The article, “Riding the Wave: World Trade and Factor-Based Models of Democratization” by John S. Ahlquist and Erik Wibbels appears in the April 2012 of the American Journal of Political Science. Here, they summarize its content:

Much of the recent interest in the high and rising levels of income inequality in the United States and beyond seems to derive from people’s intuition that high levels of inequality could have negative consequences for political stability, possibly leading to conflict or even revolution. Much of the concern with economic globalization–the increasing economic interdependence across borders that enables so many of our goods to be manufactured in China–has the same flavor: increasing international trade can exacerbate distributional conflicts and perhaps destabilize political systems as some groups win from trade and others are hurt.

The social scientific evidence on these questions, however, is mixed. Important contributions from political scientists and economists have argued that greater inequality, up to a point, can stimulate the democratization of nondemocratic regimes. When a poor majority in an unequal autocratic society sees democracy as a tool to get what they want, it might make sense to push for democracy; the more unequal the society the greater the incentive to challenge the existing regime. Furthermore, globalization-induced changes in the income distribution may, in fact, be a positive catalyst for democracy. Classic ideas about international trade argue that trade benefits and empowers workers in countries where the primary economic endowment is labor (as opposed to abundant, fertile land or lots of capital). This view makes for a rosy set of expectations for democracy, at least in labor-rich, authoritarian countries like China.

In our paper we use the expansion and contraction of world trade over the last 130 years as a way of examining how the economic empowerment of different groups affects the prospects for democracy. Looking at all countries for which we have data and going back to the 1870s, we find that there is no consistent evidence that increased world trade increases the chances for democratization in labor-rich autocracies, contrary to the assertions in several existing studies. We do find some evidence that world trade has hurt the prospects for democracy in countries like Argentina, whose primary economic endowment is land. Our research calls in to question both the claim that globalization is good for democracy and that democracy is an effective tool for addressing distributive conflict in favor of workers and the poor.

About the Authors: John Ahlquist is the Trice Family Faculty Scholar and Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Erik Wibbels is Associate Professor of Political Science at Duke University.

The article, “The House as a Stepping Stone to the Senate: Why Do So Few African American House Members Run?” by Gbemende Johnson, Bruce Oppenheimer, and Jennifer Selin, appears in the April 2012 issue of the American Journal of Political Science. Here, the authors summarize its contents:

Although the House of Representatives is a commonly recognized pathway to the Senate, only four African American House members have run for the Senate since the passage of the 17th Amendment, and none were successful. In addition, neither of the current African American senators, Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Tim Scott (R-SC) ran in Senate elections as House Members. Why do so few African American House members become Senate candidates? While common explanations for the small number of African American House members who have run for the Senate include racial bias and a public hesitancy to vote for African Americans in a statewide contest, our analysis shows that the relationship between race and the decision to run is considerably more complex and nuanced. We examined all House members and Senate elections between 1992 and 2008 and found that contextual and structural factors linked to race, such as state population, ideological extremity, and the ability to raise campaign funds, play a substantial role in understanding who runs for the U.S. Senate.

House members from large states are less likely to run for the Senate in part because Senate races in larger states are usually more expensive and competitive. State size is particularly relevant for Black House members, as the 19 least populous states have never elected an African American House member. Because the African American population and most Black House members are concentrated in the more populous states, there are few Senate seats for which Black House candidates can feasibly consider running.

We also find that ideologically extreme House members are less likely to run. State populations are usually more moderate than district populations, meaning ideologically extreme members are often “out of step” with a state populace and therefore disadvantaged in a state-wide race. This disproportionately affects Black House members, who tend to be more liberal than Non-Black House members.

Finally, Senates races are highly expensive contests, and the ability to fundraise plays a key role in the decision to launch a Senate campaign. House members who are more successful at fund raising are more likely to run for the Senate. The ability to finance a campaign is particularly relevant for Black House members, as Black members raise less campaign funds on average than Non-Black House members. One potential cause for this discrepancy is that Black House members usually represent districts with lower median incomes.

In summary, African American House members face barriers in running for Senate seats beyond racial bias. The influence of state size, ideology, and campaign funds all work to decrease the propensity of African-American House members to run for the Senate. For politically ambitious African Americans, the most viable stepping stone to the U.S. Senate does not appear to be the U.S. House of Representatives.

About the Authors: Gbemende Johnson is an Assistant Professor of Government at Hamilton College, Bruce Oppenheimer is a Professor of Public Policy and Education at Vanderbilt University and Jennifer Selin is a graduate fellow at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions at Vanderbilt University.