Multilevel Governance and Accountability: Does Decentralization Promote Good Governance?

Today, the trend towards decentralization is far-reaching. Proponents of decentralization have argued that decentralization promotes responsive and accountable local government by shortening the distance between local representatives and their constituency. However, in this paper, I focus on the countervailing effect of decentralization on the accountability mechanism, arguing that decentralization, which increases the number of actors eligible for policy making and implementation in governance as a whole, may blur lines of responsibility, thus weakening citizens’ ability to sanction government in election. By using the ordinary least squares (OLS) interaction model based on historical panel data for 78 countries in the 2002 – 2010 period, I test the hypothesis that as the number of government tiers increases, there will be a negative interaction between the number of government tiers and decentralization policies. The regression results show empirical evidence that decentralization policies, having a positive impact on governance under a relatively simple form of multilevel governance, have no more statistically significant effects as the complexity of government structure exceeds a certain degree. In particular, this paper found that the presence of intergovernmental meeting with legally binding authority have a negative impact on governance when the complexity of government structure reaches to the highest level.

Expanding Role Theory: US Responses to Hizb'allah and Iran

There are many sociopolitical theories to help explain why governments and actors do what they do. Securitization Theory is a process-oriented theory in international relations that focuses on how an actor defines another actor as an “existential threat,” and the resulting responses that can be taken in order to address that threat. While Securitization Theory is an acceptable method to analyze the relationships between actors in the international system, this thesis contends that the proper examination is multi-factorial, focusing on the addition of Role Theory to the analysis. Consideration of Role Theory, which is another international relations theory that explains how an actor’s strategies, relationships, and perceptions by others is based on pre-conceptualized definitions of that actor’s identity, is essential in order to fully explain why an actor might respond to another in a particular way. Certain roles an actor may enact produce a rival relationship with other actors in the system, and it is those rival roles that elicit securitized responses. The possibility of a securitized response lessens when a role or a relationship between roles becomes ambiguous. There are clear points of role rivalry and role ambiguity between Hizb’allah and Iran, which has directly impacted, and continues to impact, how the United States (US) responds to these actors. Because of role ambiguity, the US has still not conceptualized an effective way to deal with Hizb’allah and Iran holistically across all its various areas of operation and in its various enacted roles. It would be overly simplistic to see Hizb’allah and Iran solely through one lens depending on which hemisphere or continent one is observing. The reality is likely more nuanced. Both Role Theory and Securitization theory can help to understand and articulate those nuances. By examining two case studies of Hizb’allah and Iran’s enactment of various roles in both the Middle East and Latin America, the situations where roles cause a securitized response and where the response is less securitized due to role ambiguity will become clear. Using this augmented approach of combining both theories, along with supplementing the manner in which an actor, action, or role is analyzed, will produce better methods for policy-making that will be able to address the more ambiguous activities of Hizb’allah and Iran in these two regions.

Making Good Citizens: Policy Approaches to Increasing Civic Participation

In this dissertation, I explore the impact of several public policies on civic participation. Using a unique combination of school administrative and public–use voter files and methods for causal inference, I evaluate the impact of three new, as of yet unexplored, policies: one informational, one institutional, and one skill–based. Chapter 2 examines the causal effect of No Child Left Behind’s performance-based accountability school failure signals on turnout in school board elections and on individuals’ use of exit. I find that failure signals mobilize citizens both at the ballot box and by encouraging them to vote with their feet. However, these increases in voice and exit come primarily from citizens who already active—thus exacerbating inequalities in both forms of participation. Chapter 3 examines the causal effect of preregistration—an electoral reform that allows young citizens to enroll in the electoral system before turning 18, while also providing them with various in-school supports. Using data from the Current Population Survey and Florida Voter Files and multiple methods for causal inference, I (with my coauthor listed below) show that preregistration mobilizes and does so for a diverse set of citizens. Finally, Chapter 4 examines the impact of psychosocial or so called non-cognitive skills on voter turnout. Using information from the Fast Track intervention, I show that early– childhood investments in psychosocial skills have large, long-run spillovers on civic participation. These gains are widely distributed, being especially large for those least likely to participate. These chapters provide clear insights that reach across disciplinary boundaries and speak to current policy debates. In placing specific attention not only on whether these programs mobilize, but also on who they mobilize, I provide scholars and practitioners with new ways of thinking about how to address stubbornly low and unequal rates of citizen engagement.