This study was conducted to identify the nature of the content devoted to the 2008 presidential election in the editorial pages of three newspapers. The research sought to discover what percentage of the content was specific to the election, whether this election-centered content focused on the campaign or on specific issues, what issues were covered, and the role in which the author was writing. This study used a comparative quantitative content analysis to examine this content appearing during the final three months of the 2008 campaign in the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Dallas Morning News, and the San Francisco Chronicle, three major U.S. metropolitan newspapers with regional focus. The results provided insight into whether a marketplace of ideas exists in the editorial pages of the selected newspapers. Analysis of the election-related material revealed that each newspaper devoted a substantial portion of their editorial pages to the election. However, of that election-centered material, the majority was focused on the campaign, or "horse race," devoting much less to the discussion of substantive policy issues. The exception was the San Francisco Chronicle, which devoted almost 50% of its election-centered material to substantive issues. Only a handful of issues dominated the issue coverage in each newspaper: money, social issues, and defense/foreign policy. The general format for the editorial pages in each newspaper allowed for only a limited amount of diversity with the role in which an author is writing (i.e. the newspaper's own editorial writers vs. letters to the editor written by citizens). The majority of columns, the portion of the editorial pages where a diversity of authors has the potential to exist, were made up by authors identified by only a handful of roles.

This study is a textual analysis of the mainstream media coverage of the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, surveying more than 1,000 news stories featuring Clinton, Palin, Obama, Biden and McCain published between January 1, 2007 and November 11, 2008. The central findings of this study are twofold: first, mainstream news sources continue to use stereotypical and sexist news frames that describe women in ways that are at odds with the criteria we set for being a good president; and second, feminism is characterized in ways that divorce the ideas of the movement from the activism necessary to overcome existing injustices. Chapter 2 discusses how the news frames and double binds-in place for more than 100 years in media coverage and constructions of women-are still being used to describe women candidates today. These frames highlight sexist concerns about how women candidates will balance their public and private lives and deflect the multiple, competing roles women are capable of enacting. Chapter 3 analyses news articles that relate the terms "feminism" and "feminist" to comments about Clinton and Palin to determine the ways in which the movement is being defined by mainstream media. The chapter argues that this coverage offered a limited vision of feminism that ignored race, class, and issues presented in the third wave. It also divorces the feminist movement from the activist work that has and will continue to make change possible in our country by equating feminism with postfeminist ideas. Chapter 4 highlights the associations made between the male candidates and the women's movement. The coverage of the male candidates in the campaign posits a vision of women's experiences that are defined through the media by male candidates. These definitions highlight women as caregivers and separate the issues important to women from the feminist activism necessary to work toward changing the situation women in the United States face. Finally, the conclusion offers suggestions for how to intervene in the 135-year cycle that perpetuates limited and damaging views of women candidates and of the feminist movement. Through these types of interventions, feminist-minded men and women can continue to work toward more positive and fair representations of women candidates and that changes in representations of women candidates will lead to the election of the first woman president of the United States.

The 2008 election of Barack Obama to the United States’ presidency is an undeniable historical landmark demonstrating progress in race relations; however, it has yet to be determined how the election affects the way in which racial minorities are viewed and whether Obama’s presidency will advance their societal position. Despite some claims that the election signifies the existence of a post-racial nation, recent social (Harlow 2008; Hunt and Wilson 2009; Parker, Sawyer, Towler 2009; Tesler 2010), psychological (Effron, Cameron, and Monin 2009; Eibach, and Purdie-Vaughns 2009; Kaiser et al. 2009), political (Piston 2001; Huddy and Feldman 2009; Redlawsk, Tolbert, and Franco 2010), economic (Jacobson 2010; Lewis-Beck and Tien (2009) and legal (Nelson 2009; Troutt 2009) research predicts that the election will have little effect, or potentially a negative impact, on efforts to achieve racial parity in America. To assess what President Obama’s election means for American race relations, this study examines multiple measures of prejudice among Whites as predictors of their support for racial equality. Using data from the American National Election Studies (ANES), I examine different forms of racism, and the extent to which they influence Whites’ support of government policies that promote racial equality. The focal independent variable, racial ideology, is measured by old-fashioned racism, systemic racism, symbolic racism, laissez-faire racism, and color-blind racism. The focal dependent variable, race-based policy preferences, is measured through support for government policies which promote racial equity in education and employment contexts. Factor analysis is used to identify how Whites’ feelings towards Obama, reaction to Obama’s election victory, feelings towards Blacks, outlook on black presidents in general, and beliefs concerning political power differentials between Blacks and Whites relate to different theoretical racial ideologies. Racial orientations that are indicated by measured variables then serve as focal independent variables in multiple regression analysis to predict the focal outcome variables concerning support for policies that foster racial equality. Factor analysis and regression analysis are conducted with pre-election, post-election, and recent data in order to assess change in Whites’ racial attitudes and policy preferences at various points in time. Results from the analysis suggest differences before and after the election in terms of racist ideology and support for programs that benefit racial minorities. Whites are now less likely to agree with the implementation of affirmative action and government policy supporting racial equality. Systemic and color-blind racist ideologies are the strongest predictors of opposition to race-based policy. Furthermore, it seems antiracist ideology has diminished since President Obama was elected. These findings are consistent with sociological and political research that suggests Whites’ opposition to racial policies and black candidates is often more influenced by symbolic racism than by realistic self-interest (Sears and Henry 2003) and confirms predictions (Bonilla-Silva and Ray 2009; Metzler 2010) that Obama’s presidency coupled with new forms of racism, such as color-blind racism, may serve to negatively affect racial equality in the United States.

This dissertation consists of three essays that apply both economic theory and econometric methods to understand design and dynamics of institutions. In particular, it studies how institutions aggregate information and deal with uncertainty and attempts to derive implications for optimal institution design. Here is a brief summary of the essays. In many economic, political and social situations where the environment changes in a random fashion necessitating costly action we face a choice of both the timing of the action as well as choosing the optimal action. In particular, if the stochastic environment possesses the property that the next environmental change becomes either more or less likely as more time passes since the last change (in other words the hazard rate of environmental change is not constant over time), then the timing of the action takes on special importance. In the first essay, joint with Maxwell B Stinchcombe, we model and solve a dynamic decision problem in a semi-Markov environment. We find that if the arrival times for state changes do not follow a memoryless process, time since the last observed change of state, in addition to the current state, becomes a crucial variable in the decision. We characterize the optimal policy and the optimal timing of executing that policy in the differentiable case by a set of first order conditions of a relatively simple form. They show that both in the case of increasing and decreasing hazard rates, the optimal response may be to wait before executing a policy change. The intuitive explanation of the result has to do with the fact that waiting reveals information about the likelihood of the next change occurring, hence waiting is valuable when actions are costly. This result helps shed new light on the structure of optimal decisions in many interesting problems of institution design, including the fact that constitutions often have built-in delay mechanisms to slow the pace of legislative change. Our model results could be used to characterize optimal timing rules for constitutional amendments. The paper also contributes to generalize the methodology of semi-Markov decision theory by formulating a dynamic programming set-up that looks to solve the timing-of-action problem whereas the existing literature looks to optimize over a much more limited set of policies where the action can only be taken at the instant when the state changes. In the second essay, we extend our research to situations, where the current choice of action influences the future path of the stochastic process, and apply it to the legal framework surrounding environmental issues, particularly to the ‘Precautionary Principle' as applied to climate change legislation. We represent scientific uncertainty about environmental degradation using the concept of 'ambiguity' and show that ambiguity aversion generates a 'precautionary effect'. As a result, justification is provided for the Precautionary Principle that is different from the ones provided by expected utility theory. This essay serves both as an application of the general theoretical results derived in the first essay and also stands alone as an analysis of a substantive question about environmental law. Prediction markets have attracted public attention in recent years for making accurate predictions about election outcomes, product sales, film box office and myriad other variables of interest and many believe that they will soon become a very important decision support system in a wide variety of areas including governance, law and industry. For successful design of these markets, a thorough understanding of the theoretical and empirical foundations of such markets is necessary. But the information aggregation process in these markets is not fully understood yet. There remains a number of open questions. The third essay, joint with Robert Lieli, attempts to analyze the direction and timing of information flow between prices, polls, and media coverage of events traded on prediction markets. Specifically, we examine the race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries for presidential nomination. Substantively, we ask the following question: (i) Do prediction market prices have information that is not reflected in viii contemporaneous polls and media stories? (ii) Conversely, do prices react to information that appears to be news for pollsters or is prominently featured by the media? Quantitatively, we construct time series variables that reflect the "pollster's surprise" in each primary election, measured as the difference between actual vote share and vote share predicted by the latest poll before the primary, as well as indices that describe the extent of media coverage received by the candidates. We carry out Granger Causality tests between the day-to-day percentage change in the price of the "Obama wins nomination" security and these information variables. Some key results from our exercise can be summarized as follows. There seems to be mutual (two-way) Granger causality between prediction market prices and the surprise element in the primaries. There is also evidence of one-way Granger causality in the short run from price changes towards media news indices. These results suggest that prediction market prices anticipate at least some of the discrepancy between the actual outcome and the latest round of polls before the election. Nevertheless, prices also seem to be driven partly by election results, suggesting that there is an element of the pollster’s surprise that is genuine news for the market as well. / text