Howard Sanborn

Developing attachments to new political institutions: a multi-level model of attitude formation in post-Communist Europe

In America and Western Europe, legislatures preceded democratization and contributed to the establishment and maintenance of democratic regimes in the late 18th and the 19th centuries. In Central and Eastern Europe in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, legislatures and democratic regimes appeared simultaneously. In the first 15 years of post-Communist transitions in 12 countries, attachments to the new regimes have been influenced by their institutional structures, their economic performance, and their records in protecting human freedom, while attachment to the new parliaments have been predominantly influenced by cultural factors related to early life socialization including education, age, gender, social status, and attitudes toward the former communist regime. Attachment to parliament was a product more than a cause of attachment to the new regimes, but the parliamentary system of government created a context that contributed to citizens’ attachment to their new political institutions. In that respect, attitudes toward parliaments in Central and Eastern Europe played a role similar to the role that these attitudes played in an earlier stage of democratization in Europe and North America, the role of attaching citizens to new political institutions.

The Impact of the Australian Ballot on Member Behavior in the U.S. House of Representatives

Katz and Sala linked the development of committee property rights in the late-nineteenth-century U.S. House of Representatives to the introduction of the Australian ballot. If, as they posited, members sought personal reputations to carry them to reelection in the new electoral environment, the current article argues that behaviors with more immediate political payoffs also should have changed in ways their theory would predict. The article examines whether committee assignments, floor voting behavior, and the distribution of pork barrel projects changed in predicted ways and finds supportive outcomes, but usually only when the office bloc ballot, and not the party bloc ballot, was in use.

Democratic Consolidation: Participation and Attitudes Toward Democracy in Taiwan and South Korea

Abstract In this paper, I consider the transitions of Taiwan and South Korea to democracy. Specifically, I study why citizens in these newly democratic systems engage in conventional forms of participation as an indicator of consolidation. Using much of the existing literature on participation, I test hypotheses that frame the decisions to participate through conventional forms as a function of internal feelings of efficacy, or political engagement, mobilization by parties and social capital. I use a series of hierarchical linear models to assess Waves 2 and 3 data from the 2005–2010 Asian Barometer and find considerable support for political engagement, party attachment, and social connections in spurring on participation. In addition, while respondents offer limited support for democratic institutions, they espouse liberal attitudes; this reflects the large presence of “critical citizens” in these places (Norris 1999; Chu and Huang 2010). Though fragile, there are indications of meaningful democratic progress in Taiwan and South Korea.

Broken back? Efficacy and participation in Asia’s democracies:

Previous scholarship describes an inconsistent role for democratic institutions in driving political participation. Some research has detected signs of attachment leading to greater engagement while others observe a negative, statistical relationship (Levi and Stoker, 2000). In the liberal and electoral democracies of Asia, where support for democratic values appears to be growing (Chu and Huang, 2010; Sanborn, 2015), institutions have taken an outsized role in an individual’s decision to participate. This may be reflective of a ‘broken back’ form of democratization, where an engaged citizenry is continually frustrated by poor performing government actors (Rose and Shin, 2001). In this article, I evaluate the role of efficacy, internal and external, on the decision to attend rallies, participate in campaigns, and contact officials. I find that citizens engage in these actions when they are internally engaged in politics and frustrated with government performance. While this finding offers a simple explanation for the decision to participate, it also signifies the obstacles to democratic consolidation posed by poor-performing institutional actors.

Response to "Framing unauthorized immigrants: the effects of labels on evaluations," by Ommundsen, et al. (2014).

Ommundsen, Larsen, van der Veer, and Eilertsen (2014) presented evidence that varying how immigrants are described in surveys can lead to differences in how respondents to those surveys change their self-reported orientations toward those immigrants and immigration policy. We argue that the apparent conflict between their findings and those of Knoll, Redlawsk, and Sanborn (2011) should be interpreted as complementary rather than contradictory. In particular, differences in samples, timing, and dependent variables limit direct comparisons between the studies. Moreover, because Ommundsen, et al. (2014) do not have a measure of partisanship and did not test for interaction effects between ideology and frames, their broader conclusions are limited given that immigration is such a highly charged political issue that is strongly affected by political ideology and partisan cues.