Quantitative studies of the presidential use of executive orders have attempted to determine whether presidents are more prone to resort to unilateral action when faced with legislative opposition. To date, the results have been mixed however, with studies demonstrating that the type of executive order is an important factor in understanding the conditions under which presidents will resort to unilateral action. Despite this advancement in theory, there has been little consensus regarding the actual conditions under which presidents will issue the different types of executive orders that have been identified in the literature. This thesis addresses this puzzle through an empirical analysis that engages the "Two Presidencies Thesis," which argues that presidential decision-making, action and success is conditioned by policy area (foreign and domestic) and executive order type (major, routine, or symbolic). An original dataset was constructed by coding all executive orders issued between 1953 and 2008 as related to either foreign or domestic policy. Thus, an analysis is undertaken of major executive orders, minor executive orders, foreign policy-based executive orders, domestic policy-based executive orders, and major and minor categories of each policy area. A multivariate analysis is completed using negative binomial regression given that the dependent variables are overdispersed count variables. The effects of divided government and ideological distance are the primary independent variables examined. The ideological distance variable consists of the absolute distance between the president's ideology and the ideology of the median member of the Senate. Various other control variables are included, including presidential party, election year, and approval ratings. The findings indicate that executive order type does matter in predicting presidential use of executive orders and that the prevailing political climate does influence the president's use of executive orders.

La tesi analizza le presidenze di Mahmūd Ahmadīnezhād (2005-2013) all’interno del fazionalismo iraniano postrivoluzionario, mettendo in luce gli aspetti caratteristici e peculiari dei cosiddetti ultraradicali. La prospettiva storica che introduce all’Iran contemporaneo attraverso l’analisi dei principali avvenimenti del Novecento, dalla Rivoluzione Costituzionale (1906) alla nascita della Repubblica islamica (1979), affianca un’analisi politica sull’ascesa al potere degli ultraradicali. La tesi esamina le reazioni e le relazioni politiche interne, la rinnovata postura internazionale, le politiche socioeconomiche e l’eredità lasciata dalle presidenze Ahmadīnezhād. È tracciata una panoramica storico-politica sull’esperienza degli ultraradicali per comprendere le cause socioeconomiche e politiche che hanno determinato la loro ascesa, i cambiamenti introdotti all’interno dell’élite postrivoluzionaria e, in ultimo, gli effetti interni e internazionali della loro parabola politica. L’approccio storico si è altresì servito di uno studio dei vocaboli in uso nella letteratura occidentale e dei termini persiani utilizzati per riferirsi al gruppo, al fine di individuare le etichette politiche impiegate e il loro rispettivo valore. Vi è quindi, in definitiva, un’analisi della categoria politica del radicalismo per decretare se, per quali aspetti e secondo quali schemi interpretativi, Ahmadinejad e il suo gruppo di alleati possano essere considerati e interpretati come radicali. / The thesis analyses the presidencies of Mahmūd Ahmadīnezhād (2005-2013) within the post-revolutionary Iranian factionalism, highlighting the characteristics and the peculiar features of the so-called hardliners. The historical perspective introduces the main turning points in contemporary Iran, from the Constitutional Revolution (1906) to the foundation of the Islamic Republic (1979). The political analysis looks therefore at the political ascendancy of the hardliners, the following internal reactions, the renewed international posture, the socio-economic policies and, ultimately, the legacy left by the Ahmadīnezhād presidencies. The aim is to provide a comprehensive overview of the hardlines’ political experience to disclose their domestic and foreign postures and their effect within the post-revolutionary political debate. The thesis also examines the category of radicalism by looking at labels used by both the Western literature and Persian language to refer to the hardliners. This thesis aims to address whether, for which aspects and according to which perspective, Ahmadinejad and his close circle of allies could be considered and interpreted as radicals.

No description available.