Emerging Trends in The Social and Behavioral Sciences

Democracy that Excludes: Persistent Inequalities and the Future of Democratic Governance

Media

Part of Democracy that Excludes: Persistent Inequalities and the Future of Democratic Governance

Title

Democracy that Excludes: Persistent Inequalities and the Future of Democratic Governance

extracted text

k
PSYHB etrds0445.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:14 P.M.

Page 1

Democracy that Excludes: Persistent
Inequalities and the Future of
Democratic Governance
NATHAN J. KELLY and JANA MORGAN

Abstract

k

Democracy is often reduced to the presence of a particular set of institutional rules
and practices. We argue that democracy also implies a promise of more just outcomes,
and define systems that are institutionally democratic but fail to fully incorporate all
citizens as exclusionary democracies. We argue here that the practice of exclusionary
democracy may produce broad and mostly negative implications for the future of
democratic governance. In particular, we explore how variation in political and economic exclusion in institutionally democratic states may shape a variety of political
attitudes and behavior, including political participation, democratic values, tolerance, and trust in government.

k

Democratic systems create expectations about equality. The core idea of
democracy is that it opens societal decisions to a broader group. Power is to
be spread more evenly than in monarchies and oligarchies of old. And with
expansion of power comes the promise of social equality. Privilege should
no longer be reserved for the few, social hierarchies of a variety of types
should be undermined, those formerly excluded from political decisions
should be incorporated into governance, economic prosperity should be
more broadly shared, and a variety of injustices should be mitigated.
While the goals of democracy include, at least implicitly, various dimensions of social equality, the practice of democracy routinely falls short of its
promise. Even as democratic rules like free and fair elections have spread,
established hierarchies based upon race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religion,
nationality, and socioeconomic status remain intact. Notable progress toward
social equality within democratic systems cannot be dismissed—legally
sanctioned slavery is largely a thing of the past, nearly universal suffrage is
now the norm, requirements for inclusion of women and racial minorities
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Robert A. Scott and Marlis Buchmann (General Editors) with Stephen Kosslyn (Consulting Editor).
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

k

k
PSYHB etrds0445.tex

2

k

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:14 P.M.

Page 2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

in government are found in some systems, and marriage equality has
become increasingly common. But such progress has only infrequently
launched a fundamental challenge to deeply rooted power structures and
has often created the appearance, rather than the reality, of equality. Thus,
formal democratic institutions have frequently been put in place without
the corresponding dismantling of extant hierarchies. Indeed the formal
institutions of democracy have at times been effectively used to perpetuate
and even deepen power differentials. As a result, dominant economic
and social sectors continue to monopolize levers of political influence, and
entrenched patterns of exclusion persist in many formal democracies around
the world.
Examples abound. In Latin America, democratic transitions swept across
the hemisphere in the last two decades of the twentieth century. Free and
fair elections are held regularly, peaceful transfers of power are the norm,
and legal codes feature constitutional rights and institutional procedures
central to democracy. However, black and indigenous Latin Americans
face institutionalized systems of racism as well as highly personal forms of
discrimination. Women across the region suffer a seemingly insurmountable
wage gap and often lack autonomy over their own well-being. Gay Latin
Americans face rising violence, despite recent extensions of legal protections
for same-sex couples in several countries. And though economic inequality
declined during the first decade of the twenty-first century, poverty and
inequality continue to plague historically marginalized populations. Moreover, systems of political representation in many Latin American countries
fail to articulate the interests of marginalized groups. Parties rely heavily on
appeals that emphasize personalism or particularism and minimize collective demands that require effective public policies to address fundamental
problems. And when parties do make programmatic appeals or pursue
substantive policy goals, these efforts largely ignore concerns that are central
for those located at the periphery of society.
Similar patterns can be seen in richer, more established democracies as
well. In the United States and Europe, racial animosity and anti-immigrant
sentiment have not receded but seem to be on the rise. Public and private institutions from welfare offices, courtrooms, and schools to civic
associations, small businesses, and large firms often preserve rather than
challenge economic and social hierarchies that are raced, classed, and
gendered. Policies rarely address lower class problems and instead cater to
the interests of powerful economic elites. People, who are doubly or triply
marginalized along multiple dimensions of exclusion encounter particularly
steep barriers to opportunity-enhancing human and financial capital, have
few advocates within government bureaucracy and lack effective political
representation. Hence, the persistence of highly stratified economic, social,

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0445.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

Democracy that Excludes

k

Page 3

3

and political structures alongside institutions and processes of democratic
order pose a challenge to the logic and ideals of democracy not only in
relatively recent democratizers but also in well-established democratic
regimes.
These conditions can be thought of as exclusionary democracy. Exclusionary
democracies meet the basic procedural conditions of democracy and would
thus qualify as democratic regimes using conventional definitions within
empirical political science. At the same time, however, these regimes tolerate
and perhaps facilitate concentration of power and privilege. While proclaiming formal equality, exclusionary democracies allow for the persistence
of economic, social, and political structures that contradict the underlying
logic of democracy and uphold deep inequalities. While the basis upon
which exclusion occurs and the precise mechanisms employed to create
(dis)advantage vary across time and space, hierarchies within exclusionary
democracies frequently reflect entrenched axes of marginalization based
upon race, class, gender, sexuality, nationality, and religion. Ideally, democracy should provide all citizens the opportunity to exercise fundamental
human rights on a level playing field. But exclusionary democracies fail to
deliver on this promise and instead relegate certain predictable segments of
society to continued marginalization.1
Our primary goal here is to consider some of the possible consequences
of exclusionary democracy. Persistent structural inequalities within a formal
democratic framework have the potential to contribute to dysfunction across
a variety of political processes and institutions, challenging the exercise and
protection of equal rights, disrupting the implementation of effective policies, and undermining political stability. But at the most foundational level,
exclusionary democracies carry implications for their citizens because these
systems advance inconsistent narratives concerning how people should conceive of their place within the political system and what they might expect
from a democratic state. Thus, we think it vital to focus on how citizenship
is constructed under the contradictions of exclusionary democracy. What are
the features of state-society interactions in these contexts? How does exclusionary democracy shape citizens’ expectations about political processes and
outcomes? How do reinforcing patterns of exclusion influence the ways people interact with and evaluate state institutions and political actors? To what
extent do citizens sustain support for democratic rule and maintain democratic values despite economic, social and even political structures that fail
to embody democratic goals?
1. Noting a parallel paradox between racial inequality and Cuban revolutionary rhetoric, Mark
Sawyer (2006) identified a pattern of “inclusionary discrimination” which “allows for the idea of racial
and ethnic inclusion to exist alongside discriminatory practices” (p. 19). Similarly, we are interested in
contexts where the idea of democracy coexists with practices of racial and ethnic exclusion.

k

6:14 P.M.

k

k
PSYHB etrds0445.tex

4

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:14 P.M.

Page 4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Most importantly, how do experiences of marginalization impact those relegated to the bottom of entrenched intersectional hierarchies? In essence,
how do citizens understand and experience politics in systems that promise
democracy but leave many inequalities intact?
THE TENSIONS OF DEMOCRACY AND JUSTICE

k

The promise of democracy is justice. But reality often falls far short. This tension has long been acknowledged by scholars of the theory and practice of
democracy (Dahl, 1971; Phillips, 1995; Schumpeter, 1942; Walsh, 2011; Young,
1990). The most common response has been to isolate the analysis of democracy and justice to largely separate spheres. Empirically focused scholars
operate within a near consensus that democracy is and should be defined
and measured based on procedural facets of governing systems like rule by
the people, equal participation, and civil liberties. Cross-national measures
of democracy most commonly feature procedural conceptualizations.2 Justice, on the other hand, is typically defined by the distribution of resources
and power along with the structures and institutions that produce these distributional patterns (Nielsen, 1979; Shapiro, 1999; Young, 1990). Reasonable
arguments can be made to separate the ideas of democracy and justice based
on ontological incongruity. Indeed, many scholarly accounts view democracy and justice as “different values that can operate at loggerheads with
one another” (Shapiro, 1999, p. 18). According to this view, norms of justice
should articulate principles to be applied in evaluating institutions and their
outcomes, but should not be viewed as coterminous with particular political procedures. Thus, scholars suppose democracy to involve identifiable,
measurable political processes, while justice emphasizes equitable outcomes.
While much empirical research implicitly assesses specific facets of justice
when analyzing political systems’ performance on outcomes like economic
inequality, racial discrimination, and descriptive representation for marginalized groups, evaluations of democratic politics against theoretical conceptualizations of justice are rare.
One of the potential limitations of isolating democracy and justice is that
it ignores many of the aspirations held by citizens, reformers, activists, and
scholars concerning democratic practice. “People find democracy appealing partly because its universalist ethic holds out the possibility of undoing,
2. One measure—V-DEM—reflects some acknowledgment that procedural definitions do not capture
many facets of what people frequently expect from democracy by offering a measure called “egalitarian
democracy,” which gives some attention to the distribution of resources and power within society. However, the justification and conceptualization of this measure views equality through the lens of promoting
political participation, is not concerned with just processes or outcomes for their own sake, and retains a
procedural component as elemental (Sigman & Lindberg, 2018). Thus, this measure retains the core concern with procedural components, even while pointing to the value in interrogating the implications that
stem from such a focus.

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0445.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

Democracy that Excludes

k

Page 5

5

or at least mitigating, many of the evils they see around them” (Shapiro &
Hacker-Cordón, 1999, p. 18). Reformers and revolutionaries do not fight for
democracy simply because they like voting. Rather, they put their lives and
livelihoods on the line because they believe democracy may end oppression,
deconstruct hierarchy, and replace tyranny with liberty.
Thus, despite pragmatic and ontological arguments to the contrary,
democracy and justice are discursively and theoretically interconnected.
Citizens, reformers, and many scholars expect the two go together and
reinforce each other. Some theorists argue that true democracy is not
possible without justice or that justice is best accomplished via democracy.
In his Democratic Justice, Shapiro (1999) makes the case that democratic
government is the “most attractive political basis for ordering social relations justly” (p. 5), arguing that theoretical conceptualizations of justice
and democracy should reflect the common logic that “democracy and
justice are intimately linked” (p. 62). Likewise Young (1990), whose work
on justice emphasizes the processes and structures in which distributive decisions are embedded, argues that democratic decision-making is
“an element and condition of social justice” (p. 23). Indeed, the mutual
dependence between formal democratic procedures and just structures,
practices, and outcomes has emerged as a recurrent theme within a
diverse body of theoretical work (Connolly, 1995; Honig, 2009; Myers,
2013). The underlying logic of democracy, thus, runs counter to the sort of
domination and oppression that characterize injustice. And democracy’s
justice-promoting attributes lend the regime legitimacy, often making
democratization the goal for those seeking to escape entrenched hierarchies rooted in exploitation, marginalization, violence, and other forms of
injustice.
Of course, the empirical reality is that formal democratic rules frequently
fail to end informal exclusions that sustain entrenched power structures,
and sometimes democracy actually reinforces dominant group control at the
expense of the marginalized (Hooker, 2017; Walsh, 2011, p. 35). Moreover, as
neoliberalism has hollowed out the state, the legal rights granted to citizens
under democracy have become increasingly distant from a reality that is
disempowering, devitalizing, and exclusionary (Aslam, 2017; Berlant, 2011;
Brown, 2015). As Aslam diagnoses, citizens of the liberal democratic state
experience a “narrowing of freedom to juridical terms that has exposed a
large gap between the promise and actual experience of freedom for many”
(Aslam, 2017, p. 13). What’s more, certain sectors of society have been
unevenly subjected to unjust practices of domination and oppression, so
that the costs of maintaining order, prosperity and even procedural democracy are distributed unevenly according to raced, classed, and gendered
hierarchies (Mills, 1997; Pateman, 1988).

k

6:14 P.M.

k

k
PSYHB etrds0445.tex

6

k

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:14 P.M.

Page 6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

In this reality, it is not fully possible to separate the procedures of democracy from the goals of justice. Popular intuition and theoretical arguments
concerning the connections between justice and democracy should not be
ignored. The view of democracy and justice as compatible, even reinforcing,
goals has normative substance, and the idea that democracy should promote
just outcomes and processes has discursive power (Shapiro, 1999). Indeed,
theoretical and empirical studies of politics have increasingly emphasized
that the ways we think and talk about ideas and their meaning produce
observable implications for politics and policy (Moy, Tewksbury, & Rinke,
2016). At the same time, the dominant international discourse among
scholars and practitioners prioritizes democracy’s procedural foundations
and often considers the implementation of free and fair elections or citizen
participation to be of intrinsic value, with less concern for the outcomes of
these processes (Odugbemi, 2013; Organization of American States, 2003).
But the hope that democracy might upend inequitable power relations
and the unjust practices that produce them not only remains unfulfilled
but also seems unattainable. Thus, the ongoing juxtaposition between
the idea that democracy should be justice-promoting and the reality that
many procedural democracies fall far short of this goal is not simply a
conceptual annoyance or theoretical complication. Rather this contradiction is likely to carry consequences for how citizenship is constructed,
shaping how individuals think and engage with politics in exclusionary
democracies.
CONSIDERING THE CONSEQUENCES: A STRUCTURAL-BEHAVIORAL
FRAMEWORK
People expect democracy to promote justice, that is, to combat “institutionalized domination and oppression” (Young, 1990, p. 15).3 Such a view
conceives of justice as a fundamental condition of democratic citizenship,
which allows people to engage the public realm freely, to pursue their goals
and interests collectively, and to expect and extend reciprocity (Young, 1990,
pp. 33–34). Where democracy exists alongside domination and oppression,
patterns of citizenship are unlikely to reflect this ideal.
We need to grapple more with the implications of labeling systems that
meet basic procedural requirements of “democracy” while real conditions
of domination and oppression remain. We want to be crystal clear that
we are not advocating an abandonment of the procedural requirements
3. Here, we embrace Iris Young’s definition of justice which moves beyond conventional distributive
notions of justice focused on the allocation of material goods or power resources and emphasizes the
structural bases of power, oppression, and domination, which limit self-realization, self-expression, and
self-determination (Young, 1990, p. 37).

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0445.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

Democracy that Excludes

k

Page 7

7

of minimalist definitions of democracy. It is obvious that no society is
likely to achieve the full elimination of domination and oppression. But
what happens when societies with such persistent and pervasive unjust
conditions receive the stamp of approval as democratic?
The state—together with the policies, social structures, and economic
institutions it builds and governs—plays a central role not only in defining
citizens but also in shaping how they think, behave, and organize politically
(Mettler and SoRelle (2014) for a useful review). The same is true of parties
and other forms of political organizations (Dalton, Farrell, & McAllister,
2011). Institutions, structures, and patterns of contestation have the capacity
to fundamentally alter citizens’ conceptions of themselves and their relation
to the political. In this sense, “[c]itizens are not born, they are made”
(Cruikshank, 1999, p. 3), and how they are made matters.
People’s experiences, practices, and perspectives as citizens are contingent
on the overt or subtle dynamics of power or agency in which they are embedded. For instance, in analyzing the impact of the US carceral state, Lerman
and Weaver (2014) theorize that institutions and processes “that send the
message to individuals that they are valued and respected provide citizens
with a symbolic civic resource of political standing. Conversely, institutions
[and processes] that fail to reflect democratic values may inhibit civic skills,
transmit ideas about government that demobilize, and inform citizens that
they are not worthy” (p. 13). Similarly, Soss, Fording, and Schram (2011)
argue that some poverty governance policies reduce “citizenship to a market
role and ’de-democratiz[e]’ the citizenry” (p. 16). Furthermore, these dynamics frequently reflect underlying ideologies such as mestizaje in Mexico, racial
democracy in Brazil, and “color-blind” policies in the United States which
tout equality while simultaneously perpetuating raced or gendered hierarchies (Douglass, 1955; Holston, 2008; Telles, 2014).
This calls for an account that connects political attitudes and behaviors to the structural, hierarchical social contexts in which they occur—a
“structural-behavioral” approach. The practice of democracy is an important
structural component of the social context. All states feature an array of
citizenship experiences, as each individual encounters the state and society
through a variety of institutions and personal realities that shape their
identity within, engagement with, and perspectives of the political realm
(Cruikshank, 1999). When an exclusionary form of democracy is practiced,
these differential citizenship-building experiences are patterned in ways that
secure the “vitality of democratic citizenship [for some] through devitalizing
possibilities for others” (Aslam, 2017, p. 12). Thus, citizenship experiences
in exclusionary democracies are not simply individually differentiated, they
are the result of distinct complexes of factors that empower some groups
while relegating others to subordinate positions within the political, social,

k

6:14 P.M.

k

k
PSYHB etrds0445.tex

8

k

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:14 P.M.

Page 8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

and economic institutions that construct citizenship (Hooker, 2017, p. 35).
These patterns of persistent and ubiquitous group-based marginalization
pit the realities of exclusion against the ideals of democracy, sending a
forceful message that being a “good” citizen means different things for
different classes of people. That brings us around to behavior. When the
differential construction of citizenship aligns with and potentially reinforces
group-based hierarchies, this can shape how people across society and
within marginalized groups (i) conceive of and practice citizenship and (ii)
engage with and evaluate the democratic state.
Studies of political behavior, of course, have long emphasized how socialization experiences, psychological processes, or economic interests operate at
the individual level. Such work, however, often assumes that cognitive processes function independently of their setting. Some scholars have begun to
consider how the broader social, economic, or political environment might
influence individuals’ political perceptions and practices, but these efforts
have often been isolated in their application to specific research questions and
have given little attention to building a larger theoretical framework that considers how context might interact with or shape individuals’ attitudes and
experiences. Although important bodies of work on priming, framing, and
cueing (Moy et al., 2016), on policy feedback (Mettler, 2011), and on the political psychology of group dynamics (Huddy, 2004) provide partial exceptions
to this characterization, these literatures generally do not concern themselves
with the structural underpinnings of society and politics which define the
foundations from which cues are transmitted, frames are generated, and public policies take shape.
Work in the priming and framing tradition, for example, focuses largely
on the cognitive processes that the political or media environment evoke
without consideration for the structural origins of that environment. This
focus has produced empirical scholarship built around experimental methods, which assess immediate, or occasionally medium-term, responses to
stimuli that are often artificial and almost always concentrated on narrow
issues.4 Similarly, the policy feedback literature is most often concerned
with delineating the behavioral or attitudinal consequences stemming
from changes in individual policies or within narrow policy domains.
Accordingly, this body of work displays a tendency to bracket the ways
in which policies emerge out of power struggles rooted in differential
economic, social, and political resources and often does not acknowledge
that many “unintended” consequences are, in fact, quite intentional.5
4. Exceptions exist in which the structural context that generates particular frames/primes is taken
seriously (Pérez, 2016) and in which broader sets of issues or longer time horizons are considered.
5. It is worth noting, however, that some policy feedback scholarship benefits from contextual or historical analyses, which help situate specific policies in the broader context, even if that context is not the
primary empirical concern. For examples, see Cookson (2016); Mettler (2011); and Soss et al. (2011).

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0445.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

Democracy that Excludes

k

Page 9

9

As a result, while these literatures offer many insights into ways that
specific facets of the political or policy environment have the potential to
shape individuals’ cognitive processes or socialization experiences, the
behavioral consequences of the fundamental structures from which these
specific political stimuli emerge remain under-theorized and empirically
overlooked.
We believe that a convincing structural-behavioral theory of exclusionary
democracy must explicitly consider how variations in the hierarchies that
underpin different societies shape how citizens formulate attitudes and
behaviors concerning democratic values, institutions, and practices. Existing
work clearly demonstrates that systems of inequality are widespread and
that some forms of exclusion and oppression exist in even the most egalitarian societies (Fridkin, 1996; Jennings & Niemi, 1974; Lerman & Weaver,
2014). But the depth of hierarchy and the degree to which inequalities
are reinforced across different facets of economic, social, and political life
differ substantially between contexts and over time. There are important
qualitative differences, for example, between the racialized socioeconomic
hierarchy in the United States and the more egalitarian structural conditions
that characterize Sweden. Likewise, we observe noteworthy contrasts in
the way that ethnic hierarchies have been meaningfully challenged in
Bolivian politics, while political representation in Peru offers little antidote
to the ongoing economic and social marginalization of indigenous communities there. Or consider the Dominican Republic, where many black
Dominico-Haitians have no standing as citizens in the eyes of the state, as
opposed to Panama, where the black descendants of West Indian immigrants
have attained considerable economic and social status. Rather than ignore
this variation, we suggest leveraging it theoretically and empirically to
develop a better understanding of the ways in which different patterns
of hierarchy shape individuals’ understanding and practice of democratic
citizenship.
Thus, we build here on the basic intuition of earlier work on intergroup
relations by emphasizing the importance of hierarchical structures in
understanding attitude formation and considering the potential for asymmetric effects among different groups depending upon their placement
within the hierarchy. But we elaborate how variations in the patterns of
economic, social, and political inequality that characterize different societies
may shape diverse facets of citizenship formation beyond intergroup
relations.
In particular, exclusionary democracy may undermine a variety of attitudes
and behaviors consistent with popular support for democracy. These behavioral implications of the structures associated with exclusionary democracy
are likely to extend both to the marginalized and the advantaged, though

k

6:14 P.M.

k

k
PSYHB etrds0445.tex

10

k

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:14 P.M. Page 10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

with some degree of variation in the effects depending on one’s position
within the hierarchy.
Where historical hierarchies persist, these hierarchies are indicative of various forms of social distance. The more deeply rooted and extreme these hierarchies are, the more distance is created between the groups around which
the hierarchy is defined. At the core of democracy is an acceptance of the
political inclusion of “others.” Such acceptance is likely to be undermined
when social distance between groups increases.
Systems of exclusion send messages about the value and meaning of
democracy, and people are likely to be less attached to democratic norms
when the social, economic, and political structures in which they are
embedded fail to challenge entrenched patterns of marginalization. Divides
between social groups may limit between-group solidarity and contribute to
the “othering” of people who do not conform to the dominant social image.
Patterns of exclusion may construct barriers to building understanding
and empathy between groups, delegitimizing the claims and tactics of
outsiders. These processes may promote acceptance of nondemocratic
means of repressing difference and dealing with dissent. So the overall effect
of exclusion and hierarchy within a democracy is likely to be an eroded
commitment to democracy.
These effects may be particularly strong for marginalized groups. While
the marginalized have the most to gain from the fully fulfilled promise
of democracy, they may also be most sensitive to structural contexts of
hierarchy and exclusion. If democracy fails to reach its full promise, the
marginalized may see exclusionary democracy as just another political
system designed by and for the dominant interests in society. If such perceptions become more prevalent where exclusionary democracy is practiced,
those from marginalized groups will be less likely to embrace democratic
values and other facets of the political attitudes and behavior may change
as well.
We must also be cognizant, however, of potential backlash from dominant
groups when formerly marginalized groups become politically incorporated.
When dominant groups see their advantage falling away, it is understandable
that they may become more hostile to marginalized groups that are gaining
ground. If this hostility to marginalized groups undermines support for the
democratic system, democratic systems could be in a bind. By failing to incorporate marginal groups, these marginal groups may lose faith in democracy.
But by incorporating marginal groups more fully, the risk is losing support
of historically powerful groups. It may be possible to see the new ascendancy of both right- and left-wing populism through the lens of exclusionary
democracy.

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0445.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

Democracy that Excludes

6:14 P.M. Page 11

11

AN ANALYTICAL PATH FORWARD

k

Coming to grips with how the practice of exclusionary democracy shapes
mass support for democracy is important if we are to understand how
best to sustain the worldwide practice of democracy. Understanding how
different groups respond to the maintenance of social hierarchies within de
jure democratic systems can provide a useful road map for pro-democracy
reformers. It might also help us to understand what appears to be a shift
away from democracy around the world as we move toward the second
quarter of the twenty-first century. But where and how should we look for
the effects of exclusionary democracy? We conclude with some thoughts on
this question.
First, studying exclusionary democracy must be a cross-national,
cross-temporal enterprise. To understand how variation in exclusion
and hierarchy in democratic systems affects the formation of democratic
citizenship, society-level variation must be observed. This sort of variation is most likely to be found within states over time, across states
cross-sectionally, or both. While there may be ways to innovatively apply
experimental designs to tackle some of the specific questions related to the
effects of exclusionary democracy, observational research designs are likely
to be the most effective way toward valid inferences in this domain. As well,
detailed studies of single states that allow for nuanced understanding of
the practice of exclusionary democracy and citizen experiences within such
systems are likely to be fruitful.
Second, a wide variety of hierarchies can and should be explored.
That is to say, societies are divided into hierarchical groupings along a
number of dimensions. Ethnoracial divisions are clearly important and
have featured prominently in prior studies (Hutchings & Valentino, 2004;
Morgan & Kelly, 2017). Hierarchies based on sex and gender identity
are also prevalent and the extent of such hierarchies also varies across
societies (Htun, 2016; Morgan, Espinal, & Hartlyn, 2008; Morgan & Kelly,
2013). Class-based hierarchies are also relevant and hierarchies based
on geography may be in place in certain countries (Bartels, 2008; Kelly,
2009). All of these group-based hierarchies have the potential to be
rolled into the theoretical framework supplied by the concept of exclusionary democracy with implications for the formation and practice of
citizenship.
Third, at least two broad forms of exclusion can be incorporated. Political exclusion refers to the incomplete incorporation of subordinate groups in
the political process. Limiting the franchise would be an extreme form of
such exclusion. But we can also see such exclusion in various implicit and
explicit limitations on the political incorporation of marginalized groups,

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0445.tex

12

k

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:14 P.M. Page 12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

such as felon disenfranchisement in the United States and various, seemingly
innocuous hurdles to participation. These de jure aspects of political exclusion are just the tip of the iceberg. De facto exclusion can also exist where
groups are unequally represented in government and where participation of
subordinate groups is discouraged through subtle and not so subtle repressive tactics. Alex Keyssar’s (2009) excellent analysis of voting rights in the
United States demonstrates clearly how political inclusion can wax and wane
over time and be used as a tool of the powerful to minimize the influence
of marginalized groups. Economic exclusion refers to the economic distance
between dominant and subordinate groups. Where between-group inequality is high, which is driven by a variety of formal and informal economic
arrangements, this type of exclusion is more likely to be present. Measuring
each of these forms of exclusion, as well as others that we have not contemplated, will require developing multiple indicators both quantitative and
qualitative.
Last, while there are a variety of possible arenas where distortions of
citizenship may surface, we want to bring particular attention to three
domains that encompass significant attitudinal or behavioral outcomes
in their own right and that have broad implications for the practice and
maintenance of democracy. Patterns of engagement and disengagement
with the state, its agents, and other political actors, which are likely to
prevail under different manifestations of exclusionary democracy. Attitudes toward government institutions and political or policy processes
that might reflect the ways in which citizens encounter these facets of
democratic procedure co-existing alongside dynamics of economic, social,
and political power. And, finally, support of democratic norms and legitimacy of the system, which may become contaminated by experiences
of formally democratic regimes that permit various forms of injustice to
persist.
In the last half-century, there has been an explosion of democracy. While
democratic institutions have become more common, however, progress
toward more just outcomes has appeared to slow. The hierarchies that
remain in place in institutionally democratic contexts have likely implications for the construction and practice of citizenship. And recent backsliding
from democratic governance may be a partial result. Numerous strands of
recent research point to various forms of stratification and group identity as
drivers of political attitudes and behavior. However, to fully grapple with
how the maintenance of unequal and unjust societies shapes democratic
governance, theories of justice and democracy must be better integrated into
an ongoing agenda that embeds micro-level political attitudes and behavior
in social contexts with varying degrees of hierarchy and inequality across a
range of dimensions.

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0445.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

Democracy that Excludes

6:14 P.M. Page 13

13

REFERENCES

k

Aslam, A. (2017). Ordinary democracy: Sovereignty and citizenship beyond the neoliberal
impasse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bartels, L. M. (2008). Unequal democracy: The political economy of a New Gilded Age.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Berlant, L. G. (2011). Cruel optimism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. New York, NY:
MIT Press.
Connolly, W. E. (1995). The ethos of pluralization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Cookson, T. P. (2016). Working for inclusion? conditional cash transfers, rural
women, and the reproduction of inequality. Antipode, 48(5), 1187–1205.
Cruikshank, B. (1999). The will to empower: Democratic citizens and other subjects. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press.
Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Dalton, R. J., Farrell, D. M., & McAllister, I. (2011). Political parties and democratic linkage: How parties organize democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Douglass, F. (1955). The lessons of the hour. In P. S. Foner (Ed.), The life and writings
of Frederick Douglass. Reconstruction and after (Vol. IV, pp. 491–523). New York, NY:
International Publishers.
Fridkin, K. (1996). The political consequences of being a woman: How stereotypes influence the conduct and consequences of political campaigns. New York, NY: Columbia
University Press.
Holston, J. (2008). Insurgent citizenship: Disjunctions of democracy and modernity in
Brazil. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Honig, B. (2009). Emergency politics: Paradox, law, democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Hooker, J. (2017). Theorizing race in the Americas: Douglass, Sarmiento, Du Bois, and
Vasconcelos. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Htun, M. (2016). Inclusion without representation in Latin America: Gender quotas and
ethnic reservations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Huddy, L. (2004). Contrasting theoretical approaches to intergroup relations. Political
Psychology, 25(6), 947–967.
Hutchings, V. L., & Valentino, N. A. (2004). The centrality of race in American politics.
Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 383–408.
Jennings, M. K., & Niemi, R. G. (1974). Political character of adolescence: The influence of
families and schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kelly, N. J. (2009). The politics of income inequality in the United States. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Keyssar, A. (2009). The right to vote: The contested history of democracy in the United
States. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Lerman, A. E., & Weaver, V. M. (2014). Arresting citizenship: The democratic consequences of American crime control. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0445.tex

14

k

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:14 P.M. Page 14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Mettler, S. (2011). The submerged state: How invisible government policies undermine
American democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Mettler, S., & SoRelle, M. (2014). Policy feedback theory. In P. A. Sabatier & C. M.
Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (Vol. 3rd ed., pp. 151–181). New York,
NY: Westview Press.
Mills, C. W. (1997). The racial contract. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Morgan, J., & Kelly, N. J. (2013). Market inequality and redistribution in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Journal of Politics, 3, 672–685.
Morgan, J., & Kelly, N. J. (2017). Social patterns of inequality, partisan competition, and Latin American support for redistribution. The Journal of Politics, 79(1),
193–209.
Morgan, J., Espinal, R., & Hartlyn, J. (2008). Gender politics in the dominican republic: Advances for women, ambivalence from men. Politics & Gender, 4(1), 35–63.
Moy, P., Tewksbury, D., & Rinke, E. M. (2016). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing.
In K. B. Jensen & R. T. Craig (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of communication
theory and philosophy. New York: Wiley Online Library.
Myers, E. (2013). Worldly ethics: Democratic politics and care for the world. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
Nielsen, K. (1979). Radical egalitarian justice: Justice as equality. Social Theory and
Practice, 5(2), 209–226.
Odugbemi, Sina. 2013. Hurling elections at complexity. The World Bank Blog. Retrieved
from https://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/hurling-elections-complexity
(Accessed 31 October 2017).
Organization of American States (2003). Carta Democráatica Interamericana: Documentos e interpretaciones. Washington, DC: Author.
Pateman, C. (1988). The sexual contract. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
Pérez, E.ée. O. (2016). Unspoken politics: Implicit attitudes and political thinking. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Phillips, A. (1995). The politics of presence. New York: Clarendon Press.
Sawyer, M. Q. (2006). Racial politics in post-revolutionary Cuba. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Socialism, capitalism and democracy. New York, NY: Harper
and Brothers.
Shapiro, I. (1999). Democratic justice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Shapiro, I., & Hacker-Cordón, C. (1999). Promises and disappointments: Reconsidering democracy’s value. In I. Shapiro & C. Hacker-Cordón (Eds.), Democracy’s value
(pp. 1–19). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sigman, R., & Lindberg, S. I. (2018). Democracy for all: Conceptualizing and measuring egalitarian democracy. Political Science Research and Methods.
Soss, J., Fording, R. C., & Schram, S. (2011). Disciplining the poor: Neoliberal paternalism
and the persistent power of race. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Telles, E. (2014). Pigmentocracies: Ethnicity, race, and color in Latin America. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press.

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0445.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

Democracy that Excludes

6:14 P.M. Page 15

15

Walsh, D. M. (2011). Womens rights in democratizing states: Just debate and gender justice
in the public sphere. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Nathan J. Kelly is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University
of Tennessee. His research explores connections between politics, policy, and
economic inequality. He is an Andrew Carnegie Fellow, and this publication
was made possible in part by a grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New
York. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility
of the author.
Jana Morgan is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of
Tennessee. Her award-winning research explores how patterns of economic,
social, and political marginalization undermine democratic institutions and
processes across the Americas. Her work has received external funding from
various sources including the Pew Foundation and the Fulbright-Hays program. Writing for this project occurred during a residential fellowship at the
Russell Sage Foundation.
RELATED ESSAYS
k

Does the 1 Person 1 Vote Principle Apply? (Political Science), Ian R. Turner
et al.
Party Organizations’ Electioneering Arms Race (Political Science), John H.
Aldrich and Jeffrey D. Grynaviski
Economic Models of Voting (Political Science), Ian G. Anson and Timothy
Hellwig
The Underrepresentation of Women in Elective Office (Political Science),
Sarah F. Anzia
Elites (Sociology), Johan S. G. Chu and Mark S. Mizruchi
Government Formation and Cabinets (Political Science), Sona N. Golder
Presidential Power (Political Science), William G. Howell
Women Running for Office (Political Science), Jennifer L. Lawless
Leadership (Anthropology), Adrienne Tecza and Dominic Johnson
Political Inequality (Sociology), Jeff Manza
Domestic Political Institutions and Alliance Politics (Political Science),
Michaela Mattes
Participatory Governance (Political Science), Stephanie L. McNulty and Brian
Wampler
Money in Politics (Political Science), Jeffrey Milyo
Why Do Governments Abuse Human Rights? (Political Science), Will H.
Moore and Ryan M. Welch
Feminists in Power (Sociology), Ann Orloff and Talia Schiff

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0445.tex

16

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:14 P.M. Page 16

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Evolutionary Theory and Political Behavior (Political Science), Michael Bang
Petersen and Lene Aarøe
Electoral Authoritarianism (Political Science), Andreas Schedler
Information Politics in Dictatorships (Political Science), Jeremy L. Wallace
Misinformation and How to Correct It (Psychology), John Cook et al.
Judicial Independence (Political Science), Tom S. Clark
News Framing Effects and Emotions (Political Science), Andreas R. T. Schuck
and Alina Feinholdt
Political Advertising (Political Science), Erika Franklin Fowler
Racial Disenfranchisement (Political Science), Vincent L. Hutchings and
Davin L. Phoenix
The Evolving View of the Law and Judicial Decision-Making (Political
Science), Justine D’Elia-Kueper and Jeffrey A. Segal
Understanding American Political Conservatism (Political Science), Joel D.
Aberbach
Deliberative Democracy (Political Science), James Fishkin
Partisan News: A Perspective from Economics (Economics), Daniel F. Stone

k

k

k



k
PSYHB etrds0445.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:14 P.M.

Page 1

Democracy that Excludes: Persistent
Inequalities and the Future of
Democratic Governance
NATHAN J. KELLY and JANA MORGAN

Abstract

k

Democracy is often reduced to the presence of a particular set of institutional rules
and practices. We argue that democracy also implies a promise of more just outcomes,
and define systems that are institutionally democratic but fail to fully incorporate all
citizens as exclusionary democracies. We argue here that the practice of exclusionary
democracy may produce broad and mostly negative implications for the future of
democratic governance. In particular, we explore how variation in political and economic exclusion in institutionally democratic states may shape a variety of political
attitudes and behavior, including political participation, democratic values, tolerance, and trust in government.

k

Democratic systems create expectations about equality. The core idea of
democracy is that it opens societal decisions to a broader group. Power is to
be spread more evenly than in monarchies and oligarchies of old. And with
expansion of power comes the promise of social equality. Privilege should
no longer be reserved for the few, social hierarchies of a variety of types
should be undermined, those formerly excluded from political decisions
should be incorporated into governance, economic prosperity should be
more broadly shared, and a variety of injustices should be mitigated.
While the goals of democracy include, at least implicitly, various dimensions of social equality, the practice of democracy routinely falls short of its
promise. Even as democratic rules like free and fair elections have spread,
established hierarchies based upon race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religion,
nationality, and socioeconomic status remain intact. Notable progress toward
social equality within democratic systems cannot be dismissed—legally
sanctioned slavery is largely a thing of the past, nearly universal suffrage is
now the norm, requirements for inclusion of women and racial minorities
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Robert A. Scott and Marlis Buchmann (General Editors) with Stephen Kosslyn (Consulting Editor).
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

k

k
PSYHB etrds0445.tex

2

k

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:14 P.M.

Page 2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

in government are found in some systems, and marriage equality has
become increasingly common. But such progress has only infrequently
launched a fundamental challenge to deeply rooted power structures and
has often created the appearance, rather than the reality, of equality. Thus,
formal democratic institutions have frequently been put in place without
the corresponding dismantling of extant hierarchies. Indeed the formal
institutions of democracy have at times been effectively used to perpetuate
and even deepen power differentials. As a result, dominant economic
and social sectors continue to monopolize levers of political influence, and
entrenched patterns of exclusion persist in many formal democracies around
the world.
Examples abound. In Latin America, democratic transitions swept across
the hemisphere in the last two decades of the twentieth century. Free and
fair elections are held regularly, peaceful transfers of power are the norm,
and legal codes feature constitutional rights and institutional procedures
central to democracy. However, black and indigenous Latin Americans
face institutionalized systems of racism as well as highly personal forms of
discrimination. Women across the region suffer a seemingly insurmountable
wage gap and often lack autonomy over their own well-being. Gay Latin
Americans face rising violence, despite recent extensions of legal protections
for same-sex couples in several countries. And though economic inequality
declined during the first decade of the twenty-first century, poverty and
inequality continue to plague historically marginalized populations. Moreover, systems of political representation in many Latin American countries
fail to articulate the interests of marginalized groups. Parties rely heavily on
appeals that emphasize personalism or particularism and minimize collective demands that require effective public policies to address fundamental
problems. And when parties do make programmatic appeals or pursue
substantive policy goals, these efforts largely ignore concerns that are central
for those located at the periphery of society.
Similar patterns can be seen in richer, more established democracies as
well. In the United States and Europe, racial animosity and anti-immigrant
sentiment have not receded but seem to be on the rise. Public and private institutions from welfare offices, courtrooms, and schools to civic
associations, small businesses, and large firms often preserve rather than
challenge economic and social hierarchies that are raced, classed, and
gendered. Policies rarely address lower class problems and instead cater to
the interests of powerful economic elites. People, who are doubly or triply
marginalized along multiple dimensions of exclusion encounter particularly
steep barriers to opportunity-enhancing human and financial capital, have
few advocates within government bureaucracy and lack effective political
representation. Hence, the persistence of highly stratified economic, social,

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0445.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

Democracy that Excludes

k

Page 3

3

and political structures alongside institutions and processes of democratic
order pose a challenge to the logic and ideals of democracy not only in
relatively recent democratizers but also in well-established democratic
regimes.
These conditions can be thought of as exclusionary democracy. Exclusionary
democracies meet the basic procedural conditions of democracy and would
thus qualify as democratic regimes using conventional definitions within
empirical political science. At the same time, however, these regimes tolerate
and perhaps facilitate concentration of power and privilege. While proclaiming formal equality, exclusionary democracies allow for the persistence
of economic, social, and political structures that contradict the underlying
logic of democracy and uphold deep inequalities. While the basis upon
which exclusion occurs and the precise mechanisms employed to create
(dis)advantage vary across time and space, hierarchies within exclusionary
democracies frequently reflect entrenched axes of marginalization based
upon race, class, gender, sexuality, nationality, and religion. Ideally, democracy should provide all citizens the opportunity to exercise fundamental
human rights on a level playing field. But exclusionary democracies fail to
deliver on this promise and instead relegate certain predictable segments of
society to continued marginalization.1
Our primary goal here is to consider some of the possible consequences
of exclusionary democracy. Persistent structural inequalities within a formal
democratic framework have the potential to contribute to dysfunction across
a variety of political processes and institutions, challenging the exercise and
protection of equal rights, disrupting the implementation of effective policies, and undermining political stability. But at the most foundational level,
exclusionary democracies carry implications for their citizens because these
systems advance inconsistent narratives concerning how people should conceive of their place within the political system and what they might expect
from a democratic state. Thus, we think it vital to focus on how citizenship
is constructed under the contradictions of exclusionary democracy. What are
the features of state-society interactions in these contexts? How does exclusionary democracy shape citizens’ expectations about political processes and
outcomes? How do reinforcing patterns of exclusion influence the ways people interact with and evaluate state institutions and political actors? To what
extent do citizens sustain support for democratic rule and maintain democratic values despite economic, social and even political structures that fail
to embody democratic goals?
1. Noting a parallel paradox between racial inequality and Cuban revolutionary rhetoric, Mark
Sawyer (2006) identified a pattern of “inclusionary discrimination” which “allows for the idea of racial
and ethnic inclusion to exist alongside discriminatory practices” (p. 19). Similarly, we are interested in
contexts where the idea of democracy coexists with practices of racial and ethnic exclusion.

k

6:14 P.M.

k

k
PSYHB etrds0445.tex

4

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:14 P.M.

Page 4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Most importantly, how do experiences of marginalization impact those relegated to the bottom of entrenched intersectional hierarchies? In essence,
how do citizens understand and experience politics in systems that promise
democracy but leave many inequalities intact?
THE TENSIONS OF DEMOCRACY AND JUSTICE

k

The promise of democracy is justice. But reality often falls far short. This tension has long been acknowledged by scholars of the theory and practice of
democracy (Dahl, 1971; Phillips, 1995; Schumpeter, 1942; Walsh, 2011; Young,
1990). The most common response has been to isolate the analysis of democracy and justice to largely separate spheres. Empirically focused scholars
operate within a near consensus that democracy is and should be defined
and measured based on procedural facets of governing systems like rule by
the people, equal participation, and civil liberties. Cross-national measures
of democracy most commonly feature procedural conceptualizations.2 Justice, on the other hand, is typically defined by the distribution of resources
and power along with the structures and institutions that produce these distributional patterns (Nielsen, 1979; Shapiro, 1999; Young, 1990). Reasonable
arguments can be made to separate the ideas of democracy and justice based
on ontological incongruity. Indeed, many scholarly accounts view democracy and justice as “different values that can operate at loggerheads with
one another” (Shapiro, 1999, p. 18). According to this view, norms of justice
should articulate principles to be applied in evaluating institutions and their
outcomes, but should not be viewed as coterminous with particular political procedures. Thus, scholars suppose democracy to involve identifiable,
measurable political processes, while justice emphasizes equitable outcomes.
While much empirical research implicitly assesses specific facets of justice
when analyzing political systems’ performance on outcomes like economic
inequality, racial discrimination, and descriptive representation for marginalized groups, evaluations of democratic politics against theoretical conceptualizations of justice are rare.
One of the potential limitations of isolating democracy and justice is that
it ignores many of the aspirations held by citizens, reformers, activists, and
scholars concerning democratic practice. “People find democracy appealing partly because its universalist ethic holds out the possibility of undoing,
2. One measure—V-DEM—reflects some acknowledgment that procedural definitions do not capture
many facets of what people frequently expect from democracy by offering a measure called “egalitarian
democracy,” which gives some attention to the distribution of resources and power within society. However, the justification and conceptualization of this measure views equality through the lens of promoting
political participation, is not concerned with just processes or outcomes for their own sake, and retains a
procedural component as elemental (Sigman & Lindberg, 2018). Thus, this measure retains the core concern with procedural components, even while pointing to the value in interrogating the implications that
stem from such a focus.

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0445.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

Democracy that Excludes

k

Page 5

5

or at least mitigating, many of the evils they see around them” (Shapiro &
Hacker-Cordón, 1999, p. 18). Reformers and revolutionaries do not fight for
democracy simply because they like voting. Rather, they put their lives and
livelihoods on the line because they believe democracy may end oppression,
deconstruct hierarchy, and replace tyranny with liberty.
Thus, despite pragmatic and ontological arguments to the contrary,
democracy and justice are discursively and theoretically interconnected.
Citizens, reformers, and many scholars expect the two go together and
reinforce each other. Some theorists argue that true democracy is not
possible without justice or that justice is best accomplished via democracy.
In his Democratic Justice, Shapiro (1999) makes the case that democratic
government is the “most attractive political basis for ordering social relations justly” (p. 5), arguing that theoretical conceptualizations of justice
and democracy should reflect the common logic that “democracy and
justice are intimately linked” (p. 62). Likewise Young (1990), whose work
on justice emphasizes the processes and structures in which distributive decisions are embedded, argues that democratic decision-making is
“an element and condition of social justice” (p. 23). Indeed, the mutual
dependence between formal democratic procedures and just structures,
practices, and outcomes has emerged as a recurrent theme within a
diverse body of theoretical work (Connolly, 1995; Honig, 2009; Myers,
2013). The underlying logic of democracy, thus, runs counter to the sort of
domination and oppression that characterize injustice. And democracy’s
justice-promoting attributes lend the regime legitimacy, often making
democratization the goal for those seeking to escape entrenched hierarchies rooted in exploitation, marginalization, violence, and other forms of
injustice.
Of course, the empirical reality is that formal democratic rules frequently
fail to end informal exclusions that sustain entrenched power structures,
and sometimes democracy actually reinforces dominant group control at the
expense of the marginalized (Hooker, 2017; Walsh, 2011, p. 35). Moreover, as
neoliberalism has hollowed out the state, the legal rights granted to citizens
under democracy have become increasingly distant from a reality that is
disempowering, devitalizing, and exclusionary (Aslam, 2017; Berlant, 2011;
Brown, 2015). As Aslam diagnoses, citizens of the liberal democratic state
experience a “narrowing of freedom to juridical terms that has exposed a
large gap between the promise and actual experience of freedom for many”
(Aslam, 2017, p. 13). What’s more, certain sectors of society have been
unevenly subjected to unjust practices of domination and oppression, so
that the costs of maintaining order, prosperity and even procedural democracy are distributed unevenly according to raced, classed, and gendered
hierarchies (Mills, 1997; Pateman, 1988).

k

6:14 P.M.

k

k
PSYHB etrds0445.tex

6

k

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:14 P.M.

Page 6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

In this reality, it is not fully possible to separate the procedures of democracy from the goals of justice. Popular intuition and theoretical arguments
concerning the connections between justice and democracy should not be
ignored. The view of democracy and justice as compatible, even reinforcing,
goals has normative substance, and the idea that democracy should promote
just outcomes and processes has discursive power (Shapiro, 1999). Indeed,
theoretical and empirical studies of politics have increasingly emphasized
that the ways we think and talk about ideas and their meaning produce
observable implications for politics and policy (Moy, Tewksbury, & Rinke,
2016). At the same time, the dominant international discourse among
scholars and practitioners prioritizes democracy’s procedural foundations
and often considers the implementation of free and fair elections or citizen
participation to be of intrinsic value, with less concern for the outcomes of
these processes (Odugbemi, 2013; Organization of American States, 2003).
But the hope that democracy might upend inequitable power relations
and the unjust practices that produce them not only remains unfulfilled
but also seems unattainable. Thus, the ongoing juxtaposition between
the idea that democracy should be justice-promoting and the reality that
many procedural democracies fall far short of this goal is not simply a
conceptual annoyance or theoretical complication. Rather this contradiction is likely to carry consequences for how citizenship is constructed,
shaping how individuals think and engage with politics in exclusionary
democracies.
CONSIDERING THE CONSEQUENCES: A STRUCTURAL-BEHAVIORAL
FRAMEWORK
People expect democracy to promote justice, that is, to combat “institutionalized domination and oppression” (Young, 1990, p. 15).3 Such a view
conceives of justice as a fundamental condition of democratic citizenship,
which allows people to engage the public realm freely, to pursue their goals
and interests collectively, and to expect and extend reciprocity (Young, 1990,
pp. 33–34). Where democracy exists alongside domination and oppression,
patterns of citizenship are unlikely to reflect this ideal.
We need to grapple more with the implications of labeling systems that
meet basic procedural requirements of “democracy” while real conditions
of domination and oppression remain. We want to be crystal clear that
we are not advocating an abandonment of the procedural requirements
3. Here, we embrace Iris Young’s definition of justice which moves beyond conventional distributive
notions of justice focused on the allocation of material goods or power resources and emphasizes the
structural bases of power, oppression, and domination, which limit self-realization, self-expression, and
self-determination (Young, 1990, p. 37).

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0445.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

Democracy that Excludes

k

Page 7

7

of minimalist definitions of democracy. It is obvious that no society is
likely to achieve the full elimination of domination and oppression. But
what happens when societies with such persistent and pervasive unjust
conditions receive the stamp of approval as democratic?
The state—together with the policies, social structures, and economic
institutions it builds and governs—plays a central role not only in defining
citizens but also in shaping how they think, behave, and organize politically
(Mettler and SoRelle (2014) for a useful review). The same is true of parties
and other forms of political organizations (Dalton, Farrell, & McAllister,
2011). Institutions, structures, and patterns of contestation have the capacity
to fundamentally alter citizens’ conceptions of themselves and their relation
to the political. In this sense, “[c]itizens are not born, they are made”
(Cruikshank, 1999, p. 3), and how they are made matters.
People’s experiences, practices, and perspectives as citizens are contingent
on the overt or subtle dynamics of power or agency in which they are embedded. For instance, in analyzing the impact of the US carceral state, Lerman
and Weaver (2014) theorize that institutions and processes “that send the
message to individuals that they are valued and respected provide citizens
with a symbolic civic resource of political standing. Conversely, institutions
[and processes] that fail to reflect democratic values may inhibit civic skills,
transmit ideas about government that demobilize, and inform citizens that
they are not worthy” (p. 13). Similarly, Soss, Fording, and Schram (2011)
argue that some poverty governance policies reduce “citizenship to a market
role and ’de-democratiz[e]’ the citizenry” (p. 16). Furthermore, these dynamics frequently reflect underlying ideologies such as mestizaje in Mexico, racial
democracy in Brazil, and “color-blind” policies in the United States which
tout equality while simultaneously perpetuating raced or gendered hierarchies (Douglass, 1955; Holston, 2008; Telles, 2014).
This calls for an account that connects political attitudes and behaviors to the structural, hierarchical social contexts in which they occur—a
“structural-behavioral” approach. The practice of democracy is an important
structural component of the social context. All states feature an array of
citizenship experiences, as each individual encounters the state and society
through a variety of institutions and personal realities that shape their
identity within, engagement with, and perspectives of the political realm
(Cruikshank, 1999). When an exclusionary form of democracy is practiced,
these differential citizenship-building experiences are patterned in ways that
secure the “vitality of democratic citizenship [for some] through devitalizing
possibilities for others” (Aslam, 2017, p. 12). Thus, citizenship experiences
in exclusionary democracies are not simply individually differentiated, they
are the result of distinct complexes of factors that empower some groups
while relegating others to subordinate positions within the political, social,

k

6:14 P.M.

k

k
PSYHB etrds0445.tex

8

k

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:14 P.M.

Page 8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

and economic institutions that construct citizenship (Hooker, 2017, p. 35).
These patterns of persistent and ubiquitous group-based marginalization
pit the realities of exclusion against the ideals of democracy, sending a
forceful message that being a “good” citizen means different things for
different classes of people. That brings us around to behavior. When the
differential construction of citizenship aligns with and potentially reinforces
group-based hierarchies, this can shape how people across society and
within marginalized groups (i) conceive of and practice citizenship and (ii)
engage with and evaluate the democratic state.
Studies of political behavior, of course, have long emphasized how socialization experiences, psychological processes, or economic interests operate at
the individual level. Such work, however, often assumes that cognitive processes function independently of their setting. Some scholars have begun to
consider how the broader social, economic, or political environment might
influence individuals’ political perceptions and practices, but these efforts
have often been isolated in their application to specific research questions and
have given little attention to building a larger theoretical framework that considers how context might interact with or shape individuals’ attitudes and
experiences. Although important bodies of work on priming, framing, and
cueing (Moy et al., 2016), on policy feedback (Mettler, 2011), and on the political psychology of group dynamics (Huddy, 2004) provide partial exceptions
to this characterization, these literatures generally do not concern themselves
with the structural underpinnings of society and politics which define the
foundations from which cues are transmitted, frames are generated, and public policies take shape.
Work in the priming and framing tradition, for example, focuses largely
on the cognitive processes that the political or media environment evoke
without consideration for the structural origins of that environment. This
focus has produced empirical scholarship built around experimental methods, which assess immediate, or occasionally medium-term, responses to
stimuli that are often artificial and almost always concentrated on narrow
issues.4 Similarly, the policy feedback literature is most often concerned
with delineating the behavioral or attitudinal consequences stemming
from changes in individual policies or within narrow policy domains.
Accordingly, this body of work displays a tendency to bracket the ways
in which policies emerge out of power struggles rooted in differential
economic, social, and political resources and often does not acknowledge
that many “unintended” consequences are, in fact, quite intentional.5
4. Exceptions exist in which the structural context that generates particular frames/primes is taken
seriously (Pérez, 2016) and in which broader sets of issues or longer time horizons are considered.
5. It is worth noting, however, that some policy feedback scholarship benefits from contextual or historical analyses, which help situate specific policies in the broader context, even if that context is not the
primary empirical concern. For examples, see Cookson (2016); Mettler (2011); and Soss et al. (2011).

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0445.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

Democracy that Excludes

k

Page 9

9

As a result, while these literatures offer many insights into ways that
specific facets of the political or policy environment have the potential to
shape individuals’ cognitive processes or socialization experiences, the
behavioral consequences of the fundamental structures from which these
specific political stimuli emerge remain under-theorized and empirically
overlooked.
We believe that a convincing structural-behavioral theory of exclusionary
democracy must explicitly consider how variations in the hierarchies that
underpin different societies shape how citizens formulate attitudes and
behaviors concerning democratic values, institutions, and practices. Existing
work clearly demonstrates that systems of inequality are widespread and
that some forms of exclusion and oppression exist in even the most egalitarian societies (Fridkin, 1996; Jennings & Niemi, 1974; Lerman & Weaver,
2014). But the depth of hierarchy and the degree to which inequalities
are reinforced across different facets of economic, social, and political life
differ substantially between contexts and over time. There are important
qualitative differences, for example, between the racialized socioeconomic
hierarchy in the United States and the more egalitarian structural conditions
that characterize Sweden. Likewise, we observe noteworthy contrasts in
the way that ethnic hierarchies have been meaningfully challenged in
Bolivian politics, while political representation in Peru offers little antidote
to the ongoing economic and social marginalization of indigenous communities there. Or consider the Dominican Republic, where many black
Dominico-Haitians have no standing as citizens in the eyes of the state, as
opposed to Panama, where the black descendants of West Indian immigrants
have attained considerable economic and social status. Rather than ignore
this variation, we suggest leveraging it theoretically and empirically to
develop a better understanding of the ways in which different patterns
of hierarchy shape individuals’ understanding and practice of democratic
citizenship.
Thus, we build here on the basic intuition of earlier work on intergroup
relations by emphasizing the importance of hierarchical structures in
understanding attitude formation and considering the potential for asymmetric effects among different groups depending upon their placement
within the hierarchy. But we elaborate how variations in the patterns of
economic, social, and political inequality that characterize different societies
may shape diverse facets of citizenship formation beyond intergroup
relations.
In particular, exclusionary democracy may undermine a variety of attitudes
and behaviors consistent with popular support for democracy. These behavioral implications of the structures associated with exclusionary democracy
are likely to extend both to the marginalized and the advantaged, though

k

6:14 P.M.

k

k
PSYHB etrds0445.tex

10

k

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:14 P.M. Page 10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

with some degree of variation in the effects depending on one’s position
within the hierarchy.
Where historical hierarchies persist, these hierarchies are indicative of various forms of social distance. The more deeply rooted and extreme these hierarchies are, the more distance is created between the groups around which
the hierarchy is defined. At the core of democracy is an acceptance of the
political inclusion of “others.” Such acceptance is likely to be undermined
when social distance between groups increases.
Systems of exclusion send messages about the value and meaning of
democracy, and people are likely to be less attached to democratic norms
when the social, economic, and political structures in which they are
embedded fail to challenge entrenched patterns of marginalization. Divides
between social groups may limit between-group solidarity and contribute to
the “othering” of people who do not conform to the dominant social image.
Patterns of exclusion may construct barriers to building understanding
and empathy between groups, delegitimizing the claims and tactics of
outsiders. These processes may promote acceptance of nondemocratic
means of repressing difference and dealing with dissent. So the overall effect
of exclusion and hierarchy within a democracy is likely to be an eroded
commitment to democracy.
These effects may be particularly strong for marginalized groups. While
the marginalized have the most to gain from the fully fulfilled promise
of democracy, they may also be most sensitive to structural contexts of
hierarchy and exclusion. If democracy fails to reach its full promise, the
marginalized may see exclusionary democracy as just another political
system designed by and for the dominant interests in society. If such perceptions become more prevalent where exclusionary democracy is practiced,
those from marginalized groups will be less likely to embrace democratic
values and other facets of the political attitudes and behavior may change
as well.
We must also be cognizant, however, of potential backlash from dominant
groups when formerly marginalized groups become politically incorporated.
When dominant groups see their advantage falling away, it is understandable
that they may become more hostile to marginalized groups that are gaining
ground. If this hostility to marginalized groups undermines support for the
democratic system, democratic systems could be in a bind. By failing to incorporate marginal groups, these marginal groups may lose faith in democracy.
But by incorporating marginal groups more fully, the risk is losing support
of historically powerful groups. It may be possible to see the new ascendancy of both right- and left-wing populism through the lens of exclusionary
democracy.

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0445.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

Democracy that Excludes

6:14 P.M. Page 11

11

AN ANALYTICAL PATH FORWARD

k

Coming to grips with how the practice of exclusionary democracy shapes
mass support for democracy is important if we are to understand how
best to sustain the worldwide practice of democracy. Understanding how
different groups respond to the maintenance of social hierarchies within de
jure democratic systems can provide a useful road map for pro-democracy
reformers. It might also help us to understand what appears to be a shift
away from democracy around the world as we move toward the second
quarter of the twenty-first century. But where and how should we look for
the effects of exclusionary democracy? We conclude with some thoughts on
this question.
First, studying exclusionary democracy must be a cross-national,
cross-temporal enterprise. To understand how variation in exclusion
and hierarchy in democratic systems affects the formation of democratic
citizenship, society-level variation must be observed. This sort of variation is most likely to be found within states over time, across states
cross-sectionally, or both. While there may be ways to innovatively apply
experimental designs to tackle some of the specific questions related to the
effects of exclusionary democracy, observational research designs are likely
to be the most effective way toward valid inferences in this domain. As well,
detailed studies of single states that allow for nuanced understanding of
the practice of exclusionary democracy and citizen experiences within such
systems are likely to be fruitful.
Second, a wide variety of hierarchies can and should be explored.
That is to say, societies are divided into hierarchical groupings along a
number of dimensions. Ethnoracial divisions are clearly important and
have featured prominently in prior studies (Hutchings & Valentino, 2004;
Morgan & Kelly, 2017). Hierarchies based on sex and gender identity
are also prevalent and the extent of such hierarchies also varies across
societies (Htun, 2016; Morgan, Espinal, & Hartlyn, 2008; Morgan & Kelly,
2013). Class-based hierarchies are also relevant and hierarchies based
on geography may be in place in certain countries (Bartels, 2008; Kelly,
2009). All of these group-based hierarchies have the potential to be
rolled into the theoretical framework supplied by the concept of exclusionary democracy with implications for the formation and practice of
citizenship.
Third, at least two broad forms of exclusion can be incorporated. Political exclusion refers to the incomplete incorporation of subordinate groups in
the political process. Limiting the franchise would be an extreme form of
such exclusion. But we can also see such exclusion in various implicit and
explicit limitations on the political incorporation of marginalized groups,

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0445.tex

12

k

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:14 P.M. Page 12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

such as felon disenfranchisement in the United States and various, seemingly
innocuous hurdles to participation. These de jure aspects of political exclusion are just the tip of the iceberg. De facto exclusion can also exist where
groups are unequally represented in government and where participation of
subordinate groups is discouraged through subtle and not so subtle repressive tactics. Alex Keyssar’s (2009) excellent analysis of voting rights in the
United States demonstrates clearly how political inclusion can wax and wane
over time and be used as a tool of the powerful to minimize the influence
of marginalized groups. Economic exclusion refers to the economic distance
between dominant and subordinate groups. Where between-group inequality is high, which is driven by a variety of formal and informal economic
arrangements, this type of exclusion is more likely to be present. Measuring
each of these forms of exclusion, as well as others that we have not contemplated, will require developing multiple indicators both quantitative and
qualitative.
Last, while there are a variety of possible arenas where distortions of
citizenship may surface, we want to bring particular attention to three
domains that encompass significant attitudinal or behavioral outcomes
in their own right and that have broad implications for the practice and
maintenance of democracy. Patterns of engagement and disengagement
with the state, its agents, and other political actors, which are likely to
prevail under different manifestations of exclusionary democracy. Attitudes toward government institutions and political or policy processes
that might reflect the ways in which citizens encounter these facets of
democratic procedure co-existing alongside dynamics of economic, social,
and political power. And, finally, support of democratic norms and legitimacy of the system, which may become contaminated by experiences
of formally democratic regimes that permit various forms of injustice to
persist.
In the last half-century, there has been an explosion of democracy. While
democratic institutions have become more common, however, progress
toward more just outcomes has appeared to slow. The hierarchies that
remain in place in institutionally democratic contexts have likely implications for the construction and practice of citizenship. And recent backsliding
from democratic governance may be a partial result. Numerous strands of
recent research point to various forms of stratification and group identity as
drivers of political attitudes and behavior. However, to fully grapple with
how the maintenance of unequal and unjust societies shapes democratic
governance, theories of justice and democracy must be better integrated into
an ongoing agenda that embeds micro-level political attitudes and behavior
in social contexts with varying degrees of hierarchy and inequality across a
range of dimensions.

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0445.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

Democracy that Excludes

6:14 P.M. Page 13

13

REFERENCES

k

Aslam, A. (2017). Ordinary democracy: Sovereignty and citizenship beyond the neoliberal
impasse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bartels, L. M. (2008). Unequal democracy: The political economy of a New Gilded Age.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Berlant, L. G. (2011). Cruel optimism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. New York, NY:
MIT Press.
Connolly, W. E. (1995). The ethos of pluralization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Cookson, T. P. (2016). Working for inclusion? conditional cash transfers, rural
women, and the reproduction of inequality. Antipode, 48(5), 1187–1205.
Cruikshank, B. (1999). The will to empower: Democratic citizens and other subjects. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press.
Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Dalton, R. J., Farrell, D. M., & McAllister, I. (2011). Political parties and democratic linkage: How parties organize democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Douglass, F. (1955). The lessons of the hour. In P. S. Foner (Ed.), The life and writings
of Frederick Douglass. Reconstruction and after (Vol. IV, pp. 491–523). New York, NY:
International Publishers.
Fridkin, K. (1996). The political consequences of being a woman: How stereotypes influence the conduct and consequences of political campaigns. New York, NY: Columbia
University Press.
Holston, J. (2008). Insurgent citizenship: Disjunctions of democracy and modernity in
Brazil. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Honig, B. (2009). Emergency politics: Paradox, law, democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Hooker, J. (2017). Theorizing race in the Americas: Douglass, Sarmiento, Du Bois, and
Vasconcelos. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Htun, M. (2016). Inclusion without representation in Latin America: Gender quotas and
ethnic reservations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Huddy, L. (2004). Contrasting theoretical approaches to intergroup relations. Political
Psychology, 25(6), 947–967.
Hutchings, V. L., & Valentino, N. A. (2004). The centrality of race in American politics.
Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 383–408.
Jennings, M. K., & Niemi, R. G. (1974). Political character of adolescence: The influence of
families and schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kelly, N. J. (2009). The politics of income inequality in the United States. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Keyssar, A. (2009). The right to vote: The contested history of democracy in the United
States. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Lerman, A. E., & Weaver, V. M. (2014). Arresting citizenship: The democratic consequences of American crime control. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0445.tex

14

k

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:14 P.M. Page 14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Mettler, S. (2011). The submerged state: How invisible government policies undermine
American democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Mettler, S., & SoRelle, M. (2014). Policy feedback theory. In P. A. Sabatier & C. M.
Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (Vol. 3rd ed., pp. 151–181). New York,
NY: Westview Press.
Mills, C. W. (1997). The racial contract. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Morgan, J., & Kelly, N. J. (2013). Market inequality and redistribution in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Journal of Politics, 3, 672–685.
Morgan, J., & Kelly, N. J. (2017). Social patterns of inequality, partisan competition, and Latin American support for redistribution. The Journal of Politics, 79(1),
193–209.
Morgan, J., Espinal, R., & Hartlyn, J. (2008). Gender politics in the dominican republic: Advances for women, ambivalence from men. Politics & Gender, 4(1), 35–63.
Moy, P., Tewksbury, D., & Rinke, E. M. (2016). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing.
In K. B. Jensen & R. T. Craig (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of communication
theory and philosophy. New York: Wiley Online Library.
Myers, E. (2013). Worldly ethics: Democratic politics and care for the world. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
Nielsen, K. (1979). Radical egalitarian justice: Justice as equality. Social Theory and
Practice, 5(2), 209–226.
Odugbemi, Sina. 2013. Hurling elections at complexity. The World Bank Blog. Retrieved
from https://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/hurling-elections-complexity
(Accessed 31 October 2017).
Organization of American States (2003). Carta Democráatica Interamericana: Documentos e interpretaciones. Washington, DC: Author.
Pateman, C. (1988). The sexual contract. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
Pérez, E.ée. O. (2016). Unspoken politics: Implicit attitudes and political thinking. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Phillips, A. (1995). The politics of presence. New York: Clarendon Press.
Sawyer, M. Q. (2006). Racial politics in post-revolutionary Cuba. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Socialism, capitalism and democracy. New York, NY: Harper
and Brothers.
Shapiro, I. (1999). Democratic justice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Shapiro, I., & Hacker-Cordón, C. (1999). Promises and disappointments: Reconsidering democracy’s value. In I. Shapiro & C. Hacker-Cordón (Eds.), Democracy’s value
(pp. 1–19). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sigman, R., & Lindberg, S. I. (2018). Democracy for all: Conceptualizing and measuring egalitarian democracy. Political Science Research and Methods.
Soss, J., Fording, R. C., & Schram, S. (2011). Disciplining the poor: Neoliberal paternalism
and the persistent power of race. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Telles, E. (2014). Pigmentocracies: Ethnicity, race, and color in Latin America. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press.

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0445.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

Democracy that Excludes

6:14 P.M. Page 15

15

Walsh, D. M. (2011). Womens rights in democratizing states: Just debate and gender justice
in the public sphere. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Nathan J. Kelly is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University
of Tennessee. His research explores connections between politics, policy, and
economic inequality. He is an Andrew Carnegie Fellow, and this publication
was made possible in part by a grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New
York. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility
of the author.
Jana Morgan is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of
Tennessee. Her award-winning research explores how patterns of economic,
social, and political marginalization undermine democratic institutions and
processes across the Americas. Her work has received external funding from
various sources including the Pew Foundation and the Fulbright-Hays program. Writing for this project occurred during a residential fellowship at the
Russell Sage Foundation.
RELATED ESSAYS
k

Does the 1 Person 1 Vote Principle Apply? (Political Science), Ian R. Turner
et al.
Party Organizations’ Electioneering Arms Race (Political Science), John H.
Aldrich and Jeffrey D. Grynaviski
Economic Models of Voting (Political Science), Ian G. Anson and Timothy
Hellwig
The Underrepresentation of Women in Elective Office (Political Science),
Sarah F. Anzia
Elites (Sociology), Johan S. G. Chu and Mark S. Mizruchi
Government Formation and Cabinets (Political Science), Sona N. Golder
Presidential Power (Political Science), William G. Howell
Women Running for Office (Political Science), Jennifer L. Lawless
Leadership (Anthropology), Adrienne Tecza and Dominic Johnson
Political Inequality (Sociology), Jeff Manza
Domestic Political Institutions and Alliance Politics (Political Science),
Michaela Mattes
Participatory Governance (Political Science), Stephanie L. McNulty and Brian
Wampler
Money in Politics (Political Science), Jeffrey Milyo
Why Do Governments Abuse Human Rights? (Political Science), Will H.
Moore and Ryan M. Welch
Feminists in Power (Sociology), Ann Orloff and Talia Schiff

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0445.tex

16

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:14 P.M. Page 16

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Evolutionary Theory and Political Behavior (Political Science), Michael Bang
Petersen and Lene Aarøe
Electoral Authoritarianism (Political Science), Andreas Schedler
Information Politics in Dictatorships (Political Science), Jeremy L. Wallace
Misinformation and How to Correct It (Psychology), John Cook et al.
Judicial Independence (Political Science), Tom S. Clark
News Framing Effects and Emotions (Political Science), Andreas R. T. Schuck
and Alina Feinholdt
Political Advertising (Political Science), Erika Franklin Fowler
Racial Disenfranchisement (Political Science), Vincent L. Hutchings and
Davin L. Phoenix
The Evolving View of the Law and Judicial Decision-Making (Political
Science), Justine D’Elia-Kueper and Jeffrey A. Segal
Understanding American Political Conservatism (Political Science), Joel D.
Aberbach
Deliberative Democracy (Political Science), James Fishkin
Partisan News: A Perspective from Economics (Economics), Daniel F. Stone

k

k

k