While numerous studies have been conducted on the subject of political participation, research on how corruption and political trust affect the way citizens participate in politics has yet to produce consistent and clear results. The divide in perspectives surrounds whether these phenomena spur citizens to take action or, on the contrary, render them apathetic and indifferent to political events. Through using the method of regression to analyze individual level data, this study attempts to examine how political trust and perceived corruption impact non- institutionalized political participation in South Korea. While results indicate no statistically significant effects for political trust, perceived corruption is suggested to have a positive effect on non-institutionalized forms of participation.

Young Europeans with immigrant background live in societies that practice different models of national identity, where nations continually define themselves through citizenship policies, political rhetoric, and everyday social interaction that signal membership to be more open, or more closed, to those without native roots. In other words, young immigrant minorities are constantly receiving signals about whether or not they are accepted as part of the national community. This dissertation investigates how these 'working national identities' influence immigrant minorities' civic integration, defined as their identification with the national-civic community and their participation in political life. Denmark and Sweden, broadly similar societies with historically similar immigration patterns, differ in their citizenship policies, political debates over integration and levels of discrimination. Using this variation, the dissertation analyzes primary survey and interview data collected among immigrant-minority young adults in both countries to observe the effects of their citizenship policies, political debates and social inclusion on those minorities' perceptions, and the influence of those perceptions on their civic integration. I find that social inclusion increases minorities' national identification, while politician concern raises the likelihood that they will vote. But causes of engagement in other forms of political action vary more: while minority men are more likely to engage in political action if they perceive their groups to be excluded, women are more likely to do so if they identify with the community. Throughout, I find men to be more affected by the exclusion of their own ethnic and religious groups than women are. Further, higher levels of exclusion and greater politicization of minority issues in Denmark mean that these factors have stronger effects there, but also raise participation by spurring interest in national politics.

America has long been a nation of immigrants, but never before has it been as multiracial as it is today. This diversity coincides with an evolving political landscape, in which the role of political parties is declining, and nonprofits are increasingly more relevant in immigrant mobilization. In this multiracial and dynamic political arena, racial and ethnic groups are learning both how to build political power and how to negotiate for power across racial and ethnic lines. Among the many groups engaged in this process of political incorporation are South Asians, and this research looks at their political incorporation through a case study of New York City using elite interviews of nonprofit leaders, elected officials and political candidates. Often portrayed as a model minority, South Asians are perceived as well-integrated into American life. This study sought to assess whether in fact this perception applies to political incorporation, through the exploration of these questions: (1) In what ways do South Asians participate in electoral and non-electoral activities? What does their participation or nonparticipation indicate about their incorporation into the American polity? (2) How do socio-economic status and occupational sector influence and/or determine the ways in which South Asians are mobilized and the type of participation in which they engage? (3) What are the factors associated with South Asians' ability to achieve descriptive representation, particularly at the local level? and (4) What role do cross-racial and issue-based coalitions play in South Asians' ability to achieve their political goals such as representation and policy making? The findings indicate that there is no common South Asian agenda across socioeconomic status, that the community's electoral impact is limited by the small number of registered South Asian voters, and that low-income South Asians are increasingly likely to be mobilized by nonprofits and other political actors. Further, the results suggest that South Asians are likely to remain dependent on multiracial coalition building as a strategy for electoral and policy gains, including for electing descriptive representatives. The study concludes that contemporary immigrant incorporation must be examined within the following frameworks: nonlinear pathways of participation, differential emphasis on national and local descriptive representation, and coalition building as a measure of political success, particularly in multiracial contexts.

Why do voters change their political behavior after negative events such as natural disasters and crime victimization? The extant literature tends to focus on how citizens punish or reward the incumbent based on a model of (mis)attribution of responsibilities. This approach overlooks the fact that affected voters might change their political preferences after the negative shock. Departing from the existing literature, I argue that affected citizens, in addition to evaluating incumbent performance, are also selecting the political leader they believe can most enhance their well-being after the negative event. In particular, I hold that affected voters focus on improving their living conditions, which leads them to pay attention to the policy issues that can help them achieve that goal. As a consequence, victims are more likely to prefer candidates better able to address these new policy preferences. Under adverse conditions, these individuals will vote for political candidates whom they would not select under other circumstances. In each of the three chapters of this dissertation, I provide evidence to support different aspects of this main argument. In the first chapter, I study the political consequences of natural disasters. According to my theory, citizens affected by catastrophes seek to reduce the gap between their living conditions before and after the disaster. This leads them to focus on welfare and social policies – for example, the construction of new housing. Consequently, they are more inclined to vote for parties or persons associated with those measures, typically left-wing candidates. To test this argument, I use a natural experiment created by flash floods that occurred in Chile in 2015, which produced random variation in exposure to the natural disaster. I then measure voters’ political preferences using a conjoint survey experiment, and find that disaster victims are more likely to prefer left-wing candidates. In addition, grounded in two months of fieldwork in the affected area, I provide qualitative evidence that illustrates how disaster victims emphasize the importance of welfare policies that can improve their standard of living. In the second chapter, I show how disaster victims after the 2010 earthquake in Chile select housing and not infrastructure as a top priority after the catastrophe. These results help us better understand why disaster victims are more likely to vote for left-wing politicians: affected citizens are particularly concerned about the reconstruction of their houses, and in consequence, should be more likely to vote for candidates who can be linked with those specific welfare policies. To study how the earthquake modified victims’ political priorities, I rely on survey data before and after this negative event comparing exposed and unexposed counties. In the third chapter, I study how crime victims change their policy preferences. I show that affected citizens are more likely to support strong-handed measures to reduce crime, such as allowing state repression. These results reveal that exposure to crime can change what people think the state should be allowed to do, which can have important political implications. To study the impact of crime on victims’ preferences, I use panel data from Brazil and I implement strategies for reducing sensitivity to hidden biases, such as focusing on individuals who were not crime victims during a previous wave.

Can a right, as an abstract yet powerful symbol of a legitimate claim, influence individual political behavior independent of the underlying entitlement the right represents? Or are rights merely rhetorical proxies for distributional struggles? This dissertation examines whether the formal recognition of a right–in particular, a formal property right to land–can empower political engagement. I construct a theoretical framework for how legal property rights influence political behavior around two central claims. First, I argue that legal rights have an impact that goes beyond expectations of economic value or tenure security. Legal rights are powerful symbols that also legitimize claim-making and empower rights-bearers to engage in politics. In this sense, legal rights not only provide the rights-bearer with a material entitlement (i.e. an increase in economic value or material endowment), but also a political entitlement in the form of a greater legitimacy in demands for protection and benefits from the state. This increased sense of legitimacy, in turn, can spill over to influence political behavior more generally by incentivizing political participation and claim-making. I refer to this mechanism as the "symbolic effect" of rights. My second claim is that this empowering, symbolic effect is strongest where property protections are weakest and underlying rights most vulnerable. Specifically, this occurs when the state is either unable to provide adequate guarantees or unwilling to enforce rights as a matter of course. Under such conditions, rights help define just claim-making and legitimate grievances, thus incentivizing greater political engagement. I construct my theory and provide an initial test of derived hypotheses by relying on experiences with rural titling programs benefiting small-holder peasant farmers in Peru and Colombia. Land titling differs from traditional land reform policies, in that it attempts merely to formalize the existing tenure regime, and hence does not otherwise impact the distribution of landholding. This provides a unique moment to examine the effect of a change in legal rights that is distinct from changes in underlying assets or benefits. In essence, we can focus specifically on what impact the "right" itself has, while keeping the actual distribution of property relatively constant. In addition to recognizing important rights to land for thousands of peasant farmers, these programs also provided a significant moment of interaction with central state authorities. As a result, titling provides not only a new material connection to the state–in the form of a full, legal title---but also a symbolic connection through the rights and privileges promised in those documents. I draw on three sources of data to provide empirical support for my theory. First, I provide a historical summary of access to rural land and legal property rights in Peru and Colombia over the 20th and early 21st Centuries, highlighting the importance of legal property rights for shaping rural conflict and claim-making by peasants. The second source of data is from a series of semi-structured interviews with peasant, smallholding farmers in rural areas of Peru and Colombia. Through these interviews, I attempt to understand the meaning peasants place on legal titles, experiences with land titling, and local practices for regulating private land and participating in rural village politics. Third, I use original, panel data of titling through the now-defunct Colombian Institute of Rural Development (INCODER, Instituto Colombiano de Desarrollo Rural) from 2000-2015, and in Peru through the first two waves of massive land titling in the Rural Land Titling and Registration Project (Proyecto de Titulación y Registro de Tierras Rurales, PTRT) from 1996-2007. I find evidence that changes in legal rights are associated with increases in voter turnout, use of courts, and willingness to engage in politics, but only in areas with weak state institutions. Conversely, in areas with strong state institutions where titling likely increases tenure security, formalized property rights either produce no change or are associated with a reduction in engagement. These findings support my theory that legal rights exert a "symbolic effect" on behavior, which can lead to counter-intuitive results as formal rights promote engagement most where rights are otherwise weak or ineffectively protected. This evidence highlights the non-material effects of legal rights–an impact that is often overlooked by most political economy scholars who typically understand property rights as synonymous with property tenure (i.e. the expectation of extracting value from property). Instead, I focus on the "right" itself as a moral claim to protection and special consideration by the state. This shift in perspective can broaden our understanding of property rights by explaining how legal rights can influence behavior and convey meaning even when they do not otherwise change material benefits.

Across Europe, the welfare state is a focus of social and political contention. Participating in the democratic process offers a means for the public to voice their preferences. However, not everyone participates in politics. Research shows that there are significant participatory inequalities as those with greater socioeconomic resources are more likely to participate in politics. In light of these participatory inequalities, this thesis examines the representativeness of the welfare state preferences of the politically active. The main hypothesis posits that, if less advantaged socioeconomic groups are less likely to participate in politics, the welfare state preferences of the politically active are unlikely to be representative. The thesis brings together the comparative study of participatory inequality and social differences in welfare state preferences to examine data from the European Social Survey (ESS) 2008-09 for Germany, Spain, Sweden and the UK. Latent Class Analysis examines how preferences about the welfare state vary within Europe. By grouping individuals, the analysis shows that within societies there are different views about what should be the responsibilities of government. Using the latent classes, and considering a range of political actions, multivariate regression models show how social inequality determines conflict over the welfare state and transforms into political inequality. The association between preferences and political activity is examined to establish the representativeness of participant preferences. Finally, models combining welfare state preferences, political activity and social position address how social inequality shapes the link between political activity and welfare state preferences. Based on survey data for four European countries, the thesis finds that the politically active are not always representative in their preferences; however, the preference bias of participation varies in direction across countries and forms of political participation. Participatory inequalities do lead to the under-representation of support for the welfare state among the politically active but not in all cases. Examining the social stratification of preferences and participation, the thesis suggests that cross-national variations in the representativeness of participants may result from how preferences and participation are socially stratified. For instance, significant participatory inequalities can occur in contexts where there is less contention over the welfare state. Conversely, contention over the welfare state can coincide with egalitarian patterns of political activity. A concluding proposition is that the factors inhibiting the political participation of the socio-economically disadvantaged may also cultivate weaker levels of support for the welfare state.

第三次民主化浪潮及其所代表的世界性民主化转型使得许多人相信民主不仅具有其本身的价值，而且有助于提高大众的福利水平。不少学者曾研究过民主制度与社会福利产出之间的关系。然而，在解释两者关系时并未得到一致性的结论。在很多情况下，民主制国家在改善人类发展指标和提高福利水平方面并没得到社会所期待的结果，而且经常被非民主制国家所超越。政治制度如何影响社会福利表现？民主化和社会福利发展之间是否存在取舍矛盾？如果这种取舍矛盾存在，如何将民主化的社会代价减到最小？ / 本研究试图加深我们对政治制度性质与社会福利产出水平之间关系的理解。为此，本文以维度路径分析政治制度的不同维度如何影响政府采取不同类型的政策选择。本文的核心问题是：民主制的哪些方面有利于/不利于哪种公共政策的实现？民主的不同维度能够促进/抑制哪些政策？竞争性选举和公众参与形成本研究的两个自变量维度。本研究应变量的两个维度是两种政府回应性：政府对公民基本需求（basic needs）的回应，即代表了社会福利表现的改进，以及政府对公民要求（wants and demands）的回应，即代表了满足群体所呼吁的而非客观上对其有利的政策福利。两者在概念上有所不同。本文首先在理论上分析自变量和应变量不同维度之间的关系，继而引用实证科学的定量和定性基本方法来检验所建立的理论关系。 / 本研究证明，并非所有的导致回应要求（wants）的民主属性也有助于使政府回应基本需求（basic needs）。公众要求和公众客观需求作为公共政策所回应的目标具有不同的特征。从委托-代理理论框架来看，回应公众基本需求的政策需要政府采取不同于在回应主观要求时所采取的措施。由于这些不同点，在两个民主维度（政治竞争和公众参与）当中，只有后者对基本需求有积极影响，而前者往往会阻碍以回应基本需求为目的的政策。在政治竞争压力之下，追求选票最大化的政治家更倾向于采取回应社会现有要求的短期措施，且往往以忽视客观需求为代价。因此，为了避免民主化的高成本，需要促进民主的参与维度，且同时要缓解其竞争维度的激烈性。 / The shift towards democracy globally under the “third wave“ of democratization has stirred the conviction that democracy is not only a good thing in itself but also a promoter of general welfare. A considerable amount of research has been conducted to explore the effects of democracy on social outcomes. However, unequivocal conclusions regarding democracy’s impact on health, education, life expectancy and other aspects of human well-being have not been achieved. Many democracies do not perform as good as they are expected to and are often outperformed by non-democratic regimes. Questions appear: How does political regime affect social performance? Is there a trade-off between democratization, on the one hand, and social development, on the other? If there is, how should democratization be carried out so as not to inhibit human well-being? / This dissertation attempts to enhance our understanding of the impact of political regime on social outcomes by applying a dimensional approach. Instead of asking whether democracy is good or bad, it asks: which dimensions of political regime are good for which kinds of outcomes? What kinds of policies are promoted and what are inhibited by different dimensions of democracy? On the causal side are such regime dimensions as competition and participation; on the outcome side are two kinds of government action: responsiveness to people’s objective needs, which conceptually stands for improvement of social outcomes, and responsiveness to subjective wants and demands, which conceptually stands for giving people what they want regardless what is objectively good for them. The relations between these causal and outcome dimensions are explored both theoretically and empirically applying quantitative as well as qualitative methods. / The dissertation demonstrates that not all dimensions of democracy that induce governments to satisfy public wants and demands also work in case of basic needs satisfaction. Public needs and wants, as targets of policymaking, are different. Within a principal-agent framework, responsiveness to needs, compared to responsiveness to wants, implies different strategies of policymaking and has different political implications. Due to these differences, of the two regime dimensions only participation has systemic positive effect on social outcomes. Competition, more often than not, inhibits regime responsiveness to basic needs. In competitive settings, vote-maximizing politicians tend to opt for short-term wants-oriented policies, often at the expense of responding to objective needs. To make democratization less costly, therefore, participation should be encouraged, and competition should be tamed. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Korolev, Alexander. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2012. / Includes bibliographical references. / Abstract also in Chinese. / Chapter 1 / Introduction --- p.1 / Chapter 1.1. --- Question --- p.1 / Chapter 1.2. --- Methodology --- p.3 / Chapter 1.3. --- Argument --- p.6 / Chapter 1.4. --- Significance --- p.7 / Chapter 1.5. --- Research design and methods --- p.10 / Chapter 1.6. --- Plan --- p.14 / PART I / A DIMENSIONAL THEORY OF DEMOCRATIC RESPONSIVENESS / Chapter 2 / Literature Analysis: “Two Modes“ of Regime Responsiveness --- p.22 / Chapter 2.1. --- The Dual Nature of Government Action --- p.22 / Chapter 2.2. --- Democracy and Public “Wants“ --- p.27 / Chapter 2.3. --- Democracy and Public “Needs“ --- p.31 / Chapter 2.4. --- Summary --- p.34 / Chapter 3 / Needs, Wants, and Two Dimensions of Responsiveness --- p.38 / Chapter 3.1. --- Concept of Basic Needs and its Cognates --- p.40 / Chapter 3.2. --- Public “Needs“ vs. Public “Wants“ as Targets of Policy Making --- p.44 / Chapter 3.2.1. --- Observability --- p.45 / Chapter 3.2.2. --- Variability --- p.47 / Chapter 3.2.3. --- Malleability --- p.49 / Chapter 3.2.4. --- Satisfaction criteria --- p.51 / Chapter 3.3. --- Needs/wants Dichotomy and Regime Responsiveness --- p.53 / Chapter 3.3.1. --- Observability and the issue of information asymmetry --- p.54 / Chapter 3.3.2. --- Variability and planning frame for policy making --- p.58 / Chapter 3.3.3. --- Malleability and the possibility for manipulation --- p.59 / Chapter 3.3.4. --- Satisfaction criteria and substantiveness of policy response --- p.61 / Chapter 3.4. --- Summary --- p.62 / Chapter 4 / Two Dimensions of Democracy and Responsiveness to Basic Needs --- p.67 / Chapter 4.1. --- Multidimensionality of Regime’s Impact and Decomposition Criteria --- p.68 / Chapter 4.2. --- Political Competition and Regime Responsiveness to Basic Needs --- p.76 / Chapter 4.2.1. --- Competition dimension in theory --- p.77 / Chapter 4.2.2. --- Competition dimension in practice --- p.81 / Chapter 4.3. --- Political Participation and Regime Responsiveness to Basic Needs --- p.89 / Chapter 4.3.1. --- Participation dimension in theory --- p.89 / Chapter 4.3.2. --- Participation dimension in practice --- p.93 / Chapter 4.4. --- Summary --- p.98 / PART II / EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS / Chapter 5 / Competition, Participation and Basic Needs A Quantitative Test --- p.102 / Chapter 5.1. --- Research Strategies and Statistical Model --- p.102 / Chapter 5.2. --- Analysis of Variables and Indices --- p.105 / Chapter 5.2.1. --- Indicators and socio-economic characteristics of basic needs --- p.106 / Chapter 5.2.2. --- Definitions and characteristics of the regime variables --- p.110 / Chapter 5.2.3. --- Critical quantitative analysis of the state capacity variables --- p.116 / Chapter 5.2.4. --- Socioeconomic variables --- p.125 / Chapter 5.3. --- Methods and Results --- p.127 / Chapter 5.4. --- Regime and Needs: Theoretical Explanation of the Statistical Findings --- p.139 / Chapter 5.4.1. --- When elections foster and when hinder basic needs satisfaction --- p.140 / Chapter 5.4.2. --- How participation helps, or is helped by, basic needs attainment --- p.153 / Chapter 6 / Qualitative Illustrations: The Politics of Healthcare in China and US --- p.160 / Chapter 6.1. --- General Patterns of Health Needs Provision in China and US --- p.163 / Chapter 6.2. --- Destructive Competition and Healthcare Reform in the US --- p.173 / Chapter 6.2.1. --- Trends in American healthcare sector --- p.173 / Chapter 6.2.2. --- Failed attempts to reform healthcare --- p.177 / Chapter 6.2.3. --- “Obamneycare bugaboo and public fears of healthcare reform --- p.179 / Chapter 6.3. --- Mobilized Participation and Healthcare Reform in China --- p.185 / Chapter 6.3.1. --- China’s healthcare in the post-reform period --- p.187 / Chapter 6.3.2. --- Policy response and the reversal of negative trends --- p.190 / Chapter 6.3.3. --- Participation and health policy making in china --- p.192 / Chapter 6.4. --- Summary --- p.205 / Chapter 7 / Conclusion --- p.207 / References --- p.212

As many political observers have pointed out, political participants in the United States are particularly unrepresentative of the population as a whole. Citizens who are politically active tend to be those on the upper end of the socioeconomic scale, for example, the wealthy and highly educated. This dissertation examines the ways in which inequalities in political participation lead to differences in the behavior of elected officials and their subsequent actions related to policy making. That is, politicians have the ability, and under certain circumstances the incentive, to vary how they govern and who they govern for, depending on how political influence is distributed throughout the citizenry. I argue that considering the economic status of various groups in society is an important and often overlooked aspect of representation. Economic status is linked closely with economic need, which is especially important for the disadvantaged and may be difficult to measure by relying on issue positions or priorities gathered from opinion surveys. Income affects the types of government programs people are influenced by and rely on; for example, welfare, health care, and public housing policies are more likely to directly influence the poor while those with higher economic status are unlikely to encounter any of these programs. This suggests that different levels of political activity by various groups in society can have an influence on lawmakers' decisions regarding how to address certain issues. To assess the influence of unequal participation on public policy I examine various stages of the policy process, including policy outcomes and issue agenda setting in the states. Few studies have assessed the effect of inequalities in participation on the public policy, and research assessing the link between inequality and policy has almost entirely overlooked the potential effects of unequal participation on agenda setting. This research explores whether states with higher economic inequalities in political participation have policies that are less likely to be beneficial to disadvantaged groups. Both policy outcomes and issue agendas are examined to fully understand the consequences of political inequality in the American states.

The existence of stark and enduring gender inequalities in political participation and representation around the world is a well-documented phenomenon. What constrains women from participating in politics? How can we encourage more women to participate? What are the substantive implications of nominal equality in participation? In this dissertation, I explore these questions in the context of Pakistan: a developing democracy with high levels of gender inequality on various dimensions. An overarching goal of this work is to center the role of the household -- and the sexual division of household labor -- in our understanding of gender roles and gendered inequalities in political participation. In Paper 1, I develop an original behavioral measure of preference expression, embedded in a survey with 800 respondents in Faisalabad, to demonstrate that even when women participate in political communication, they overwhelmingly opt to communicate their spouse's political preferences to a political representative, rather than their own. The ability to express and communicate preferences is key to many definitions of democracy. While existing work studies external constraints on preference expression in the public sphere, in this paper I demonstrate the persistence of internal constraints on women's preference expression that operate in the private sphere. In Paper 2, coauthored with Ali Cheema, Asad Liaqat and Shandana Khan Mohmand, we use a field experiment conducted in 2500 households in Lahore to study what works to mobilize women's turnout. The design of the experiment relies on the understanding that women's participation in this context is shaped by household level constraints. We test whether targeting a canvassing treatment prior to the 2018 Pakistan National Election emphasizing the importance of women's vote works best when targeted to women, men, or both. We find that it is insufficient to target women, and necessary to target men, in order to increase women's electoral turnout. In Paper 3, I draw on the conceptual framework of role equity and role transformation to understand variation in public attitudes towards gender equality. I use survey data collected in Faisalabad and Lahore to demonstrate how abstract support for gender equality in various domains breaks down in the face of material costs and circumstances that pose a threat to status-quo gender roles.

What leads Asian Americans and Latinos to develop panethnicity? What are the political consequences of panethnicity? In answering these two questions, I first define panethnicity as a sense of solidarity beyond different ethnic or national origins. My emphasis in defining panethnicity as a sense of solidarity shared among Asian Americans and Latinos is on differentiating the concept panethnicity from panethnic self-identification and group consciousness. Then, I theoretically discuss the nature of panethnicity, drawing on the ethnic studies literature. I identify two important groups of theories on ethnicity: culturalism and instrumentalism. Building on instrumentalism as an underlying theory of panethnicity, I assume that panethnicity among Asian Americans and Latinos is a social product. Panethnicity is a creation of both objective outer contextual settings and personal reactions to them. Following the theoretical discussion, I empirically test how outer contextual settings and individual features affect the formation of panethnicity. Specifically, the contextual factors include the size of the panethnic population, the level of segregation, the number of panethnic elected officials and organizations, and religious service attendance. The individual factors of interest include panethnic self-identification, discrimination experience, English proficiency and birth place. I call these factors individual socializing factors. After this test, I examine how panethnicity, combined with the contextual factors and individual socializing factors, affects political participation including voting and nonvoting activities among Asian Americans and Latinos. The main thesis of this dissertation is threefold. First, panethnicity is formed as a product of social process. Asian Americans and Latinos develop panethnicity by responding to external settings and through their personal socializing experiences. Second, panethnicity shapes Asian Americans' and Latinos' political participation. That is, panethnicity as a political resource influences voting and nonvoting participation among Asian Americans and Latinos. However, how panethnicity affects political participation varies, depending on panethnic groups and their modes of political participation. Lastly, along with panethnicity, group features such as discrimination experience and contextual factors are important ingredients for political participation among Asian Americans and Latinos. Particularly, my evidence suggests that the contextual factors are better predictors of Asian American and Latino voting participation than nonvoting participation.