Podcasts about political inequality

Political dynasties belong neither to the past nor only to authoritarian regimes. Think about the Trudeau family in Canada, Le Pen in France, or Kirchner in Argentina. An explanatory factor: having lived in a political environment provides skills.  Can the evolution of society towards a better level of education and more transparency put an end to these dynasties? Especially since we find a growing desire to reject the established political elites by implementing lotteries. Why this desire? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this system? The research carried out indicates that lotteries can strengthen and improve our democratic systems.  Let's see why.Brenda Van Coppenolle is a Senior Research Fellow affiliated with the Centre for European Studies and Comparative Politics (CEE) at Sciences Po. She is the Principal Investigator of the European Research Council (ERC) Starting Grant “Political Lotteries in European Democratisation”.Additional resourcesBrenda Van Coppenolle - Political Dynasties and Bicameralism: Direct Elections and Democratisation in the Netherlands, Electoral Studies, 2022Brenda Van Coppenolle  -  How do Political Elites Persist? Political Selection, Political Inequality, and Empirical Historical Research, French Politics, 2020All publicationsRecorded on 17th November 2023Conversations with Sergei GURIEV  is a podcast by Sciences Po. Hélène NAUDET supervised the production of this series., with the help of Blanca GONZALEZ MARTINEZ, Sciences Po Master student in Political Science. The Sciences Po audio department produced and mixed it.Hosted by Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

In our inaugural episode of "Mano a Mano: U.S. & Puerto Rico," Governor Pedro Pierluisi joins hosts George Laws-García and Martin Rivera for an exclusive interview. Discover the Governor's personal story and gain insights into the progress and hurdles in Puerto Rico's fight for full equality and self-determination.Also on the show, George and Martin delve into the history and geopolitics that have shaped America's relationship with Puerto Rico for the past 125 years. They discuss the significance of understanding Puerto Rico's political status in the context of US geopolitics and highlight the recent introduction of the Senate Companion of the Puerto Rico Status Act..  Watch episodes of Mano a Mano on YouTube @PuertoRico51st.Interested in learning more about the statehood movement? Visit our Website: https://www.pr51st.comSign-up for Email Updates: http://www.pr51st.com/take-action/sign-up/Follow us on: Facebook - @PR51stTwitter - @PuertoRico51stInstagram - @PR51st Produced by Caandor Labs.

Recorded live at the PSE-CEPR Policy Forum at the Paris School of Economics. Does economic inequality create political inequality? Julia Cagé tells Tim Phillips about the strategies that rich people can use to influence the political debate, how democracy is undermined when the wealthy have access to power – and how we can change the system to restore the confidence of voters.

Today's episode is part of our Seminar Series, in which we facilitate discussions on work conducted by teams of academic researchers and practitioners that relates to one of four thematic topics: 1) Crime Reduction & Police Accountability, 2) Climate Change Governance, 3) Displacement, Migration, & Integration, and 4) Democracy, Conflict, & Polarization.This episode focuses on Displacement, Migration, and Integration,  presenting a discussion with researchers Yang-Yang Zhou (University of British Columbia) and Jason Lyall (Dartmouth College) about the results from a randomized controlled trial conducted during a period of conflict in Kandahar, Afghanistan. The study analyzed whether prolonged contact improved relationships between local residents and IDPs, through a vocational skills training program that emphasized hands-on collaborative learning. Bret Barrowman (International Republican Institute) serves as a discussant and Alexandra Scacco, EGAP member and Senior Research Fellow in the Institutions and Political Inequality unit at WZB, moderates the conversation. 

More at https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/what-political-inequality. We all know our society is economically unequal: some people have more money and resources than others. But equality isn't just a matter of who has which things. Political equality involves respect and participation in the political process—but those aren't resources that can be divided up like pie. So what is political equality in the first place? How do we know when we've achieved it? And can we prevent politics from being an elite activity concentrated among the educated and wealthy? Josh and Ray push for equality with Margaret Levi, Director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University and co-author of "A Moral Political Economy: Present, Past, and Future."

Formal citizenship requirements for political participation excludes not only noncitizens, but also many individuals from racial communities perpetually seen as foreigners. Ming Hsu Chen of the University of California Hastings College of Law looks at regulatory barriers, such as voter ID laws, that inhibit both racial minorities and non-citizens from participating equally in the American political process. She offers proposals for regulatory changes that would create a more equitable political order. Race and Regulation focuses on the most fundamental responsibility of any society: ensuring equal justice, and dignity and respect, to all people. The host is Cary Coglianese, the Director of the Penn Program on Regulation and a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.Send comments and/or questions to podcast@pennreg.org. 

Professors Kate Andrias, of the University of Michigan Law, and Benjamin L. Sachs, of Harvard Law School, join us to discuss their new article, Constructing Countervailing Power: Law and Organizing in an Era of Political Inequality. They argue the law can facilitate organizing by lower-income groups and that doing so can increase their political power in this new Gilded Age. We also discuss what the politics of labor politics and labor history can tell us about the authors' proposal. Additional readings, including any referenced during the episode, are available on our website: DiggingAHolePodcast.com.

As America gets closer to the 2020 presidential election, everyone wants to know, “Who will run?” But there’s another important question to ask: ”Who will turn out to vote?” There’s a gap in voter turnout between white people and people of color -- a gap that has an impact on election outcomes, and on our democracy. So where does this turnout gap come from? Who votes, who doesn’t vote, and why? Indiana University’s Bernard Fraga wrestles with these questions in his new book, "The Turnout Gap: Race, Ethnicity, and Political Inequality in a Diversifying America." Here, Fraga explores the historical roots of these disparities and argues that it’s up to politicians, parties, and us to fix them.

Following a historic election, we return again to the question of turnout. Who turned out in large numbers to shift power in the House back to the Democrats? What we know about the past is that there are substantial gaps in turnout between different groups. White Americans have turned out in larger numbers that many other racial and ethnic groups. This much is well-know, but what explains these gaps? Is it political interest, barrier to voting, or something else? Such is the focus of Bernard Fraga's new book The Turnout Gap: Race, Ethnicity, and Political Inequality in a Diversifying America (Cambridge University Press, 2018). Fraga is assistant professor of political science at Indiana University. Fraga finds that the common explanations don't always hold up when you examine rigorous data and use advanced methods. He argues for a theory of electoral influence based on the relative size of the racial and ethnic population in a voting district. In districts where minority groups make up a relatively small portion of the electorate, turnout tends to be low. In other districts, where the group makes up a larger portion, turnout tends to be much higher. These findings, and others, explain a lot about the 2018 election and future elections and campaigns. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies

Following a historic election, we return again to the question of turnout. Who turned out in large numbers to shift power in the House back to the Democrats? What we know about the past is that there are substantial gaps in turnout between different groups. White Americans have turned out in larger numbers that many other racial and ethnic groups. This much is well-know, but what explains these gaps? Is it political interest, barrier to voting, or something else? Such is the focus of Bernard Fraga's new book The Turnout Gap: Race, Ethnicity, and Political Inequality in a Diversifying America (Cambridge University Press, 2018). Fraga is assistant professor of political science at Indiana University. Fraga finds that the common explanations don't always hold up when you examine rigorous data and use advanced methods. He argues for a theory of electoral influence based on the relative size of the racial and ethnic population in a voting district. In districts where minority groups make up a relatively small portion of the electorate, turnout tends to be low. In other districts, where the group makes up a larger portion, turnout tends to be much higher. These findings, and others, explain a lot about the 2018 election and future elections and campaigns.

Following a historic election, we return again to the question of turnout. Who turned out in large numbers to shift power in the House back to the Democrats? What we know about the past is that there are substantial gaps in turnout between different groups. White Americans have turned out in larger numbers that many other racial and ethnic groups. This much is well-know, but what explains these gaps? Is it political interest, barrier to voting, or something else? Such is the focus of Bernard Fraga's new book The Turnout Gap: Race, Ethnicity, and Political Inequality in a Diversifying America (Cambridge University Press, 2018). Fraga is assistant professor of political science at Indiana University. Fraga finds that the common explanations don't always hold up when you examine rigorous data and use advanced methods. He argues for a theory of electoral influence based on the relative size of the racial and ethnic population in a voting district. In districts where minority groups make up a relatively small portion of the electorate, turnout tends to be low. In other districts, where the group makes up a larger portion, turnout tends to be much higher. These findings, and others, explain a lot about the 2018 election and future elections and campaigns. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Following a historic election, we return again to the question of turnout. Who turned out in large numbers to shift power in the House back to the Democrats? What we know about the past is that there are substantial gaps in turnout between different groups. White Americans have turned out in larger numbers that many other racial and ethnic groups. This much is well-know, but what explains these gaps? Is it political interest, barrier to voting, or something else? Such is the focus of Bernard Fraga’s new book The Turnout Gap: Race, Ethnicity, and Political Inequality in a Diversifying America (Cambridge University Press, 2018). Fraga is assistant professor of political science at Indiana University. Fraga finds that the common explanations don’t always hold up when you examine rigorous data and use advanced methods. He argues for a theory of electoral influence based on the relative size of the racial and ethnic population in a voting district. In districts where minority groups make up a relatively small portion of the electorate, turnout tends to be low. In other districts, where the group makes up a larger portion, turnout tends to be much higher. These findings, and others, explain a lot about the 2018 election and future elections and campaigns. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Following a historic election, we return again to the question of turnout. Who turned out in large numbers to shift power in the House back to the Democrats? What we know about the past is that there are substantial gaps in turnout between different groups. White Americans have turned out... Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Following a historic election, we return again to the question of turnout. Who turned out in large numbers to shift power in the House back to the Democrats? What we know about the past is that there are substantial gaps in turnout between different groups. White Americans have turned out in larger numbers that many other racial and ethnic groups. This much is well-know, but what explains these gaps? Is it political interest, barrier to voting, or something else? Such is the focus of Bernard Fraga’s new book The Turnout Gap: Race, Ethnicity, and Political Inequality in a Diversifying America (Cambridge University Press, 2018). Fraga is assistant professor of political science at Indiana University. Fraga finds that the common explanations don’t always hold up when you examine rigorous data and use advanced methods. He argues for a theory of electoral influence based on the relative size of the racial and ethnic population in a voting district. In districts where minority groups make up a relatively small portion of the electorate, turnout tends to be low. In other districts, where the group makes up a larger portion, turnout tends to be much higher. These findings, and others, explain a lot about the 2018 election and future elections and campaigns. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Following a historic election, we return again to the question of turnout. Who turned out in large numbers to shift power in the House back to the Democrats? What we know about the past is that there are substantial gaps in turnout between different groups. White Americans have turned out in larger numbers that many other racial and ethnic groups. This much is well-know, but what explains these gaps? Is it political interest, barrier to voting, or something else? Such is the focus of Bernard Fraga’s new book The Turnout Gap: Race, Ethnicity, and Political Inequality in a Diversifying America (Cambridge University Press, 2018). Fraga is assistant professor of political science at Indiana University. Fraga finds that the common explanations don’t always hold up when you examine rigorous data and use advanced methods. He argues for a theory of electoral influence based on the relative size of the racial and ethnic population in a voting district. In districts where minority groups make up a relatively small portion of the electorate, turnout tends to be low. In other districts, where the group makes up a larger portion, turnout tends to be much higher. These findings, and others, explain a lot about the 2018 election and future elections and campaigns. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Following a historic election, we return again to the question of turnout. Who turned out in large numbers to shift power in the House back to the Democrats? What we know about the past is that there are substantial gaps in turnout between different groups. White Americans have turned out in larger numbers that many other racial and ethnic groups. This much is well-know, but what explains these gaps? Is it political interest, barrier to voting, or something else? Such is the focus of Bernard Fraga’s new book The Turnout Gap: Race, Ethnicity, and Political Inequality in a Diversifying America (Cambridge University Press, 2018). Fraga is assistant professor of political science at Indiana University. Fraga finds that the common explanations don’t always hold up when you examine rigorous data and use advanced methods. He argues for a theory of electoral influence based on the relative size of the racial and ethnic population in a voting district. In districts where minority groups make up a relatively small portion of the electorate, turnout tends to be low. In other districts, where the group makes up a larger portion, turnout tends to be much higher. These findings, and others, explain a lot about the 2018 election and future elections and campaigns. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Read more at https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/it-s-not-apathy-but-inequality-that-threatens-our-democracy-ffg3wdcd7 #GE2017, #BrendaFromBristol, #voterapathy, #politicalinequality, #BBC, #radio

Douglas L. Kriner and Andrew Reeves have written The Particularistic President: Executive Branch Politics and Political Inequality (Cambridge University Press, 2015). Kriner is associate professor of political science at Boston University; Reeves is assistant professor of political science at Washington University in St. Louis In the midst of a presidential election in which every candidate claims to want to serve the entire country, can we believe them? Are presidents servants of the nation or do they pursue much more narrow constituencies? Kriner and Reeves argue that, rather than governing as universalists, presidents are particularistic, adhering to the electoral and partisan goals of re-election and advancing their party. They show this with evidence on presidential decisions on base closure, trade, and disaster relief. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Douglas L. Kriner and Andrew Reeves have written The Particularistic President: Executive Branch Politics and Political Inequality (Cambridge University Press, 2015). Kriner is associate professor of political science at Boston University; Reeves is assistant professor of political science at Washington University in St. Louis In the midst of a presidential election in which every candidate claims to want to serve the entire country, can we believe them? Are presidents servants of the nation or do they pursue much more narrow constituencies? Kriner and Reeves argue that, rather than governing as universalists, presidents are particularistic, adhering to the electoral and partisan goals of re-election and advancing their party. They show this with evidence on presidential decisions on base closure, trade, and disaster relief. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Douglas L. Kriner and Andrew Reeves have written The Particularistic President: Executive Branch Politics and Political Inequality (Cambridge University Press, 2015). Kriner is associate professor of political science at Boston University; Reeves is assistant professor of political science at Washington University in St. Louis In the midst of a presidential election in which every candidate claims to want to serve the entire country, can we believe them? Are presidents servants of the nation or do they pursue much more narrow constituencies? Kriner and Reeves argue that, rather than governing as universalists, presidents are particularistic, adhering to the electoral and partisan goals of re-election and advancing their party. They show this with evidence on presidential decisions on base closure, trade, and disaster relief. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Douglas L. Kriner and Andrew Reeves have written The Particularistic President: Executive Branch Politics and Political Inequality (Cambridge University Press, 2015). Kriner is associate professor of political science at Boston University; Reeves is assistant professor of political science at Washington University in St. Louis In the midst of a presidential election in which every candidate claims to want to serve the entire country, can we believe them? Are presidents servants of the nation or do they pursue much more narrow constituencies? Kriner and Reeves argue that, rather than governing as universalists, presidents are particularistic, adhering to the electoral and partisan goals of re-election and advancing their party. They show this with evidence on presidential decisions on base closure, trade, and disaster relief.

Professor Joseph E. Stiglitz discusses the growing levels of inequality in societies like the United States and Britain, why inequality is a problem, and how the levels of inequality can be reduced. This event, the Fourth Annual Oxford Fulbright Distinguished Lecture on International Relations at the University of Oxford, was giving on 23 May 2014. It was hosted by the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford, in association with the US-UK Fulbright Commission, the Embassy of the United States of America, Pembroke College and the Lois Roth Endowment.

Professor Joseph E. Stiglitz discusses the growing levels of inequality in societies like the United States and Britain, why inequality is a problem, and how the levels of inequality can be reduced. This event, the Fourth Annual Oxford Fulbright Distinguished Lecture on International Relations at the University of Oxford, was giving on 23 May 2014. It was hosted by the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford, in association with the US-UK Fulbright Commission, the Embassy of the United States of America, Pembroke College and the Lois Roth Endowment.

Professor Joseph E. Stiglitz discusses the growing levels of inequality in societies like the United States and Britain, why inequality is a problem, and how the levels of inequality can be reduced. This event, the Fourth Annual Oxford Fulbright Distinguished Lecture on International Relations at the University of Oxford, was giving on 23 May 2014. It was hosted by the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford, in association with the US-UK Fulbright Commission, the Embassy of the United States of America, Pembroke College and the Lois Roth Endowment.

Professor Joseph E. Stiglitz discusses the growing levels of inequality in societies like the United States and Britain, why inequality is a problem, and how the levels of inequality can be reduced. This event, the Fourth Annual Oxford Fulbright Distinguished Lecture on International Relations at the University of Oxford, was giving on 23 May 2014. It was hosted by the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford, in association with the US-UK Fulbright Commission, the Embassy of the United States of America, Pembroke College and the Lois Roth Endowment.