Stretching the IR theoretical spectrum on Irish neutrality: a critical social constructivist framework

In a 2006 International Political Science Review article, entitled "Choosing to Go It Alone: Irish Neutrality in Theoretical and Comparative Perspective," Neal G. Jesse argues that Irish neutrality is best understood through a neoliberal rather than a neorealist international relations theory framework. This article posits an alternative "critical social constructivist" framework for understanding Irish neutrality. The first part of the article considers the differences between neoliberalism and social constructivism and argues why critical social constructivism's emphasis on beliefs, identity, and the agency of the public in foreign policy are key factors explaining Irish neutrality today. Using public opinion data, the second part of the article tests whether national identity, independence, ethnocentrism, attitudes to Northern Ireland, and efficacy are factors driving public support for Irish neutrality. The results show that public attitudes to Irish neutrality are structured along the dimensions of independence and identity, indicating empirical support for a critical social constructivist framework of understanding of Irish neutrality

Public Opinion: Measuring the America Mind, 2 nd ed/ Bardes

XIV, 290 hal: tab: 23,5 c

Public Opinion: Measuring the America Mind, 2 nd ed/ Bardes

XIV, 290 hal: tab: 23,5 c

A spatial analysis of voting on health care issues: United States House of Representatives, 96th Congress, First Session

This study examines the spatial patterns of Congressional voting on health issues. Thirteen roll call votes on health care issues occuring during the 1st Session of the 96th Congress are factor analyzed. This analysis shows that health care questions cluster around two major issues: health care regulation and health care spending. The factor scores for each Representative are mapped, and a regression model is developed relating health care voting to characteristics of the Representative, the Congressional district, and the hospitals in that district. The most important findings were: (1) support for both health care spending and regulation is strongest in the Northeast and upper Midwest. (2) Although Representatives from most of the Southern states are opposed to health care regulation, they generally favor health care spending. (3) Representatives from a few of the Southern states, however, do not fit this generalization. (4) Although Representatives from the Pacific Coast states are the strongest proponents of regulation, they are opposed to spending. (5) Opposition to health care spending is particularly strong among Representatives from suburban districts.