Emily Clough

Just fracking: a distributive environmental justice analysis of unconventional gas development in Pennsylvania, USA

This letter presents a distributive environmental justice analysis of unconventional gas development in the area of Pennsylvania lying over the Marcellus Shale, the largest shale gas formation in play in the United States. The extraction of shale gas using unconventional wells, which are hydraulically fractured (fracking), has increased dramatically since 2005. As the number of wells has grown, so have concerns about the potential public health effects on nearby communities. These concerns make shale gas development an environmental justice issue. This letter examines whether the hazards associated with proximity to wells and the economic benefits of shale gas production are fairly distributed. We distinguish two types of distributive environmental justice: traditional and benefit sharing. We ask the traditional question: are there a disproportionate number of minority or low-income residents in areas near to unconventional wells in Pennsylvania? However, we extend this analysis in two ways: we examine income distribution and level of education; and we compare before and after shale gas development. This contributes to discussions of benefit sharing by showing how the income distribution of the population has changed. We use a binary dasymetric technique to remap the data from the 2000 US Census and the 2009–2013 American Communities Survey and combine that data with a buffer containment analysis of unconventional wells to compare the characteristics of the population living nearer to unconventional wells with those further away before and after shale gas development. Our analysis indicates that there is no evidence of traditional distributive environmental injustice: there is not a disproportionate number of minority or low-income residents in areas near to unconventional wells. However, our analysis is consistent with the claim that there is benefit sharing distributive environmental injustice: the income distribution of the population nearer to shale gas wells has not been transformed since shale gas development.

Clientelism: factionalism in the allocation of public resources in Iraq after 2003

ABSTRACT This article examines clientelism in Iraq as a case study of one form of corruption. Iraq is an unusual case of corruption, because a key feature of Iraqs corrupt environment is an institutionalised factional political system based on sectarian quotas. The article explores the many links between clientelism and political factionalism, discussing whether clientelism arose because of factionalism, or whether factionalism merely determines the ways that clientelism currently operates in Iraq. Using fieldwork data, the findings show there are two distinct levels of clientelism in Iraq, both of which are linked to political factions: the individual level and the organisational level. First, clientelism at the individual level entails the elites of many political factions regarding ‘money politics’ as a means of influence in Iraq/Kurdistan by buying peoples affiliations and thereby governing people. Second, clientelism at the organisational level entails that the spoils of political office are shared out among the elites of the political factions in a proportionate fashion. The article concludes that clientelism is a form of political rather than economic corruption; and that while there may be some immediate value in clientelism, its long-term harm outweighs its short-term value.

Transnational Advocacy Networks: A Complex Adaptive Systems Simulation Model of the Boomerang Effect

We examine the costs and benefits of nongovernmental organization (NGO) networking using a complex systems approach and agent-based modeling to simulate the effects of NGOs’ efforts to seek influence in policy making at home and abroad. We elaborate on the boomerang model developed by Keck and Sikkink and uncover macro-level effects of multiple NGOs networking for policy influence in multiple states around multiple positions on the same issue simultaneously. The results of our model and simulations lead us to argue that the boomerang effect has interesting unexplored implications for NGO behavior and state policy worthy of further empirical testing. We find that networking is necessary for NGOs to change state policy but leads to a higher likelihood of organizational collapse for NGOs. Although networking leads to policy change, as is well demonstrated within existing literature, our model suggests that efficacy comes at a cost to NGOs, which should make analysts and academics more ambivalent about the advisability of NGO networking.

Reflecting On Our Strengths and Strategy

In our 2016 Editorial (Politics 36(1): 3–4. DOI: 10.1177/0263395715616015) we noted that reaching the mid-way point of our editorial term and the transition to SAGE offered the opportunity to reflect upon and reframe our ongoing editorial aims. This exercise should be seen in the context of the significant development of Politics over the past 4 years in particular: ISI ranking; a new 8000 word-limit for articles; an increase in frequency of publication and total annual page count; and a substantial focus on social media presence and online dissemination of articles. Politics is a flagship journal of the Political Studies Association and exists to publish timely, original research of interest both to the Association’s members and wider academic and non-academic audiences. Generalist journals such as Politics exist to publish the full range of research in the field and are thus inclusive of a diverse array of methods, theoretical frameworks, and empirical focuses. The question thus arises what our particular editorial strengths and strategy are and how these distinguish our journal from other journals in the field. We hope the aims outlined below will serve as an ambitious set of guiding principles that will both show the unique strengths of Politics and identify our future editorial strategy. We hope this will attract authors to publishing in Politics as well as clarify the editorial decisions we make.

Editorial 2015 – Diversity in Politics

Politics is a generalist journal that is pluralist in its approach to the perspective, methodology and subject matter of its articles. The principle requirement we have of authors is that their work should effectively communicate an original argument with generalizable insights to a broad audience. As such we hope that our articles address a broad range of perspectives, methods and cases across the disciplines of politics and international studies. With this in mind the editorial team is concerned to ensure that its editorial board, reviewers, authors, and content reflects, and where possible enhances, the diversity of politics and international studies.

Editorial: Politics in 2013 – The Changing Landscape of Academic Publishing

Over the course of our first year editing Politics academic publishing has faced increased scrutiny from both inside and outside the academy. The so-called ‘Academic Spring’ singled out access to, and management of, academic journals for particular attention. We believe responding to both challenges is important for Politics and wanted to take the opportunity of this annual editorial statement to reflect on the journal’s strategy with regard to both.

Editorial: Future Challenges and Strategies for Politics

This issue of Politics is the first edited by the new editorial team at Newcastle University. The new editors are grateful for all the work done over the past six years by the Glasgow editorial team of Jane Duckett, Paul Graham and Alasdair Young. Under their leadership, Politics has consolidated its position as one of the Political Studies Association’s flagship journals. They continued the journal’s tradition of publishing concise, timely and state of the art articles that cover key developments in political and international studies research. Moreover, with an eye to the future standing of the journal, they successfully secured a listing for Politics on the Thomson-Reuters ISI Journal Ranking Index.

Still Converging? a Downsian Party System Without Polls

This article compares convergence of political parties when voters are voting strategically and when they are voting sincerely under low-information conditions. In order to examine this problem, I create a computational model of a party system, where parties are uncertain about the distribution of the electorate. In one condition of the model, voters vote sincerely; in another, voters vote strategically. It is found that when voters vote strategically parties are less likely to converge than when voters vote sincerely.