Departmental Programs 184,918 189,300 7% Interest and Dividends 97,024 153,500 5% Employment Services 110,030 118,500 4% Rent 100,482 105,000 4% Administrative 58,095 61,600 2% Miscellaneous 3,345 0 0%

TOTAL REVENUE $2,734,375 $2,835,250 100%

Summary of Actual Expense Line Items for Fiscal Year 1994-95 and Proposed Expenses for Fiscal Year 1995-96

1994-95 1995-96 Percentage Actual Projected of Projected

Category Expenses Expenses Expenses Publications & Sales $ 625,036 $ 693,300 25% Annual Meeting 272,622 288,600 10% Departmental Programs 163,952 180,000 6% Committee Programs 204,253 251,000 9% Employment Services 82,635 85,500 3% Organized Sections 105,307 117,600 4% Education Program 70,232 76,000 3% Endowed Awards 17,697 22,000 1% Governance 127,964 151,500 5% APSA Representation 81,808 91,640 3% General Administration 234,118 274,300 10% Building and Equipment 203,884 213,900 8% Membership Office 171,284 184,500 7% Business Office 115,247 118,600 4%

TOTAL EXPENSES BEFORE DEPRECIATION $2,476,039 $2,751,440 98%

Depreciation (Building & Equipment) 49,097 66,000 2%

TOTAL EXPENSES BEFORE ADJUSTMENTS $2,525,136 $2,817,440 100%

Adjustments for Pending Obligations: Annual Leave (4,672) 7,000 0% Lifetime Memberships 4,200 4,500 0%

TOTAL EXPENSES $2,524,663 $2,828,940 100%

and imagination in anticipating and planning for the needs of the Asso- ciation. My thanks as well to the members of the Trust and Develop- ment Committee (John Bibby, Gayle Binion, William Daniels, Lawrence Dodd, Naomi Lynn, and Jim Stimson) for the generous gift of their time and wise counsel and my best wishes to Gary Jacobson, the incoming treasurer.

New APSA Officers Elected

At the 91st Annual Meeting, the slate of officers put forward by the APSA Nominating Committee was unanimously accepted. The 1995-96 officers are:

President: Arend Lijphart, University of

California-San Diego

President-Elect: Elinor Ostrom, Indiana

University

Vice Presidents: John Ferejohn, Stanford

University Dianne Pinderhughes,

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Harvey Starr, University of South Carolina

Treasurer: Gary C. Jacobson, University of

California-San Diego

Secretary: Susan Welch, Pennsylvania State

University

As the newly elected President, Lijphart made the following appointments to APSA Council Com- mittees for 1995-96:

Fund to endow a new Centennial Center for Political Science at our national headquarters. This long range plan, now endorsed by many of the major committees of the As- sociation, was reviewed by the Trust and Development Committee at its June meeting. The Trust and Development Committee expressed enthusiasm for the proposed Center and will consider a proposal at its

December meeting to increase the spending rate on the T&D endowment by .5% and allocate that in- crement over several years to the Second Century Fund.

I would like to offer my personal thanks to the dedicated staff at the APSA and to the Executive Direc- tor for their excellent fiscal management, their continued balanced budgets, and their creative energy

Administrative Committee:

Serving with Arend Lijphart, President; Elinor Ostrom, Presi- dent-Elect; and Gary C. Jacobson, Treasurer.

Timothy Cook, Williams College Micheal Giles, Emory University Toni-Michelle Travis, George

Mason University Susan Welch, Pennsylvania State

University

December 1995 771

Association News

TABLE 7 APSA National Salary Scale 1995-96

Equivalent 1995 1995-96 1995-96 Number of Government Federal APSA APSA Employees

APSA Position Grade Salary Scale Grade Salary Scale FT PT

Political Scientists: Executive Director SES 95,891-119,425 8 86,500-102,000 1 Deputy Director 15 71,664- 93,166 7 65,000- 91,000 1 Program Directors 13-14 51,557- 79,200 6 48,000- 85,500 2 1

Non-Political Scientists: Program Managers 11-12 36,174- 56,362 5 34,500- 44,000 4 Senior Administrative 9-10 29,898- 42,808 4 28,500- 40,500 3

Assistant Administrative Assistant; 7-8 24,441- 35,185 3 22,000- 34,000 5

Building Manager Secretary, Receptionist 4-6 17,637- 28,592 2 19,000- 28,500 5

Elections Committee: John Ferejohn, Stanford

University Helen Milner, Columbia

University Dianne Pinderhughes, University

of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign

Rules Committee: Rodney Hero, University of

Colorado-Boulder Susan MacManus, University of

South Florida Harvey Starr, University of

South Carolina

APSA Gopher Report Matthew Linkie, APSA

The increasing popularity and usefulness of the Internet has prompted APSA to locate material relevant to the political scientist. Through the efforts of several of it's members, APSA has selected gopher and web sites containing such information. APSA has made accessible its own gopher site with the help of Bill Ball, Department of Political Science, Trenton State University, and is currently working on developing a site on the World Wide Web.

A gopher provides you with the capability to move around the In- ternet by selecting categories of information. It is a link from your terminal to others around the world. The APSA gopher project is moderated and edited by Gary Klass, Department of Political Sci-

ence, Illinois State University and Michael Margolis, Department of Political Science, University of Cincinnati.

Accessing the APSA gopher server enables you to discover files which APSA is making available and to connect to computers around the world holding political science research documents, press releases, and updates on worldwide political current events.

The APSA gopher server is de- signed to work in conjunction with the Political Science Research and Teaching List (PSRT-L) which itself has approximately 1400 sub- scribers in 44 countries. PSRT-L is a moderated discussion list (send the command "subscribe psrt-l your name" to listserv@mizzoul. missouri.edu to join).

This year, the APSA gopher currently averages 150 accesses a day. The root menu is as follows:

About the American Political Sci- ence Association Gopher

American Government Gopher at Northwestern University

Comparative Politics International Relations Political Theory Public Policy and Public Admin-

istration Computers, Software & Data APSA Information & Services Conference Information Scholarships, Fellowships, &

Grants Journal Information The Political Science List of

Lists

E-Mail Directory of Political Sci- entists

Related Gophers and Reference Information

The APSA Information & Ser- vices menu includes documents on APSA's publications, fellowships and grants, awards, membership, and other services, all of which are updated regularly.

To access the APSA gopher server, select the "gopher client" option from your main menu. If you are unfamiliar with using gopher servers or do not have a "gopher client" option on your main menu, contact whoever provides your access to the Internet.

After selecting the "gopher client," type apsa.trenton.edu, and hit enter. The above menu will appear.

Connecting to other gopher servers is just as easy. The following list contains brief descriptions of gopher sites available on the Inter- net:

gopher.csg.org Provides information about the

Council of State Governments and state programs, plus links to state legislative gopher servers.

gopher.igc.apc.org Select WomensNet. News, re-

ports and background information from the Fourth World Conference on Women, September 1995, Bei- jing, China.

gopher.nara.gov National Archives and Records

Administration and the Office of the Federal Register.

gopher.usia.gov Documents, reports and com-

mentary from the United States Information Agency.

sailor.lib.md.us Maryland Information Network

provides general information on Maryland government, as well as federal, foreign, and other state governments.

To access these sites simply select the "gopher client" option from your main menu. Type in the name of the gopher site, and hit enter. This will connect you to that particular site's root menu.


Association News

The World Wide Web (WWW) allows users to view text as well as graphics, video, and sound. Like the gopher, special software is needed to access web pages. The following sites contain information relevant to political science:

http://now.org.now/home.html National Organization for

Women provides information on economic equity, electoral politics, global feminism, and other women's rights issues.

http://www.cnn.com Reports and archives of CNN.

Updated daily.

http://www.law.vill.edu/ Villanova Center for Information

Law and Policy provides an index to Federal Government and Federal Judiciary web sites.

http://www.newslink.org Hundreds of on-line newspapers,

broadcasters, magazines, and news services.

http://www.vote-smart.org Includes links to '96 Presidential

campaign and political issues and organizations, made available by Project Vote-Smart.

Suggestions or comments on other gopher links and web sites can be sent by e-mail to Matt Linkie at [email protected].

McClain and Rice Commended at the 1995 Annual Meeting

Paula D. McClain, University of Virginia, and Mitchell F. Rice, Louisiana State University, were honored by the APSA Committee on the Status of Blacks in the Pro- fession at the 1995 Annual Meeting in Chicago. Plaques were bestowed on these scholars at the annual nightcap reception on Friday, Sep- tember 1, at the Chicago Hilton and Towers Hotel. The Committee began honoring political scientists in 1976 to commend those who have advanced the interest of black political scientists and have distinguished themselves as scholars and teachers.

Sheila D. Ards, University of Minnesota, is chair of the Commit- tee on the Status of Blacks. Other members include Ally Faye Mack, Jackson State University; Charles E. Jones, Georgia State University; Hoda Zaki, Hood College; Kathie Golden, Morgan State University; and Walter Mebane, Cornell Uni- versity.

Paula D. McClain is a member of the Department of Government and Foreign Affairs at the University of Virginia. She received her Ph.D. from Howard University in 1977. She has also taught at Arizona State University and the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee.

McClain has written or edited five books, seven book chapters and over twenty-two refereed articles. In addition to serving as Pres- ident of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists and as Vice-President and Program Co- Chair, APSA 1993 Annual Meeting, she has held a plethora of offices with the following professional associations: National Conference of Black Political Scientists, the American Political Science Associ- ation, the Western Political Science Association, the Midwest Political Science Association, the Southern Political Science Association, and Policy Studies Organization.

Mitchell F. Rice, Professor of Public Administration, Public Ad- ministration Institute and Professor

Paula D. McClain

Mitchell Rice

of Political Science, Louisiana State University, received his Ph.D. from Claremont University in 1976. He has taught at South- west Texas State University and at Prairie View A&M University.

Rice has written or edited six books, thirteen book chapters, and fifty-seven scholarly articles. He has also served as officers in the following professional associations: American Political Science Associ- ation, American Public Health As- sociation, American Society for Public Administration, National Conference of Black Political Sci- entists, National Conference of Minority Public Administrations, National Forum of Black Public Administrations, the Southern Po- litical Science Association, and the Southwestern Political Science Association.

Schuck Campaign Continues

The response to the 1994 campaign on behalf of the Victoria Schuck endowment which supports an award for the best book on women and politics was excellent: individual contributions came to $2,500 and Vicki gave a gift of an additional $2,000. As of 1995, this endowment had sufficient funds to support an award every other year. But, $3,600 more was needed to

December 1995 773

Association News

assure continuing support for an annual award. In spring of 1995, the Women's Caucus for Political Science pledged $1,200 to the endowment as a 1:2 match for contributions; and the Women's Caucus for Political Science-Midwest pledged $250. A letter of appeal from Toni M. Travis, president, Women's Caucus for Political Sci- ence; Kristi Andersen, chair, Com- mittee on the Status of Women in the Profession; and Janet K. Boles, president, Women and Politics Or- ganized Section, to 1994 contributors has yielded $1,075 in donations from the following people:

Kathleen L. Barber Walter Beach Annie Johnson Benifield Diane D. Blair Amy Bridges Barbara Burrell Susan J. Carroll Kathy Ferguson Mary Ellen Fischer Jane Flax Fauneil Joyce Rinn Catherine E. Rudder

Mary Segers Roberta Sigel Barbara Sinclair Dorothy M. Stetson Irwin Gertzog Esther S. Goldstein Mary E. Guy Beverly Gail Hawk Susan MacManus Mary Kay Meyer Eileen McDonagh Julie Mostov Jill Norgren Carole Pateman Laura L. Stoker Sue Thomas Toni Travis Joan Tronto Diane E. Wall Laura R. Woliver

With these recent contributions and the remaining matching funds from the Women's Caucus, only $1,000 more is needed. Fifty political scientists contributing $20 each or 100 contributing $10 each will top the endowment for the Victoria Schuck Award!

National Academy of Sciences Releases Study of Research- Doctorate Programs

The National Academy of Sci- ences, National Academy of Engi- neering, and the Institute of Medi- cine has released Study of Research- Doctorate Programs in the United States: Continuity and Change. The book reports the results of an extensive study on research-doctorate programs in 41 disciplines in the Arts and Humanities, Science, and Engineering. It updates and expands upon the widely used 1982 Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States and examines changes in size, quality and structure of the nearly 2,000 programs in both studies. Quantita- tive data on research grants, publications, citations, awards and honors and the characteristics of program graduates are reported along with the results of the 1993

Contributors to APSA

Alan 1. Abramowitz Leslie E. Anderson Lee Ann Banaszak Walter E. Beach Seth B. Benjamin

Richard D. Bingham Fred Chernoff

Clarke E. Cochran William Corlett

Donald W. Crowley Joel Delofsky Lee Epstein

Martha L. Gibson Harold F. Gosnell

Richard L. Hall Glen Halva-Neubauer

Mark J. Herbst Jennifer Hochschild Christina F. Jeffrey

Joyce K. Kallgren Anthony King Kay Lawson

Christianna Leahy Carol Skalnik Leff

Catherine Anne Lucas Ruth B. Mandel

Suzanne M. Marilley Dale Rogers Marshall

Mary Martinez Lynn Mather

Paula D. McClain Susan McWilliams Kenneth J. Meier Barbara J. Nelson

Dianne Pinderhughes Eric Plutzer

Michael B. Preston Fauneil J. Rinn

Stephen Scroggs Roshani Cari Shay

James F. Sheffield, Jr. Barbara Sinclair

Randolph M. Siverson William C. Sparagens Christine Di Stefano

Deborah Stone Susette M. Talarico

Donald Tannenbaum Otto F. Unsinn

Hanes Walton, Jr. Stephen L. Wasby

PS: Political Science & Politics

f! 0

I

774

Association News

National Survey of Graduate Fac- ulty.

Copies of the report can be or- dered by contacting the National Academy Press at 1-800-624-6242. Some of the report data will be available on the NAS home page <http://www.nas.edu> or <gopher.nas.edu> or <ftp.nas.edu>. If you have questions regarding the report, please call Tony De Santis, 202-334-2293.

Data on political science programs is reproduced in The Profes- sion section of this issue of PS.

Women's Caucus Elects New Officers

The Women's Caucus for Politi- cal Science elected new officers for 1996 at the APSA Annual Meeting in Chicago. The following will

serve in 1995-96: President: Jane Mansbridge, Northwestern Univer- sity; President-Elect: Judith Steihm, US Army War College; Membership Director/Secretary: Barbara Presnall, Texas Woman's University; and Newsletter Editor: Susan R. Burgess, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

United States Information Agency Supports Summer Institutes on the American Political System

The United States Information Agency again awarded grants to the American University and American Political Science Association for an

institute in Washington, DC, for 18 scholars, each from a different country, and to Southern Illinois University for an institute for 18 Russian scholars. Descriptions of these institutes follow and are ac- companied by pictures of the participants. Participants in both programs are enrolled as APSA members in 1996.

The AU/APSA Summer Institute

For the third consecutive year, the American University and the American Political Science Associ- ation conducted a "Summer Insti- tute on the American Political Sys- tem for Foreign Educators" with the support of a grant from the United States Information Agency. The 1995 Summer Institute was

Participants and directors in the AU/APSA Summer Institute are pictured here. Top row (left to right): Philip Brenner, Martha Bonham, Wawrzyniec Konarski, Dimitr Dimitrov, Zhiyao Zhang, Jugderyn Bor. Middle rows (left to right): Youssef Knani, Gui-do Song, Sabysachi Basu Ray Chaudhury, Yevgeniya Bogoyavlenskaya, Tafesse Olika, Zeljiko Bartulovic, Ernesto Velazquez Argana, Elena Kosmach, Sheilah Mann. Bottom row (left to right) Rafael Velazquez Flores, Myint Kyi, Krisha Hachhethu, Adebayo Okunade, Antonio Ramalho Da Rocha.

December 1995 775

Association News

Southern Illinois University/APSA participants, directors, and staff: First row (left to right): Oksana Kharitonova, Tatiana Chmurenki, Ildus Isishev, Larissa Baybakova, Valentina Fedotova, Olga Ivonina, Irina Milyukova, Marie Mika. Second row (left to right): Larisa Rouban, Vladimir Kalita, Ivan Nikolova, John S. Jackson, Innessa Tarussina, Ludmila Smolyakova, Olga Senjutkina, Emma Rubaeva, Mike Esler. Third row (left to right): Ivan Kurilla, Nail Moukhariamov, James Leibert, Vladimir Goutorov, Grigoir Golosov, Gennady Shupick, Alan Arwine, Linz Brown, Grigori Klyuchev. Note: Marie Mika, Mike Esler, Ivan Nikolova, James Leibert and Alan Arwine were Institute Staff. John Jackson was Director, and Linz Brown was Co-Director of the Institute.

co-directed by Philip Brenner, Chair, Department of International Politics and Foreign Policy, and James A. Thurber, Director of the Center for Congressional and Presi- dential Studies in the School of Public Affairs. Brenner and Thurber directed units on foreign policy and Congressional politics and interest groups, respectively. Susan Ham- mond, Editor, Congress and the Presidency, directed a unit on the presidency and executive branch. Sheilah Mann, Director, Education Programs, APSA, directed a unit on constitutional democracy and the courts. Other components of the program covered the media, parties and elections, consultations on research and curriculum development. In addition, there were field trips to Philadelphia and An- napolis in order to examine urban politics and federalism.

The eighteen scholars-from eighteen countries-appreciated the opportunity to be in Washington,

D.C., and the opportunity to "see American politics where so much happens." They heard from political scientists, elected and appointed officials, lobbyists, and journalists. In addition to the formal sessions organized for the participants, they put together a series of sessions devoted to presenta- tions on their own countries. These Institute participants are serious scholar/teachers. One half of them conducted a research project or completed a research paper. All worked on syllabi and course plans to integrate material about Ameri- can politics and foreign policy into existing or new courses.

The participants' names, institutional affiliations, and countries are:

Ernesto Velazquez Argafia, National University of Asuncion, Paraguay

Zeljiko Bartulovic, University of Rijeka, Croatia

Sabysachi Basu Ray Chaudhury,

Rabindra Bharati University, India

Yevgeniya Bogoyavlenskaya, St. Petersburg State University, Russia

Jugderyn Bor, School of Foreign Service, Mongolia

Antonio Jorge Ramalho Da Rocha, University of Brasilia, Brazil

Dimitr Dimitrov, Sofia University, Bulgaria

Rafael Velazquez Flores, National Autonomous University of Mex- ico, Mexico

Krishna Hachhethu, Tribhuvan University, Nepal

Youssef Knani, University of Tunis, Tunisia

Wawrzyniec Konarski, University of Warsaw, Poland

Elena Kosmach, Minsk State Peda- gogical University, Belarus

Myint Kyi, Dagon University, Myanmar

Mustafa S. Mehmetcik, University of Lefke, Turkey


Association News

Politics and Film Dear Colleague:

We are attempting to organize a new Politics & Film section within the American Political Science Associa- tion and invite you to join us in establishing this section devoted to bringing together scholars interested in both the discipline of politics and the film medium.

The purpose of this new organized section is to do the following:

Foster research in the various relationships between the field of politics and the film medium, including, but not limited to, film as propaganda and ideological expression, film as political and social consciousness, and film as barometer of political opinion.

Examine and analyze the politics of the film industry, including the impact that censorship, blacklisting, and McCarthyism has had on filmmakers and filmmaking.

Promote the study of the interrelationship between film and politics as a means of stimulating study and discussion among teachers and scholars as to the use of film as a methodological tool for more effective teaching.

Recognize the contribution and importance of the film medium to the promotion and development of democratic government and the advancement of human rights.

But in order to make the section a reality, we need your help. Under APSA guidelines, establishing a new section requires the endorsement of 200 APSA members. To become one of these "Charter members," get in touch with us, and we will send you a membership pledge form. Thanks for your support.

Cordially,

Michael Haas, Coordinator Political Film Society 2424 Maile Way, Suite 639 Honolulu, Hawaii 96822-2223 Phone: 808 956 7278 Fax: 808 956 6877

Ernest Giglio Political Science Lycoming College Williamsport, PA 17701 Phone: 717 321 4275 Fax: 717 321 4090

Adebayo Okunade, University of Ibadan, Nigeria

Tafesse Olika, Addis Ababa Uni- vesity, Ethiopia

Gui-do Song, Chunbuk National University, South Korea

Zhiyao Zhang, Jilin University, PR China

The Institute at Southern Illinois University

This is the third consecutive Summer in which Southern Illinois University at Carbondale has played host to a USIA-sponsored Summer Institute. The 1993 Insti- tute was held for eighteen international scholars from eighteen different nations. The 1994 Institute was focused on Russian educators only, and the 1995 Institute repeated that pattern. The participants teach Po- litical Science, History, Law, and American Studies in universities across the entire nation of Russia.

These scholars had major responsibilities for teaching a wide range of subjects about the United States, especially American political science; however, most of them did not have graduate-level educations in the mainstream of current Amer- ican political science training. The objective of the Institute was to give these participants a firm foundation in the American political system, with emphasis on both American institutions and Ameri- can political processes. A synoptic overview of current political trends and conflicts in the American polity was provided. In addition, a review of major contemporary research questions and trends in the discipline was emphasized.

This was a six weeks Institute with four weeks spent in Carbon- dale. One additional week included a tour of cultural, governmental, and political sites in St. Louis, Mis- souri, Springfield, Illinois, and Chi-

cago, Illinois. The final week was spent in Washington, D.C., where an intensive tour of the major governmental and cultural sites was provided. This week included a very helpful visit to the American Political Science Association headquarters, and the participants became APSA members for one year as a part of the grant. The project was directed by John S. Jackson, Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Professor of Political Science at SIUC. Other SIUC program directors included Michael Esler, Barbara Brown, and John L. Fos- ter, Chair of the Department of Po- litical Science. Most of the faculty of the Political Science Department and several Law School faculty members gave individual lectures.

We hope to build on the linkages and friendships established over the past two summers to ensure increased interaction between Ameri- can universities and our colleagues in Russia over the next few years.

December 1995 777

Association News

Forty-Third Class of Congressional Fellows Begins 1995-96 Program

Winners of the 1995-96 Congres- sional Fellowship Program competition for political scientists, journalists and federal employees were announced in the September 1995 issue of this publication.

In addition, medical professionals and international participants have been selected to be Congressional Fellows.

Robert Wood Johnson Health Policy Fellows

Michael A. Ashbum, M.D., M.P.H., Associate Professor of Anesthesi- ology, and Medical Director, Pain Management Center, Uni- versity of Utah

Diane M. Becker, Sc.D., M.P.H., Associate Professor, Division of Internal Medicine; The Johns Hopkins Schools of Medicine; Public Health; and Nursing

P. Pearl O'Rourke, M.D., Associ- ate Professor of Anesthesiology and Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine; and Director, Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Children's Hospital and Medical Center, Seattle

Jonelle C. Rowe, M.D., Professor of Pediatrics, and Chief, Division of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, University of Connecticut School of Medicine

David P. Stevens, M.D., Vice-Dean; and Scott R. Inkley Professor of General Internal Medicine, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Case West- ern Reserve University

Wendy B. Young, R.N., Ph.D., Associate Dean for Academic Affairs; and Associate Professor, Department of Administrative Studies in Nursing, College of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago

Carl Albert Fellow

Jonathan D. Mott, Ph.D. Candi- date and Graduate Research Assis- tant, Carl Albert Congressional Re- search and Studies Center, University of Oklahoma

German Fellows

Thomas Greven, Ph.D. Candi- date and Research Assistant, John F. Kennedy Institute for North American Studies, Freie Universi- tat Berlin

Hans-Joachim Hogrefe, M.A., University of Munster

French Fellow

Frederique Sandretto, Journalist and Ph.D. Candidate, Institut d'Etudes Politiques, Paris

Section News

The Presidency Research Group and the Archivist of the United States

Formed in 1981, the Presidency Research Group represents some 430 professional scholars specializ- ing in the study of the presidency. Its membership crosses disciplines, including history, communications, and economics, but its primary base of membership is among political scientists. The PRG has a long- standing professional interest in the activities of the National Archives. And as regular users of the Ar- chives, we are concerned with its leadership. The members of our organization have given substantial thought to the issues to be dealt with by the Archivist of the United States and to the nomination of Governor John Carlin to fill that position. In addition, the Presi- dency Research Group is an active sponsor in PRESIDENT, a public/ private partnership working to bring the materials of the presidential libraries system onto the Inter- net. As such, the Presidency Research Group has both a philo- sophical and pragmatic interest in the conduct of the National Ar-

chives and in the selection of its director, the Archivist of the United States.

In February, with the position of Archivist still to be nominated, the officers and board members of the Presidency Research Group developed and refined resolutions to underscore the importance of selecting a person with suitable experience for the position. We believe such experience includes: managing a large government executive or large private organization, promoting the proper treatment of government records, direct familiarity with both legislators and chief executives, understanding of the Na- tional Archives and Records Ad- ministration operations and its scholarly research role, and a proven record suggesting such a person would administer the Archives in a nonpartisan manner. In addition, we outlined public policy areas of particular concern to us, including the development of electronic access to governmental records and expanded participation by users on advisory boards considering policies of accessing information. These resolutions were used to develop interview questions to direct to candidates for the Archivist position. Two of our officers, Profes- sors Terry Sullivan and Martha Ku- mar, interviewed Governor Carlin and reported back to the membership. An electronic cross-country dialog continued with the purpose of applying the consensual resolutions to the consideration of Gover- nor Carlin, who by that time was the President's nominee.

At the conclusion of an intensive exchange of views, the board members determined that Governor Car- lin has a background suitable to be Archivist of the United States.

Statement Submitted by the Presidency Research Group to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs Concerning the Nomination of John W. Carlin to Be Archivist of the United States

Formed in 1981, the Presidency Research Group is an organization representing the nation's scholars interested in the presidency and as


Association News

such has a particular interest in the appointment of the Archivist of the United States. As regular users of the Archives, we are concerned with its leadership. Almost all of our seventeen officers and board members regularly use the National Archives in their professional research. In addition, the Presidency Research Group is an active sponsor of PRESIDENT, a public/private partnership working to bring the presidential libraries onto the Internet for improved access by scholars and the general public.

The board and many members of our organization have given substantial thought to the issues around the appointment of the Ar- chivist of the United States and to the nomination of Governor John Carlin to fill that post. Beginning in February, we established a series of qualifications for the post, en- gaged in a continuous debate on the position, conducted an interview with Governor Carlin, and completed a discussion of Gover- nor Carlin's background, professional qualifications, and past experiences.

The board members of the Presi- dency Research Group agree Gov- ernor Carlin has a professional background appropriate for managing the National Archives and Records Administration. We believe his sixteen years in elected political office have provided him with a firm base for managing an agency the size of the National Ar- chives and Records Administration. He has experience successfully managing a large work force, he comes with the standing needed for an Archivist to maintain a position of independence, and he has a history of successfully working with elected officials on both sides of the aisle. First, his management experience. His eight years as governor of Kansas and his eight years in the state legislature, including two years as Speaker of the House, are experiences relevant to the challenges of managing an executive agency. In his service in both the executive and legislative branches, he regularly created budgets, developed policies on a broad range of subjects, managed a large government service many of whose employees

were covered by civil service status, and operated in a context where opposing parties controlled the executive and legislative branches. He handled a budget of considerable size and a large state work force. In his last fiscal year in office, Governor Carlin worked with a budget of expenditures of $3.629 billion dollars and revenues of $4.112 billion.1 In that year there were 42,857 full time employees of the state.2 In its 1993 annual report the National Archives and Records Administration describes itself as having 3,068 employees and a budget of $167,897,000.3 It is a sub- stantially smaller operation than what Governor Carlin has proven capable of handling in the past.

Strong management experience is critical in the selection of an Archi- vist of the United States as the agency has been without a head for approximately half of the ten years it has been an independent executive agency. Without a permanent portfolio, no acting head can lead an agency in the manner one can with the confirmed authority of the nomination process. Of the five years that the Archives did have an Archivist, your committee found sharp fault with the management practices exercised during three of those years. In "Serious Manage- ment Problems at the National Ar- chives and Records Administra- tion," your committee reported that you "found that the management of the National Archives and Records Administration has, during the years 1989-1992, reflected a pattern of expedience and control which has been regularly substi- tuted for sound management."4 In particular you cited problems with leadership at the top of the agency. "Archivist Wilson bears primary responsibility for the myriad of expedient and short sighted actions raising questions of compliance with laws, regulation, and standards of conduct detailed in the report."5 With a ten year history of unsteady leadership, management issues are the penetrating issues facing the National Archives and Records Administration.

An Archivist of the United States must provide an environment of stability and continuity within

which agency experts can focus on their particular specialities. With a surfeit of archivists already within the agency, the Archivist of the United States first and foremost needs management skill. As a manager, he can call on staff to develop specific agency policies. In our interview with him, Governor Carlin confirmed that "in my judgment, the person at the top needs to be as much as anything a manager, an administrator, a leader, a spokes- person, a salesman."6 As governor, he appointed people whom he considered to be talented and then let them do their work. Robert Harder, who served five governors of both political parties as Secretary of So- cial and Rehabilitation Services, including Governor Carlin, commented on his management style. "Once a secretary was appointed, he was expected to do his job," the secretary observed. "He made no pretense of being an expert on welfare programs or hospitals and institutions. He hired us to do that."7

Governor Carlin's proven management style of inclusion has his- torically involved a broad range of people. He explained his management style. "One of my management techniques is to involve people through the ranks so that when a decision is made you have leadership and support built into the whole delivery system," he told us. He called for a style emphasizing the involvement of those throughout the system "rather than all wis- dom at the top deciding what to do and then telling those folks down through the chain of command what to do," he continued. "But if the person in the field has some ownership or one of their colleagues is a part of putting it together, they are far more likely to be supportive of the program." His style of inclusion could easily work to the benefit of the Archives. When he was chairman of the National Governors Association in 1984- 1985, he made state efforts to stimulate foreign investment and the creation of export markets a cen- terpiece of his work with the group.8 His history of working with business groups puts him in a good position to raise additional funds for activities, such as exhibits, that

December 1995 779

Association News

lie outside of the core of the mis- sion of the National Archives.

In addition to recognized experience, Governor Carlin also brings the standing that a successful statewide officeholder develops through repeatedly facing the electorate. His reputation is an asset that he is likely to protect, not squander. Such standing is invaluable in deal- ings with other institutions and their personnel. As the Archivist of the United States, the appointee needs standing to deal effectively with people in the executive and legislative branches. A peer is better able to say to a President that a particular action with government records would be unwise. In addition, an official who has had to face an electorate can have a sense of the boundaries of decision-making. A person who is a professionally trained specialist, may wander into difficulties that a person who has faced an electorate would recognize as a problem. The recent problems at the Air and Space Museum concerning the proposed Enola Gay exhibition provide an illustration of the shoals that a specialist can wander onto and the damage that can result. As the year began, 81 House members signed a petition calling for the ouster of the director.9

A former elected official who has gone through the process of opening his own records, Governor Car- lin is aware of the issues involved in making such records available. Having made his own gubernatorial records available, Governor Carlin has a demonstrated record of carry- ing out an open information policy with government records. "Before Governor Carlin's day, governors owned their papers and disposed of them as they saw fit" observed a person familiar with the gubernatorial records process in Kansas. "Most sanitized them and then deeded what was left to the State Archives with very strong reserva- tions on their use. One former governor simply burned his records. In fact, before Governor Carlin came into office, a governor's records were a lot like the worst nightmare of the Presidential Records Act: the chief executive completely control- ling and manipulating the record. Governor Carlin changed that by

creating a tradition of openness and access."10

Governor Carlin's bipartisan support from members of Congress indicates that he has the base to administer the National Archives in a nonpartisan manner without regard to the considerations of a political party. In his eight years as the governor of Kansas, he operated in a political setting that required the development of bipartisan coalitions to govern. While a Democrat, he was able to successfully deal with a Republican legislature. Robert Harder, Secretary of Social and Rehabilitation Services, noted Carlin's gifts in dealing with the legislature. "He certainly knows how to plot a legislative strategy," he said. "He knows how to count. During his eight years, not a single veto was overridden by the legislature, which demonstrated that he understood just how must support he could get."" As Archi- vist, his expressed intention is to serve in a nonpartisan manner. "I intend to be literally nonpolitical in terms of partisan politics," said Governor Carlin in our interview with him. "I am leaving partisan politics. I am going into a position where I serve several branches and both political parties. And the only way to do that is to be a true, legit- imate, independent person. I intend to treat this like a judgeship. To be nonpartisan; to do what is right and serve all branches of government." Carlin's words should serve as the standard that he is held to by the Congress and by those interested in the operations of the Archives.

The National Archives serves as our national memory yet it has been the object of neglect by those it serves. In its ten years as an independent executive agency, it has had an Archivist for barely half of those years. Assuming that those leaderless years were dissipated in searches for an ideal candidate, no one has emerged who satisfies all of those involved in the process. It is now time to move on and fill that position with a professional who has the background to manage an independent executive agency and who has the support of officeholders from both sides of the aisle.

Governor John Carlin is such a person.

Notes 1. Council of State Governments, Book of

the States, 1990-91 (Lexington, Ky.: The Council of State Governments, 1990), vol. 28, p. 292.

2. Ibid., p. 358. 3. National Archives and Records Admin-

istration, Annual Report, 1993, The Na- tional Archives at Sixty, pp. 42-43.

4. Report by the Committee on Govern- mental Affairs, United States Senate, Serious Management Problems at the National Archives and Records Admin- istration (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Gov- ernment Printing Office, 1992), p. 37.

5. Ibid. 6. Interview with John Carlin, Terry Sulli-

van and Martha Joynt Kumar, May 3rd, 1995.

7. Telephone interview with Robert Harder, Martha Joynt Kumar, May 16, 1995.

8. See John Herbers, "Study Says States Seize Initiative on World Trade," The New York Times, August 5, 1985.

9. John Healey, "Government and Com- merce," Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, January 28, 1995, vol- ume 53, no. 4, p. 274.

10. Background interview, Terry Sullivan, May 19th, 1995.

11. Harder interview.

An Exchange of Letters

To: Larry Berman, President, Presidency Research Group

I was astonished and appalled to read that Martha Kumar testified on behalf of the Presidency Re- search Group in support of the Carlin nomination.

In your most recent newsletter you produced a fine statement about the need for a qualified Ar- chivist of the United States. It seems that you then proceeded to toss it into the nearest wastebasket in order to support an out-of-work friend of Bill and Bob who pos- sesses none of the qualifications your statement calls for.

The nomination certainly violates the spirit of the law and perhaps its letter. The PRG support of it, especially coming after your declaration on the post, makes the group look ridiculous.

I am sorry that I recently re- newed my membership in the PRG.


Association News

I will not do so when I pay my APSA dues next spring.

Alonzo L. Hamby Professor of History Ohio University

To Alonzo L. Hamby

Larry Berman forwarded to me your letter expressing alarm over the appointment of Governor John Carlin to be Archivist of the United States. In addition, you conveyed astonishment that the Presidency Research Group testified in his behalf before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. Indeed the Presidency Research Group found Governor Carlin to have a background suitable to be the Ar- chivist. We did so on the basis of an inclusive decision-making process, the development of state- ments formulating the priorities of the group, and a process of weighing information on the governor's background and his stated positions with the current needs of the Na- tional Archives and Records Ad- ministration. Let me review with you the process by which we reached our conclusion and the information on which we based our decision.

Beginning in February, the officers, board members, and general members of the Presidency Re- search Group joined together in an on-line cross-country conversation. From that discussion we forged a series of resolutions expressing our interest in having as the Archivist an individual with the following qualifications: management experience; the standing required to provide the individual with independence; and a background demonstrating a commitment to an open records policy. Our management resolution provided: "The nominee should have experience managing a large government executive." We regarded management experience as an important qualifier for the post because the National Archives and Records Administra- tion is an agency with a 1996 budget request of $195,291,000 and approximately 3,000 employees housed within its walls.

A person with little management

experience has slight chance of succeeding in that post. Don W. Wilson, the nominee of the archival and historical communities, came into the position of Archivist of the United States with scant management experience. As the head of the Gerald R. Ford Library, he handled a budget of only $1.596 million and a staff of less than 50 people. Since we regarded the Wil- son experience as one to avoid, we were particularly sensitive to his lack of management qualifications. Our concern, it turns out, was shared by the members of the Sen- ate Committee on Governmental Affairs. During Don Wilson's tenure at the National Archives, the Senate oversight committee was so concerned over the poor management operation at the National Ar- chives that it conducted an inquiry and released a report on the matter. In its report, "Serious Manage- ment Problems at the National Archives and Records Administra- tion," the committee commented that it "found that the management of the National Archives and Records Administration has, during the years 1989-1992, reflected a pattern of expedience and control which has been regularly substi- tuted for sound management." The committee report placed responsibility for the management problems with Don Wilson. "Archivist Wil- son bears primary responsibility for the myriad of expedient and short sighted actions raising questions of compliance with laws, regulations, and standards of conduct detailed in the report." The Senate report characterized the leadership during the Wilson years as deficient. The other years in the ten year history of the Archives were without a leader. There has been no Archivist of the United States during half of the agency's life as an independent executive service. Accordingly, we concluded that the Archivist first and foremost needed to have a record of successful management experience.

Our standards also called for the appointment of someone with "experience dealing directly with both legislators and chief executives since these officials set policy for government records." We required

such experience because of the difficult position of an Archivist. He must be a person with standing in order to effectively deal with the President and with members of Congress. Again the case of Don Wilson is an object lesson. The agreement he signed with president George Bush, we believe, is a cov- enant that should never have been arranged. As a person with no political experience behind him and in awe of the President he served, Don Wilson willingly signed an agreement he knew nothing about prior to affixing his signature. The Washington Post stated that "Wil- son said he never saw the Bush agreement until the night of Jan. 19, was unfamiliar with its terms 'and signed it only upon advice of counsel,' Archives general counsel Gary L. Brooks." Wilson said that those who criticized his making the agreement did not understand "the political environment in which I was operating." According to the Washington Post, Wilson told Page Miller, director of the National Co- ordinating Committee for the Pro- motion of History, that he had been called "to the White House late at night," with "all these law- yers from the Justice Department and the White House there," say- ing to Wilson that everything in the papers "was legal and proper." It is hard to refuse a presidential request when you are called down to the White House. Consequently, it is particularly important to have someone in that position who has sufficient standing to challenge a President.

A third area of concern for us was selecting for the post of Archi- vist someone with experience in records management. Our resolution provided: "The nominee should have experience promoting the proper treatment of government records, including their storage, preservation, dissemination, and public access." We were concerned that the nominee have a record of having worked on behalf of an open records policy. While it is easy for a person to state that he or she will work on the behalf of opening records, what has that person actually done in the course of his or her work experience to pro-

December 1995 781

Association News

mote such a policy? That was the question we sought to answer.

Once we developed our resolutions, we moved on to the task of applying them. We did not envision our role as one seeking out persons whom we thought should fill the post and then informing the White House who the nominee should be. The President of the United States nominates a person to be Archivist of the United States, not the Presi- dency Research Group. Our role was to consider the person Presi- dent Clinton selected and determine if that person's background was one suitable to manage the Na- tional Archives. While he was yet to be nominated, the candidate the White House had settled on was Governor John W. Carlin. In order to properly apply our resolutions to a consideration of the President's nominee, Terry Sullivan, Secretary of the Presidency Research Group, and I spent a month gathering information reflecting Governor Car- lin's conduct in his 16 years of elected political life. We talked with persons who had worked with Governor Carlin in his role as an administrator, in his post as the chairman of the National Gover- nors Association, and as a person who controlled his gubernatorial records. We read articles appearing in the New York Times and in the Washington Post describing his gubernatorial years and his work as chairman of the National Gover- nors Association. We searched through library shelves looking for entries on Carlin's administration appearing in works on state government and on governorships. We read articles written about him and by him, including "The Governor as Administrator, Leader, and Communicator." We spoke with people who currently work in the National Archives and with persons who worked there in an earlier time period.

In addition, I went to Washington to speak with Senator Mark Hat- field, chairman of the Senate Ap- propriations Committee. In his 28 years in Washington, Senator Hat- field has especially cherished the Archives as an agency. I was aware that he was a sponsor of Governor Carlin. I asked him to

comment on his perception of the state of the National Archives and to assess Governor Carlin's fitness for that post. He strongly sup- ported John Carlin and provided good reasons for doing so. Having gathered information about the current state of the National Archives and on Governor Carlin's background, we then moved to gather information from the nominee him- self. Terry Sullivan and I interviewed Governor Carlin over a two hour period and found him to be both responsive and informed.

With our information assembled, Terry Sullivan and I recommended to the board members of the Presi- dency Research Group that we find Governor Carlin's background to be a suitable one to manage the National Archives. We did so because we found him to have strong management experience, the standing that derives from successfully holding statewide elected office, and a history of an open records policy. During his years in public office, John Carlin regularly dealt with budgets and a work force of considerable size. In his last year in office, for example, Governor Carlin had a budget with expenditures of $3.629 billion and revenues of $4.112 billion. He was in charge of 42,857 full time employees, or 54,093 employees if you include the part-time people. As an elected official at the state level, he is a person with standing. Who better than a peer to say to a President that an action would not be in anyone's interest. No one with the standing of a governor would have acceded to the request of the Bush White House to sign the kind of agreement that Don Wilson did. When Eliot Richardson was Attorney General he held the line against a determined President and White House staff. During his years as the lieutenant governor and as the attorney general of Massachusetts, Richardson built a reputation for rectitude and strongly protected it when challenged by the Nixon White House. Those elected at the state level with successful careers in office have a reputation to protect. it is not something they are likely to squander on a bad presidential deal.

To intimate as you do that because Governor Carlin has served in public life he is not fit to be Ar- chivist is to cast calumny on the notion of public service. Persons who rise to positions of authority in politics spend their lives weighing conflicting interest and values and, unless they perform this function well, their political life is not a long one. Those who do this key task well command the trust of the people to whom they are ultimately responsible and are rewarded by a continuation in office. Governor Carlin served the two full terms a Kansas governor is allowed. During his eight years in office, John Car- lin successfully worked with a Re- publican legislature. His veto record provides a measure of his success. He vetoed 127 measures, none of which was overridden by the legislature. His ability to weigh the interests of persons from both political parties is a strength an Ar- chivist needs. After all, the current political environment in Washing- ton is one where the Archivist will need to work with a Democratic President and a Republican Con- gress. In reviewing the nominee's work with government records, we found Governor Carlin to be qualified for the post. The real test for a person on the issue of open records is what that person has done in the past. Once he left office, Governor Carlin had a wide range of options for handling his gubernatorial papers. One of the previous occupants had burned his, while others had gone through what they had remov- ing material at will and then releas- ing the remainder with bountiful restrictions placed on their use. Governor Carlin made public the full range of his papers and did so within a year.

You may not like our decision, but "ridiculous" it is not. We carefully thought through the needs of the Archives, systematically gathered information in several areas, and weighed the information against what we knew of the nominee and of the requirements for the position. For Terry Sullivan and me, the process took three months of consistent work. For our board members and for others who joined our on-line conversation, it also


Association News

took time and energy. We all willingly gave our attention to the issues surrounding the Archives because the National Archives serves as our nation's memory. And we find that in recent years it has been the object of neglect by those it especially serves. As we said in our testimony before the Senate Com- mittee on Governmental Affairs: "In its ten years as an independent executive agency, it has had an Ar- chivist for barely half of those years. Assuming that those leaderless years were dissipated in searches for an ideal candidate, no one has emerged who satisfies all of those involved in the process. It is now time to move on and fill that position with a professional, who has the background to manage an independent agency and who has the support of officeholders from both sides of the aisle." Governor Carlin's nomination was unanimously approved both by the members of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and by the members of the United States Senate.

As scholars, we believe the hall- mark of the academic community is the recognition that many points of view are acknowledged and accepted. Scholarly groups have contributions to make, even if the judgements they render are not similar to one another. Why should groups be expected to replicate the decision-making process and the pronouncements of others? We are simply one voice among many and one that acted in good conscience. While I appreciate your point of view, I find it difficult to understand how a person could entertain and act upon such feelings of deep dudgeon without having first in- quired what was said and how we arrived at our decisions. As officers of the Presidency Research Group, we worked hard to gather relevant information for those we serve. I am a member of the American His- torical Association and plan on retaining that membership. I will remain a member even though I do not agree with that organization's characterization of John Carlin nor with its failure to interview the governor and to inquire into his past record. While I am disap-

pointed that you have so roundly condemned us, I regret neither our decisions nor the process we used to arrive at our conclusions.

Martha Joynt Kumar Vice-President, PRG

Response to Martha Kumar

As a historian who is a member of the APSA and a number of its sections, I was heartened last spring to learn that the Presidency Research Group (PRG) had taken an interest in the selection of a new Archivist of the United States. The PRG's statement of qualifications for the positions struck me on the whole as solid and constructive. I was, to put it mildly, amazed by the PRG's subsequent decision to testify before the Senate Govern- mental Affairs Committee in support of the Clinton administration's nomination of former Governor John Carlin of Kansas. The PRG was one of only two professional groups to support Governor Carlin. (The other was the National Asso- ciation of Government Records Ad- ministrators.) Arrayed against his nomination was a coalition of 16 scholarly associations, including the American Council of Learned Societies, the Society of American Archivists, the American Historical Association, and the Organization of American Historians. (The APSA took no position on the nomination.)

Governor Carlin, a longtime friend of President Clinton and also well-regarded by his fellow Kansan Senate Republican leader Robert Dole, was of course quickly confirmed. Given the bipartisan char- acter of the nominee's sponsorship and given the unhappy fact that the National Archives had lingered for more than two years without permanent leadership, the confirmation was probably as close to inevitable as such things can be. Still the PRG lent the Carlin designation significant legitimacy. My own correspondence with incoming PRG president Martha Kumar and my attendance at the PRG's business meeting at the Chicago convention has left me with no doubt that the PRG leadership remains convinced

that it understood the merits of this appointment far better than all those unaware scholars and archivists who were on the other side. The PRG sponsored with pride a reception (paid for by section dues? the National Archives? a friendly philanthropist?) at which the new Archivist was guest of honor. Pres- ident Kumar conducted the business meeting with the objective of informing those who attended that its officers had acted as they did; comments from the floor were not requested. One individual had planned to offer a resolution to require a canvass of the entire membership in future such instances. Time expired before the chair got around to asking the floor for new business. Clearly the PRG officers feel that they have scored a coup.

Although most political scientists do little work with archival sources, a substantial and (one senses) growing number do. Schol- ars of the presidency, whether historians or political scientists, make heavy use of the presidential library system, a division of the Na- tional Archives. Many students of international relations use both presidential libraries and the State Department documents at the Ar- chives. Writers on American politics, whether interested in the historical development and analysis of institutions or political parties or in contemporary political processes, often use sources organized and maintained by the National Ar- chives. Political scientists, perhaps especially analysts of the presidency, have a significant interest in the leadership of the National Ar- chives. I remain unconvinced that the PRG has served that interest wisely.

First, there is the quite real issue of whether Governor Carlin knows much about the post to which he was appointed and just how long it will take him to learn about it. The law clearly states that the Archivist must possess professional qualifications for the position. Governor Carlin holds a B.S. in dairy hus- bandry from Kansas State; his archival experience and training are invisible to the naked eye. Granted that the language of the law is vague enough that his tenure prob-

December 1995 783

Association News

ably could withstand a legal challenge, his appointment clearly violates the spirit of the statute. And there is a reason for that language. As Kumar points out in her response to me, the National Ar- chives is a large institution with diverse missions. Above all, it is a primary repository of the nation's historical memory. It seems reason- able to many of us that the Archi- vist, whatever that person's other merits, should come to his post with considerable experience in the field he is called upon to lead, a precise sense of the functions of the National Archives, and a program of action to meet both urgent present-day problems and future challenges.

Karen Benedict, a prominent archival consultant who happens also to be the spouse of a noted historian with considerable archival research experience, was one of three representatives of the Society of American Archivists who interviewed Governor Carlin after he became a candidate for the job. Writing to the New York Times [May 12, 1995], which already had editorially opposed the nomination, she described a charming, ill-informed man with little understanding of the job to which he aspired and no appreciation of its tradi- tional independence from direct executive control. Governor Carlin, I have been told, is a fast learner. Let us hope so. It is true that by the time of his perfunctory confirmation hearings in late May, he insisted with a straight face that he could say "no" to his old friend the President on potentially important disputes involving the distinction between publicly-owned presidential papers and Mr. Clinton's personal documents. And who can doubt that he would do the same with a President Robert Dole, his other major sponsor? Only the most jaded cynic?

Such questions are far from hy- pothetical. The Presidential Papers Act requires the Archivist to make these critical distinctions. Former Archivist Don Wilson incurred a firestorm of criticism when he signed an agreement with President George Bush exempting many electronically stored records from the

law-and then resigned as Archi- vist to become director of the Bush Library. The agreement has since been overturned in a federal district court, the decision of which has been appealed by the Clinton administration. To the best of my knowledge, Carlin has not progressed beyond exceedingly fuzzy generalizations on the electronic records issue, although it will have increasing relevance-"urgency" is not too strong a word-throughout the federal government. It is perhaps the most pressing example of the sort of archival decision-making for which he seems quite unpre- pared, as well as severely handi- capped by his lack of an independent claim to his position.

In her communication with me, Professor Kumar's arguments in Carlin's favor seem to come down to the following propositions:

(1) He is not Don Wilson. True enough, and who would argue otherwise? What Kumar chooses to ignore, however, is that he is widely believed to be Don Wilson's choice as a successor, a point that was brought out in the brief testimony allowed at the confirmation hearings.

(2) He is an excellent manager. Well, perhaps he is-but of everything and anything? By Ku- mar's reasoning, any governor of a small state who has evaded impeachment or major scandal can manage anything. One won- ders why Governor Carlin was not put up for surgeon-general? Was it a belief that maybe just this one post required some professional credentials? If the administration wanted to give Governor Carlin larger managerial responsibilities, it is a shame that another out-of-work Kansan had already been appointed Secretary of Agricul- ture, a post he might have filled very capably. As it is, at least Warren Christopher is relieved of the need to look apprehen- sively over his shoulder.

Need one add that it is hyperbole to claim, as Kumar has, that to doubt Governor Carlin's qualifications for this professional position "is to cast calumny on the notion

of public service?" The argument is not about the new Archivist's former public service, which has many admirers; rather it is about whether he is fit for this particular job.

No one can deny the existence of major managerial problems at the National Archives. They are overwhelming enough to mandate an appointment from the outside rather than promotion from within. But how will Mr. Carlin-lacking experience in the field, innocent of much knowledge of the Archives and its constituencies-go about dealing with these? If his remarks to Karen Benedict's group are in- dicative, he intends to play the role of Mr. Outside, dealing with Con- gress and the President. Initial indi- cations are that he has been pretty successful in defending the Na- tional Archives' funding. Mr. In- side presumably will be the new Deputy Archivist, Lewis Bellardo, a well-regarded career federal archivist. Will he have the ability and authority to act as a strong hands-on manager? And can even a first-rate insider do the sort of job that seemed to demand an outside appointee?

Other professional associations bear some blame for this result. In retrospect, too many of the candidates they advanced were notable scholars with a keen knowledge of the issue but less impressive managerial credentials, although one was the president of a major college and another the head of an important scholarly organization. It is best all around if the Archivist of the United States is an archivist with a strong managerial track record and demonstrated sensitivity to the con- cerns of scholars. Contrary to the apparent assumption of the PRG leadership, such persons exist and are capable of dealing with the issues that confront the National Ar- chives. In face, solid professional experience is essential for doing so.

For now, Mr. Carlin is the only Archivist we have. His post is of great importance to all social scientists, and we must all hope he han- dles it well. May we also hope that when he leaves it, it will revert to its former status as a position to be


Association News

filled by an individual with professional qualifications?

Alonzo L. Hamby Ohio University

Response to Alonzo Hamby

While I believe it is not particularly fruitful to revisit the issues considered in our earlier correspondence, I do challenge Hamby's assertion that the Presidency Re- search Group acted improperly and in an ill-informed manner. We did neither. In fact, it was not the officers who made the decisions on the nomination, but rather the board members as a whole. The board is specifically empowered by our by-laws to make such decisions outside of our general annual meeting. The vote in favor of finding Governor Carlin's background to be a suitable one to manage the Archives was an overwhelming 13 to 1.

As political scientists, we are indeed interested in archival materials and in record-keeping policies. Following decisions concerning records as we do, I was particularly surprised by Professor Ham- by's assertion that "Carlin has not progressed beyond exceedingly fuzzy generalizations on the electronic records issue." In fact Ar- chivist Carlin has issued regulations concerned with the retention of electronic mail. The electronic records regulations published in the Federal Register on August 28th call for similar standards to be used in the retention of electronic records as paper ones. "Supporters of broader public access to government records praised the effort," noted the Chronicle of Higher Edu- cation. While there were those who wanted all records to be retained electronically, many agencies do not have the software to accomplish the task nor the money to ac- quire it. "We are in a transition period," noted Margaret L. Hed- strom, who is on the board of the Society of American Archivists. "What is important to me, as an archivist, is that the integrity of the record is kept." The Archives is working together with other agencies to develop requirements for

electronic recordkeeping systems. Archivist Carlin said the aim is to have agencies and the computer industry develop systems that "ensure that the content, context, and structure of electronic records are preserved." Until such time as electronic systems can be created to accomplish the preservation goals, paper records will satisfy the need.

Martha Joynt Kumar Vice-President, PRG

New Section on Race, Ethnicity and Politics Launched in Chicago

Nearly one hundred members and supporters were in attendance as APSA Vice President and Uni- versity of New Mexico Professor F. Chris Garcia presided over the very first business meeting of the Association's newest organized section, "Race, Ethnicity and Poli- tics," on Friday, September 1, during the Chicago Annual Meeting.

Garcia introduced Anthony De- Sales Affigne, Providence College, and Toni-Michelle Travis, George Mason, the section's organizing co-chairs. More than anyone else, he said, Affigne and Travis were the "leaders and organizers whose vision, energy and commitment have made this section possible."

Travis, a member of the APSA

Toni-Michelle Travis

Anthony Affigne

Council, reported that nearly 300 scholars from the disciplines of political science, sociology, history, ethnic studies, and law had pledged to join the section, even before its formal recognition at the April 8 council meeting. The organizing drive to gain approval for the section, she reported, began at the end of January and was completed just two months later.

Affigne called the section's formation a historic moment for the Association, and he described a changing world of politics and scholarship in which people of color and the politics of their communities are increasingly prominent.

"As a subfield within the discipline," Affigne said, "we will explore the limits of conventional and alternative theoretical frameworks, to move our subject away from the margins of political science, locat- ing the realities of racial and ethnic politics where they truly belong, at the very center of political analysis."

"After today," he said, "the discipline of political science will never be the same again."

The new section's focus is primarily-but not exclusively-the politics of Native, African, Latino, and Asian American communities in the United States, and in other countries of the Western Hemi- sphere. The section's purposes are to foster the development of race-

December 1995 785

Association News

conscious theoretical models, facilitate research and publication opportunities, encourage undergraduate and graduate student interest, improve communication among scholars in the field, and recognize leadership and accom- plishment by scholars and activists.

Plans For 1996 Meeting

Franke Wilmer of Montana State and William E. Nelson, Jr. of Ohio State were introduced to the business meeting as the section's program co-chairs for the 1996 annual meeting in San Francisco. For more information please see the "Call for Papers" in the September PS.

Elections and Appointments

Affigne and Travis were elected by acclamation to serve as the section's first co-chairs; Joseph P. McCormick II, Howard University, was elected secretary; and Sumi Cho, DePaul College of Law, was elected Treasurer. Five standing committees were approved and their members appointed.

Committee for Theoretical and Professional Development

A Committee for Theoretical and Professional Development (F. Chris Garcia, chair), will plan activities to foster theoretical discourse, and will consider ways to protect the professional standing of scholars in the field. Other members appointed to this committee include A'Lelia Henry (Hobart & William Smith), Ronald Schmidt, Sr. (California State-Long Beach), Wilbur Rich (Wellesley), Michael Preston (USC), Cathy Cohen (Yale), Frances Fox Piven (CUNY), Frank Gilliam (UCLA), Sumi Cho (DePaul), Don Nakanishi (UCLA), Jose Angel Gutierrez (Texas-Arlington), Wil- liam E. Nelson, Jr. (Ohio State), Edith Barrett (Brown), Arnie Vedlitz (Texas A&M), Tali Mendel- berg (Princeton), Franke Wilmer (Montana State), Toni-Michelle Travis (George Mason) and Tony Affigne (Providence). For information please contact: F. Chris Garcia at [email protected].

Committee on Publishers and Research Markets

University of Illinois Professor Dianne Pinderhughes will chair the Committee on Publishers and Re- search Markets, charged with facilitating relationships between publishers and scholars, and with identifying alternative sources of research support. Her committee will also include Paula McClain (Virginia), Georgia Persons (Geor- gia Tech), Valeria Sinclair (Ohio State), David Wilkins (Arizona), James Jennings (Massachusetts- Boston), Christine Marie Sierra (New Mexico), Clarence Lusane (Howard), Jerry Stubben (Iowa State), Ted Jelen (Illinois Benedic- tine), Sally Coleman Selden (Okla- homa), and Toni-Michelle Travis (George Mason). For information please contact: Dianne Pinderhughes at [email protected].

Committee on Graduate Student Issues

Lisa Montoya (Texas-Austin) was appointed chair of the Commit- tee on Graduate Student Issues, which will plan activities to support graduate students including mentoring, advising, and assistance with placement. The committee membership also includes Gerald Alfred (Concordia-Montreal), Valeria Sin- clair (Ohio State), Cynthia Duncan (Ohio State), Andaiye Kariamu (Ohio State), Kerry Haynie (Penn- sylvania), Valerie Martinez-Ebers (North Texas), Boris Ricks (USC), Manny Avalos (Arizona State-West), and Derrick Cogburn (Howard). Montoya may be reached at [email protected].

Committee on Electronic Communications

The Committee on Electronic Communications, to be chaired by Derrick Cogburn (Howard), will develop and maintain the section's mailing lists, listserver, gopher site, and World Wide Web home page. Other members of this committee include Manny Avalos (Arizona State-West), Carol Hardy-Fanta (Boston University), Gary Klass (Illinois State), Clarence Lusane

(Howard), and Joseph P. McCor- mick II (Howard). For information contact Derrick Cogburn at dcogburn @cldc. howard. edu.

Committee for Annual Awards in Race, Ethnicity and Politics

The Committee for Annual Sec- tion Awards in Race, Ethnicity and Politics will be chaired by Carol Hardy-Fanta (Boston University); other members are Gerald Alfred (Concordia-Montreal), Frank Gilliam (UCLA), and Robert T. Starks (Northeastern Illinois). The committee will make nominations for the Section's annual publication, recognition, and service awards. Hardy-Fanta can be reached at [email protected].

Michael Preston (USC) was appointed chair of the by-laws committee; he will be joined by Toni- Michelle Travis and Tony Affigne.

The Future of Racial and Ethnic Political Studies

There are now hundreds of active scholars in the United States whose interests focus on the politics of race and ethnicity. The new section within the American Politi- cal Science Association will serve as an important focus for these scholars, providing a forum for their substantive, methodological, and theoretical contributions, and will be a collegial, cooperative environment for the exchange of ideas. If you are not now a member, you are invited to join. All are welcome, all can contribute, all can serve. For more information please contact Tony Affigne at [email protected].

APSA Organized Sections Distribute Awards at Annual Meeting

Twenty of the thirty-three APSA Organized Sections presented awards at the 1995 Annual Meeting to recognize distinctive scholarship and career service within their fields of political science.


Association News

Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations

The Distinguished Scholar Award which recognizes distinguished scholarly contributions to the study of federalism and intergovernmental relations was given to David B. Walker, University of Connecticut. The Best Paper Award for the best paper in the field of federalism and intergovernmental relations presented at the previous year's APSA annual meeting was given to Rich- ard E. Deeg, Temple University for his paper titled "Germany's Lander and the Federalisation of the EC," and the Best Book Award was presented to Daniel J. Elazar, Temple University & Bar Ilan University for his book American Federalism: A View from the States. This award is conferred for the best book on federalism and intergovernmental relations published at least ten years ago that has made a lasting contribution to the study of federalism and intergovernmental relations and was given for the first time this year.

Legislative Studies

David Brady, Kara Buckley and Douglas Rivers, Stanford Univer- sity all received the CQ Press Award for the outstanding paper on legislative politics presented at the preceding APSA Annual Meeting for their paper titled "The Roots of Careerism in the House of Repre- sentatives." The Richard F. Fenno Prize was presented to Chandler Davidson, Rice University, and Bernard Grofman, University of California, Irvine. This prize is for the outstanding book published during the preceding year in legislative studies, including American, non-American, cross-national and subnational works. They received it for their book titled Quiet Revolu- tion in the South published by Princeton University Press.

Political Organizations & Parties

Gerald Pomper, Rutgers Univer- sity, received the Samuel Eldersveld Career Achievement Lifetime Award for a lifetime of distinguished scholarly and professional service to the

field. The Emerging Scholar Award for significant research for a scholar receiving his or her doctorate within the past five years was presented to Philip Klinkner, Loy- ola Marymount University. The Jack Walker Award was given to Gerald Pomper, Rutgers University for his article "From Confusion to Clarity." James MacGregor Burns, Williams College, received the Leon Epstein Award for a book that has made a distinguished contribution to the field for his book titled The Deadlock of Democracy published by Prentice Hall.

Conflict Processes

Harold Guetzkow, Northwestern University, received the Lifetime Achievement Award for distinguished and lasting contributions to the study of conflict processes.

Representation and Electoral Systems

Arend Lijphart, University of California, San Diego, received the George H. Hallet Award which is presented to an author of a book published at least ten years earlier that has made a lasting contribution to the literature on representation and electoral system for his book Democracies published by Yale University Press. The Leon Weaver Award was conferred on Peter Sia- velis, Georgetown University, for the best paper presented at a panel sponsored by the Representation and Electoral Systems Division for his paper titled "Electoral Reform and Democratic Stability in Chile."

Presidency Research

The Richard E. Neustadt Award for the best book published during the year that contributed to research and scholarship in the field of American presidency was presented to Charles 0. Jones, Uni- versity of Wisconsin for his book titled The Presidency in a Sepa- rated System published by the Brookings Institution. Richard A. Forshee, University of Michigan, received the Best Paper Award for the best paper presented at the pre-

vious APSA annual meeting for his work titled "Presidential Activism and Obstruction in Committee and on the Floor."

Political Methodology

Janet Box Steffensmeier, Ohio State University, Renee Smith, University of Rochester, and Brad- ley Palmquist, Harvard University, received the Gosnell Award of Ex- cellence. This award honors the leg- acy of the pioneering political methodologist Harold E. Gosnell and is presented for the best methodological work presented at a political science conference in the preceding calendar year. Palmquist was cited for his paper titled "Re- specification Approaches to Eco- logical Inference: A Comparison of Control Variables and the Qua- dratic Model." Box Steffensmeier and Smith received the award for their paper titled "The Microfound- ations of Aggregate Partisanship: A Fractional Integration Analysis of Heterogeneity and Permanence."

Religion and Politics

The Aaron Wildavsky Award was presented to Thomas R. Rourke, Texas Tech, for the best dissertation in religion and politics for his dissertation titled "Yves R. Simon and Contemporary Catholic Neo- Conservatism."

Urban Politics

Evan McKenzie, University of Illinois-Chicago, received the Best Book Award for the best book in Urban Politics published during the calendar year for his book titled Privatopia: Homeowner Associa- tions and the Rise of Residential Private Government published by Yale University Press. R. Gerald Gamm, Howard University, and Guy Stuart, University of Chicago, received the Best Dissertation Award for the best dissertation in urban politics: Gamm for his dissertation titled "Neighborhood Roots: Exodus and Stability in Boston, 1870-1990" and Stuart for "The Social Construction of Risk in Mortgage Lending."

December 1995 787

Association News

Science, Technology, and Environmental Studies

The Best Paper in the field of Sci- ence, Technology, and Environ- mental Studies was presented to Jeannette Hofman, Wissenschafts- zentrum Berlin fur Sozialforschung, for her paper titled "Implicit Theo- ries in Political Discourse: A Cri- tique of Interpretations of Reality in Technology Policy."

Women and Politics

The Best Dissertation Award in the field or Women and Politics research was given to Robin May LeBlanc, Oglethorpe University, for her dissertation titled "Home- less as Citizens: The Political World of the Japanese Housewife." Best Paper Awards for the best papers presented in the field of women and politics research at the previous year's APSA annual meeting were presented to Mary Dietz, University of Minnesota, for "Feminist Receptions of Hannah Arendt or how the Analytical Cate- gory of Gender Does Injustice to the Theory of Politics," Carole Chaney, University of California, Riverside, "Participation and Lead- ership in Committee Decision-Mak- ing: An Experimental Approach to Exploring Gender Differences" and Lisa Young, University of Toronto, "Social Movements and Political Parties: A Comparison of the Cana- dian and American Women's Movements, 1970-1993."

Computers and Multimedia

The Computer Instructional Soft- ware Award which is given to the work that promotes educating users about various aspects of politics through computers was presented to G. David Garson, North Caro- lina State University, for "Ameri- can Government Simulations." The Computer Research Software Award, given to the work that facil- itates and promotes research about political issues, was given to Philip A. Schrodt, University of Kansas, for "KEDS: Kansas Event Data System."

Comparative Politics

The Gregory Luebbert Award was given to David Laitin, Univer- sity of Chicago, for research excel- lence in comparative politics for his article "The Tower of Babel as a Coordination Game: Political Lin- guistics in Ghana." A Best Book Award in the field of Comparative Politics was presented to M. Craw- ford Young, University of Wiscon- sin, Madison for his book The Afri- can Colonial State In Comparative Perspective published by Yale Uni- versity Press.

Politics & History

The J. David Greenstone Book Prize was given to Gerald Berk, University of Oregon and Ian Lust- ick, University of Pennsylvania for the best book in history and politics in the past two calendar years. Lustick was cited for his book Un- settled States, Disputed Lands published by Cornell University Press and Berk for his book Alternative Tracks: The Constitution of the American Industrial Order 1854- 1917 published by Johns Hopkins University Press. The Mary Parker Follett Prize for the best article on politics and history published in the previous year was awarded to David D. Laitin, University of Chi- cago, Carlota Sole, Universitat Au- tomoma of Barcelona and Stathis N. Kalyvas, Ohio State University, for their article "Language and the Construction of States: the Case of Catalonia in Spain," Politics and Society, March 1994.

Political Economy

The Best Book or Article Award was presented to Beth A. Sim- mons, Duke University, for her book "Who Adjusts? Domestic Sources of Foreign Economic Pol- icy During the Interwar Years published by Princeton University Press, for the best book or article published in 1992, 1993 or 1994 in the field of political economy. The Best Dissertation Award given for the best dissertation in any area of political economy within the past two years was presented to Dean Lacy, Ohio State, for his disserta-

tion titled "Nonseparable Prefer- ence in Politics: Implications for Social Choice, Elections and Public Opinion."

Transformational Politics

The Best Book Award on transformational politics published in 1994 was given to Leslie E. Ander- son, University of Colorado, Boul- der for her book Political Ecology of the Modern Peasant: Calcula- tion and Community published by Johns Hopkins University Press. The Best Paper of 1994 Annual Meeting was presented to Robert J. Gilbert, University of South Caro- lina for his paper "Havel, Masaryk and the Political Analyst: the Transformative Methodology of Goethean Science." The Distin- guished Career Award for professional achievement in community service was given to Theodore L. Becker, Auburn University.

New Political Science

The Christian Bay Award for the best paper delivered at a New Po- litical Science panel at the 1994 APSA Annual Meeting was given to Greg DeLaurier, Ithaca College for his paper "Class Struggle With- out Class: Maoism, the U.S. New Left, and the Demise of the "La- bor Metaphysic." The Michael Harrington Book Award for the author of a book which best exempli- fies the goals of the section was awarded to Elizabeth A. Kelly, De- Paul University, for her book Edu- cation, Democracy, and Public Knowledge published by Westview Press.

Political Psychology

The Best Political Psychology Book Award for the best book in political psychology published in the previous year was given to Bryan D. Jones, Texas A & M University, for his book Reconsid- ering Decision-Making in Demo- cratic Politics, published by Uni- versity of Chicago Press.


Association News

Elections, Public Opinion, and Voting Behavior

The Warren E. Miller Award was given to Warren E. Miller, Arizona State University for his outstanding career of intellectual accomplish- ment and service to the profession. The Best Paper Award for the best paper presented at a panel sponsored by the Elections, Public Opinion, and Voting Behavior Sec- tion during the prior year's annual meeting of APSA was given to Stanley Feldman and Karen Sten- ner, SUNY-Stony Brook for their paper "Order, Threat, and Political Intolerance."

State Politics and Policy

The 1995 Best Paper Award was given to Paul Brace, Florida State University, for "Tax Changes and Economic Performance in the American States. The award is given for the best paper presented at the 1994 Annual Meeting.

Political Communication

The 1995 Doris Graber Outstand- ing Paper Award was given to Tim- othy Cook, Williams College for his paper "The Fourth Branch and the Other Three: The Washington News Media and The Politics of Shared Power. The 1995 Murray Edelman Award for Distinguished Scholar- ship in Political Communication was awarded to Kathleen Hall Jamie- son, University of Pennsylvania.

Undergraduate Education

During its 1995 business meeting, the Experiential Education organized section membership chose to expand its focus to include all aspects of undergraduate education. The reformulated section will be known as the Undergraduate Edu- cation Organized Section. While maintaining its commitment to experiential education (internships, simulations, and service learning),

the section also will address broader issues of undergraduate education such as innovative methods used in teaching large sections of introductory courses, long-dis- tance learning, gender issues in political science education, burn-out, attracting and retaining minority students, and what constitutes good undergraduate teaching. To join the section, please send $5 to the American Political Science Associ- ation, 1527 New Hampshire Ave- nue NW, Washington, DC 20036 and indicate that you wish to join the Undergraduate Education section. Section members must also be members of APSA. Contact Mem- bership Services to become a member and Michael Brintnall with any questions about the new section at (202) 483-2512.

N

American Political Science Review Editorial Board

Editor Ada W. Finifter

Michigan State University

Paul Abramsom Michigan State University

David Austen-Smith University of Rochester

Laurence Baum Ohio State University

Nathaniel Beck U. of California-San Diego

Jonathan Bendor Stanford University W. James Booth McGill University

Bruce Bueno de Mesquita Stanford Unversity

Paul Brace Florida State University

Robert Erikson University of Houston

William Galston University of Maryland

Barbara Geddes U. of California-Los Angeles

Micheal W. Giles Emory University

Robert W. Jackman U. of California-Davis

Gary King Harvard University

Richard Ned Lebow

University of Pittsburgh Robert Luskin

U. of Texas at Austin Paula D. McClain University of Virginia Kathleen McGraw SUNY-Stony Brook

Walter Mebane, Jr. Cornell University Karen Remmer

University of New Mexico

Book Review Editor Mark I. Lichbach

U. of Colorado-Boulder

Virginia Sapiro U. of Wisconsin-Madison Arlene Saxonhouse University of Michigan

Theda Skocpol Harvard University Steven B. Smith

Yale University Laura Stoker

U. of California-Berkeley John L. Sullivan

University of Minnesota Kaare Strom

U. of California-San Diego Michael Ward

U. of Colorado-Boulder Susan Welch

Pennsylvania State U. John R. Zaller

U. of California-Los Angeles

December~~~~~ 19 7, , ,, , 8 , ,,

(

K

^ * M M^ I M I^^^HMIHiM _ _- ___ . - MI .1 . 1. 1 . __ __ M II1I1 1 i 1MI I M_I___ _i___

December 1995 789

Association News

1996 Program Committee

Editor's note: The full text of the 1996 Program Committee Call For Papers has appeared in the June and September issues of PS: Politi- cal Science and Politics. Though the deadline is December 1, an abridged version of the 1996 Pro- gram Committee Call For Papers is repeated in the December issue of PS. It is not that we are having separation anxiety, rather it is to maximize your chances of successfully participating in the 1996 meeting in San Francisco. The Call For Papers reprinted here is a cor- rected version, incorporating important changes in addresses as well as telephone, fax and e-mail numbers. Please review the material carefully.

Program Co-Chair

Jennifer Hochschild Department of Politics Princeton University Princeton, NJ 08544 (609) 258-5634 (609) 258-2809 fax [email protected]

Program Co-Chair

Ronald Rogowski CFIA, 1737 Cambridge St. Harvard University Cambridge, MA 02138 (617) 495-5107 (617) 495-8292 fax [email protected]

Division 1. Inequality and Politics

Jennifer Hochschild Department of Politics Princeton University Princeton, NJ 08544 (609) 258-5634 (609) 258-2809 fax [email protected]

Ronald Rogowski CFIA, 1737 Cambridge St. Harvard University Cambridge, MA 02138 (617) 495-5107 (617) 495-8292 fax rogowski@nicco. sscnet.ucla.edu

Division 2. Political Thought and Philosophy: Historical Approaches

Deborah Baumgold Department of Political Science 1284 University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403-1284 (503) 346-4884 or (503) 346-4866 (503) 346-4860 fax (indicate department) [email protected]

Division 3. Normative Political Theory

Alan Wertheimer Department of Political Science PO Box 54110 University of Vermont Burlington, VT 05405-4110 (802) 656-4318 (802) 656-0758 fax [email protected]

Division 4. Foundations of Political Theory

Jean Bethke Elshtain Divinity School, Swift Hall University of Chicago 1025 E. 58th Street Chicago, IL 60637 (312) 702-7252 (312) 702-6048 or (312) 643-8298 fax

Division 5. Formal Political Theory

John E. Roemer Department of Economics University of California, Davis Davis, CA 95616 (916) 752-3226 (916) 752-9382 fax [email protected]

Division 6. Political Methodology

Elizabeth Gerber Department of Political Science University of California, San Diego La Jolla, CA 92093 (619) 534-2022 (619) 534-7130 fax egerber@ weber.ucsd.edu

Division 7. Legislative Behavior

Elaine K. Swift Department of Government Eastern Washington University Mail Stop 30

Cheney, WA 99004 (509) 359-2457/2362 (509) 359-6732 fax [email protected]

Division 8. Presidency Research

Mary E. Stuckey Department of Political Science University of Mississippi University, MS 38677 (601) 232-7415 (601) 232-7808 fax psmes@cypress. mcsr.olemiss.edu

Division 9. Public Opinion and Participation

Michael C. Dawson Department of Political Science University of Chicago 5828 S. University Avenue Chicago, IL 60637 (312) 702-8462 (312) 702-1689 fax daws(@cicero. spc. uchicago. edu

Division 10. Elections and Electoral Behavior

Helmut Norpoth Department of Political Science SUNY, Stony Brook Stony Brook, NY 11794-4392 (516) 632-7640 (516) 632-9023 fax [email protected]

Division 11. Political Organizations and Parties

Barbara C. Burrell Wisconsin Survey Research Lab University of Wisconsin, Madison 1930 Monroe Street Madison, WI 53711 (608) 265-2029 (608) 262-3366 fax burrel @wsrl. cee. uwex . edu

Division 12. Law and Courts

Major G. Coleman Department of Political Science SUNY at Buffalo Buffalo, NY 14260-4121 (716) 645-2251 ext. 505 (716) 645-2166 fax [email protected]


Association News

Howard Gillman Department of Political Science University of Southern California VKC 327 Los Angeles, CA 90089-0044 (213) 740-8861 (213) 740-8893 fax [email protected]

Division 13. Constitutional Law and Jurisprudence

Joseph Stewart, Jr. School of Social Sciences University of Texas, Dallas P.O. Box 830688 Richardson, TX 75083-0688 (214) 883-2571 (214) 883-2735 fax [email protected]

Division 14. Public Administration

H. George Frederickson Department of Public Administration 318 Blake Hall University of Kansas Lawrence, KS 66045 (913) 864-3527 (913) 864-5208 fax [email protected]

Division 15. Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations

Joseph F. Zimmerman Graduate School of Public Affairs SUNY, Albany Albany, NY 12222 (518) 442-5378 (518) 442-5298 fax

Division 16. Urban Politics

Kenneth K. Wong Department of Education University of Chicago 5835 S. Kimbark Avenue Chicago, IL 60637 (312) 702-0753 (312) 702-0248 fax stdwong@cicero. spc. uchicago. edu

Division 17. State Politics and Policy

Thomas Holbrook Department of Political Science University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee P.O. Box 413 Milwaukee, WI 53201 (414) 229-5010

(414) 229-5021 fax homeboy @csd.uwm.edu

Division 18. Public Policy

Virginia Gray Department of Political Science 1414 Social Sciences Building University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 55455 (612) 624-8529 (612) 626-7599 fax vgray @polisci.umn.edu

Division 19. Political Economy

Frances Rosenbluth Department of Politics Yale University New Haven, CT 06520-8301 (203) 432-5672 (203) 432-6196 fax [email protected]. yale.edu

Division 20. Women and Politics

Joyce Gelb Director of Women's Studies CUNY Graduate Center 33 West 42nd Street New York, NY 10036 (212) 642-2247/2295 (212) 642-1978 fax jkg@cunyvmsl .gc.cuny.edu

Division 21. Politics and History

Paul Pierson Center for European Studies 27 Kirkland Street Harvard University Cambridge, MA 02138 (617) 495-4303 ext. 227 (617) 495-8509 fax [email protected]

Eileen McDonagh Department of Political Science Northeastern University Meserve Hall 303 Boston, MA 02115 (617) 373-2796 (617) 496-3993 fax [email protected]

Division 22. Comparative Politics

Karen Remmer Department of Political Science University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131

(505) 277-5104 (505) 277-2821 fax [email protected]

Division 23. Comparative Politics of Developing Countries

Dwayne Woods Department of Political Science Purdue University West Lafayette, IN 47907 (317) 494-4177 (317) 494-0823 fax [email protected]

Division 24. Politics of Communist and Former Communist Regimes

Yasheng Huang CCS 104 Lane Hall University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1290 (313) 998-7560 (313) 936-2948 fax yasheng. huang@um. cc. umich. edu

Division 25. Comparative Politics of Advanced Industrial States

David Soskice Department for the Study of Eco- nomic Change and Employment Science Center Berlin Reichpietschufer 50 D-10785 Berlin Germany (49-30) 25491-104 (49-30) 25491-480 fax apsaais@ medea. wz-berlin. de

Division 26. Politics and Society in Western Europe

Chris Howell Department of Politics Oberlin College Oberlin, OH 44074 (216) 775-8649 (216) 775-8124 fax [email protected]

Division 27. International Collaboration

G. John Ikenberry Department of Political Science University of Pennsylvania 222 Stitler Hall Philadelphia, PA 19104 (215) 898-7646

December 1995 791

Association News

(609) 573-2073 fax [email protected]

Division 28. International Security

Robert Powell Department of Political Science University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720 (510) 642-4635 (510) 642-9515 fax

Division 29. International Security and Arms Control

Robert H. Dorff Department of National Security and Strategy US Army War College Carlisle Barracks, PA 17013 (717) 245-3273 (717) 245-3530 fax dorffr@carlisle-emh2. army. mil

Division 30. International Political Economy

Duncan Snidal Department of Political Science University of Chicago 5828 South University Avenue Chicago, IL 60637 (312) 702-8078 (312) 702-0926 fax [email protected]

Division 31. Foreign Policy Analysis

Dario Moreno Department of Political Science Florida International University University Park Campus Miami, FL 33199 (305) 348-2859 (305) 348-3765 fax

Division 32. Representation and Electoral Systems

Jason F. Kirksey Department of Political Science Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK 74078 (405) 744-5569 (405) 744-7074 fax kirksey@vms .ucc .okstate.edu

Division 33. Conflict Processes

William J. Dixon Department of Political Science

University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85719 (520) 621-7600 (520) 621-5051 fax [email protected]

Division 34. Religion and Politics

Gretchen Casper Department of Political Science Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-4348 (409) 845-8594 (409) 847-8924 fax [email protected]

Division 35. Science, Technology, Environmental Politics

W.D. Kay Department of Political Science Northeastern University Boston, MA 02115 (617) 373-4401 (617) 373-5311 fax wkay@'neu.edu

Division 36. Computers and Multimedia

David L. Martin Department of Political Science Auburn University Auburn, AL 36849-5208 (334) 844-6172 (334) 844-5348 fax [email protected]

Division 37. Political Communication

Michael X. Delli Carpini Department of Political Science Barnard College 3009 Broadway New York, NY 10027 (212) 854-4877 (212) 854-3024 fax [email protected]

Division 38. Transformational Politics

Anthony DeSales Affigne Department of Political Science Providence College Providence, RI 02918 (401) 865-2569 (401) 865-1222 fax affigne@providence. edu

Division 39. New Political Science

John Ehrenberg Department of Political Science Long Island University University Plaza Brooklyn, NY 11201 (718) 488-1057/1193 (718) 488-1625 fax jehrenbe@hornet. liunet. edu

Division 40. Political Psychology

Robert Shapiro Department of Political Science Columbia University 420 W. 118th Street New York, NY 10027 (212) 854-3944 (212) 222-0598 fax [email protected]

Division 41. Politics and Literature

Vickie Sullivan Department of Government Skidmore College Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 (518) 584-5000 ext. 2355 (518) 583-0276 fax

Division 42. Internships and Experiential Education

Sally Edwards Department of Political Science University of Louisville Louisville, KY 40292 (502) 852-3313 (502) 852-7923 fax [email protected]

Division 43. Teaching and Learning in Political Science

Wilbur C. Rich Department of Political Science Wellesley College Wellesley, MA 02181 (617) 283-2184 (617) 283-3644 fax [email protected]

Division 44. Public Opinion and Foreign Policy

Jerel Rosati Department of Government and Intl Studies University of South Carolina Columbia, SC 29208


Association News

(803) 777-2981 (803) 777-8255 fax rosati@barnet. slu. sc. edu

Division 45. Race, Ethnicity, and Politics

William E. Nelson, Jr. Department of Black Studies Ohio State University 486 University Hall Columbus, OH 43210 (614) 292-0453 [email protected]

Franke Wilmer Department of Political Science Iowa State Ross Hall Ames, IA 50011-1204 (515) 294-7256 (515) 294-1003 fax upofh@gemini. oscs. montana. edu

Committee Suggestions Welcomed

The APSA welcomes suggestions for individuals interested in serving on APSA Standing Committees for terms beginning in January 1, 1997. These appointments vary from one to three years and include Award committees, PS Editorial Board and a host of others. A listing of committees and their area of responsibility can be found in the March 1995 issue of PS. These positions are held on a volunteer basis. Interested members should make their suggestions by mail, to President-Elect Elinor Ostrom c/o the National Office at 1527 New Hampshire Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20036 or by e-mail at [email protected].

December 1995 793