In this issue
| Author | Mark Kesselman |
| Published date | 01 September 2010 |
| Date | 01 September 2010 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0192512110374864 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
In this issue
Articles in this issue of IPSR, like others published since the journal switched from thematic
issues of commissioned articles and began publishing peer-reviewed articles, highlight the great
diversity of significant issues currently studied in political science. Topics studied in this issue
include alternative ways to measure state power in the international arena (Kim), the relative
influence of institutional versus cultural factors in shaping voting turnout (Freitag), the impact of
international economic sanctions on press freedom (Peksen), factors influencing the granting of
rights (such as voting abroad and dual citizenship) to emigrants (Rhodes and Harutyunyan), and
the reasons that governing political parties make unpopular choices (Cooley and Hopkin). What
a rich and ambitious research agenda!
Hyung Min Kim’s ‘Comparing National Power’ leads off the issue with a comparison of two
approaches to measuring national power. Kim challenges the conventional way to measure national
power within international relations, the Correlates of War Composite Index of National Capabilities
(CINC), because it measures power in a non-relational fashion. He prefers the measure designated
as the Structural Network Power Index (SNPI) because it highlights various dimensions of a state’s
position within a network of other states. Statistical comparisons of the two measures suggest that
the SNPI is a superior model. Surely, some scholars will disagree – so, let the debate begin!
Markus Freitag’s ‘Structure versus Culture’ also compares two approaches, in order to deter-
mine which one better explains variations in voter turnout in Swiss cantonal elections. He seeks
to help arbitrate an illustrious and long-standing debate among comparativists: the relative impor-
tance of culture versus structure (which he defines as institutions). Swiss cantons provide a fine
setting for a natural laboratory experiment to assess whether political institutions or political culture
have a greater impact on differential turnout rates. Freitag’s answer: in the cases he studies,
culture trumps institutions. And so: let the debate continue!
Dursun Peksen’s ‘Coercive Diplomacy and Press Freedom’ develops the disquieting argument
that economic sanctions imposed on governments violating international laws and norms diminish
press freedom in the sanctioned country. The explanation for this outcome is that sanctions reduce
a country’s interaction with the outside world as well as the resources that are available to maintain
an independent press. Sanctions also give an authoritarian regime greater license to limit press
freedom. Peksen finds that the extent of repression varies with the severity and scope of sanctions:
broader sanctions have a greater impact than do targeted ones; multilateral sanctions have a greater
impact than do unilateral ones. A question suggested by this article: if economics is the dismal
science, where does this leave political science?
Sybil Rhodes and Arus Harutyunyan’s ‘Extending Citizenship to Emigrants’ is a partial antidote
to the gloom that Peksen’s article may provoke. Rhodes and Harutyunyan find that there is a
International Political Science Review
31(4) 403–404
© The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0192512110374864
ips.sagepub.com
To continue reading
Request your trial