Chapter 5 shows that power within the household and autonomy from the household most strongly predict women’s political participation. Using data from a census survey, it estimates the determinants of women’s (and men’s) political participation. Comparing within households, bargaining power is associated with women’s non-electoral political participation, though not their voting. Comparing within villages, autonomy from the household is a clear predictor of women’s political participation. In fact, the behavior of women who enjoy a high degree of autonomy from the household mirrors that of men. It also provides suggestive evidence that intra-household coercion plays a role in women’s political participation by showing a lack of correlation between political interest and participation in the household for women but not men and a negative correlation between regressive gender attitudes of the dominant male household member and women’s political participation.

We illustrate Bayesian mixed methods with causal models through a reexamination of the model of inequality and democratization and of institutions and growth introduced in Chapter 8. We show how to use updated population models to draw both population- and case-level inferences, demonstrate situations in which learning is minimal and in which it is more substantial, and illustrate how the probative value of case-level evidence can be empirically established through model updating.

As scholars and activists seek to define and promote greater corporate political responsibility (CPR), they will benefit from understanding practitioner perspectives and how executives are responding to rising scrutiny of their political influences, reputational risk and pressure from employees, customers and investors to get involved in civic, political, and societal issues. This chapter draws on firsthand conversations with practitioners, including executives in government affairs; sustainability; senior leadership; and diversity, equity and inclusion, during the launch of a university-based CPR initiative. I summarize practitioner motivations, interests, barriers and challenges related to engaging in conversations about CPR, as well as committing or acting to improve CPR. Following the summary, I present implications for further research and several possible paths forward, including leveraging practitioners’ value on accountability, sustaining external calls for transparency, strengthening awareness of systems, and reframing CPR as part of a larger dialogue around society’s “social contract.”

We apply the causal-model-based approach to process tracing to two major substantive issues in comparative politics: the relationship between inequality and democratization and the relationship between institutions and growth. Drawing on case-level data, we use qualitative restrictions on causal types together with flat priors to draw inferences about a range of causal queries. The applications illustrate the different types of learning that can be gleaned from information on moderators and mediators, as well as the scope for learning from historical data when researchers have informative beliefs about confounding processes.

This chapter deals with the topic of inequality in the healthcare sector. The chapter begins by looking at some summary data and the inequality in various measures of health that are obvious from simple differences. Then the chapter discusses some basic social philosophy on the topic of how to judge fairness in an abstract society. More detailed data on health outcomes is then explored, highlighted inequality along different demographic lines. Then there is a discussion of theories that fit the facts presented: why do these inequalities exist, and what do we learn by unpacking them: both social implications as well as clinical. Finally, inequalities in the labor market for healthcare workers are discussed.

Why are progressives often critical of US foreign policy and the national security state? What would a statecraft that pulls ideas from the American left look like? Grand Strategies of the Left brings the progressive worldview into conversation with security studies and foreign policy practice. It argues that American progressives think durable security will only come by prioritizing the interconnected conditions of peace, democracy, and equality. By conceiving of grand strategy as worldmaking, progressives see multiple ways of using foreign policy to make a more just and stable world. US statecraft – including defense policy – should be retooled not for primacy, endless power accumulation, or a political status quo that privileges elites, but rather to shape the context that gives rise to perpetual insecurity. Progressive worldmaking has its own risks and dilemmas but expands how we imagine what the world is and could be.

Why are progressives often critical of US foreign policy and the national security state? What would a statecraft that pulls ideas from the American left look like? Grand Strategies of the Left brings the progressive worldview into conversation with security studies and foreign policy practice. It argues that American progressives think durable security will only come by prioritizing the interconnected conditions of peace, democracy, and equality. By conceiving of grand strategy as worldmaking, progressives see multiple ways of using foreign policy to make a more just and stable world. US statecraft – including defense policy – should be retooled not for primacy, endless power accumulation, or a political status quo that privileges elites, but rather to shape the context that gives rise to perpetual insecurity. Progressive worldmaking has its own risks and dilemmas but expands how we imagine what the world is and could be.

Why are progressives often critical of US foreign policy and the national security state? What would a statecraft that pulls ideas from the American left look like? Grand Strategies of the Left brings the progressive worldview into conversation with security studies and foreign policy practice. It argues that American progressives think durable security will only come by prioritizing the interconnected conditions of peace, democracy, and equality. By conceiving of grand strategy as worldmaking, progressives see multiple ways of using foreign policy to make a more just and stable world. US statecraft – including defense policy – should be retooled not for primacy, endless power accumulation, or a political status quo that privileges elites, but rather to shape the context that gives rise to perpetual insecurity. Progressive worldmaking has its own risks and dilemmas but expands how we imagine what the world is and could be.

Why are progressives often critical of US foreign policy and the national security state? What would a statecraft that pulls ideas from the American left look like? Grand Strategies of the Left brings the progressive worldview into conversation with security studies and foreign policy practice. It argues that American progressives think durable security will only come by prioritizing the interconnected conditions of peace, democracy, and equality. By conceiving of grand strategy as worldmaking, progressives see multiple ways of using foreign policy to make a more just and stable world. US statecraft – including defense policy – should be retooled not for primacy, endless power accumulation, or a political status quo that privileges elites, but rather to shape the context that gives rise to perpetual insecurity. Progressive worldmaking has its own risks and dilemmas but expands how we imagine what the world is and could be.

This volume, part of the Feminist Judgment Series, shows how feminist legal theory along with critical race theory and intersectional modes of critique might transform immigration law. Here, a diverse collection of scholars and lawyers bring critical feminist, race and intersectional insights to Supreme Court opinions that deal with the source of the power to regulate immigration, state and local regulation of immigration, citizenship law, racial discrimination, employment law, access to public education, the rights of criminal defendants, the detention of noncitizens, and more. Feminist reasoning values the perspectives of outsiders, exposes the deep-rooted bias in the legal opinions of courts, and illuminates the effects of ostensibly neutral policies that create and maintain oppression and hierarchy. One by one, the chapters in this book reimagine the norms that drive immigration policies and practices. In place of discrimination and subordination, the authors here demand welcome and equality. Where current law omits the voice and stories of noncitizens, the authors here center their lives and experiences. Collectively, they reveal how a feminist vision of immigration law could center a commitment to equality and justice and foster a country where diverse newcomers readily flourish with dignity.

Why are progressives often critical of US foreign policy and the national security state? What would a statecraft that pulls ideas from the American left look like? Grand Strategies of the Left brings the progressive worldview into conversation with security studies and foreign policy practice. It argues that American progressives think durable security will only come by prioritizing the interconnected conditions of peace, democracy, and equality. By conceiving of grand strategy as worldmaking, progressives see multiple ways of using foreign policy to make a more just and stable world. US statecraft – including defense policy – should be retooled not for primacy, endless power accumulation, or a political status quo that privileges elites, but rather to shape the context that gives rise to perpetual insecurity. Progressive worldmaking has its own risks and dilemmas but expands how we imagine what the world is and could be.

This chapter brings back the voices of the two young radicals who make a strong case against moderation from their different ideological perspectives.

Most crisis studies assume that crisis response should end disruption and restore order. This approach effectively upholds the status quo and tends to neglect structural inequalities in society. In particular, gender, race, and class inequalities render some groups more vulnerable than others. Response operations may even further discriminate against marginalized groups. Such discrimination can go unnoticed, since crisis organizations are often characterized by internal discrimination against members of these social groups as well. Alternatively, by explicitly recognizing the political nature of crisis response, frontline personnel can also try to reform society and correct structural inequalities through social transformation, although this is very challenging in practice. The goal of crisis response, therefore, constitutes a dilemma. At the very least, frontline response should avoid reinforcing discrimination and commit to social equity. Striving for more diverse and inclusive organizations would mean a step toward more equitable crisis responses. Even though our expectations should be modest, crisis response operations can and should contribute to fairness and justice.

For being the reputed “father of capitalism,” Adam Smith had many criticisms of commercial society. Smith’s concerns were so numerous, in fact, that some commentators argue that Smith is properly considered as on the political left rather than on the political right. Given the seemingly unending stories of business malfeasance and corruption, many today wonder whether there can even be such a thing as what we might call “virtuous business.” Despite his concerns about business, perhaps there might nevertheless be something relevant to contemporary concerns in Adam Smith. Smith recommends political-economic institutions that can provide a framework enabling us to address what a just and humane society is, as well as the role virtuous business might play in it. This chapter investigates how the Smithian system might plausibly provide such a framework and suggests that it can offer guidance today for what we might call “virtuous business.”

Recent scholarship has sought to read Smith in TMS as an ethical critic of market inequality, one motivated by egalitarian commitments. This chapter pushes back against this reading, arguing that the position Smith adopts in TMS is most accurately labelled sufficientarian, not egalitarian. However, Smith’s sufficientarian considerations are deliberately focused on what is most apt for securing individual happiness. He says little of direct or decisive bearing on the plausibility of egalitarianism as a political commitment. Yet because ethical questions are not, in this area at least, isomorphic with political ones, we ought not to assume the latter can straightforwardly be read off the former. This ought to temper both our reading of Smith’s argument, and what we can appropriately extract from his text for present normative debate.