Announcement

Wisconsin Political Science Association

38^th Annual Meeting

Friday, October 10, 2003

University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

Topics: All papers and panel ideas invited. Some topics of particular interest include Wisconsin politics and policy, civic engagement in the United States, best teaching practices in political science, civil liberties in the war on terrorism, and the role of the United States in the world today.

Send proposals to: Dr. Rodd Freitag

Department of Political Science

University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

105 Garfield Avenue

P.O. Box 4004

Eau Claire, WI 54702-4004

Or email: freitard@uwec.edu

Submission Guidelines

Large numbers of submissions from Wisconsin Political Scientists are both welcome and necessary. The Wisconsin Political Scientist will be designed to permit publication of shorter articles, essays, commentary, informational items and notes. Each piece should be limited to 1000 – 1500 words. All copies should be submitted by hard copy and computer disk or electronic file through e-mail. Microsoft Word is our preferred format. Copy should be submitted to:

James Simmons, Editor

Wisconsin Political Scientist

c/o Political Science Department

University of Wisconsin Oshkosh

Oshkosh, WI 54901

E-mail address: simmons@uwosh.edu

News, Announcements, & Reviews

The purpose of this newsletter is to communicate what is happening in the profession in Wisconsin and, at times, elsewhere. News and announcements about your department, program, or personnel (including promotions tenure, additions, and publications) are welcome and should be forwarded to me – James Simmons, Political Science Dept., 800 Algoma Blvd., Oshkosh, WI 54901 or email me at simmons@uwosh.edu.

It would also be useful to expand our attention to book, software and video reviews. We have occasionally published book reviews in the past; but this is something that could be enhanced with your help. Submissions should follow the same guidelines that we use for the Scholarly Extensions section, except that reviews should be limited to about three single-spaced pages.■

Wisconsin Political Science Association Officers

James Simmons, UW Oshkosh – President

Cecilia Manrique, UW Stevens Point – Treasurer

John Rink, UW Platteville – Secretary

Rodd Freitag, UW Eau Claire – Program Chair

Angelee Hammond, UW Oshkosh – Associate Editor

Mary Bleser, UW Oshkosh – Associate Editor

Local Policymakers and Their Perceptions of Economic Development Suburbs, Central Cities, and Rural Areas Compared

Baodong Liu and James Vanderleeuw

UW-Oshkosh Lamer University

Elite administrative office-holders, such as city manager and economic development director, have direct and substantial influence into economic development decisions. The challenges these types of key local administrators perceive their city to face structure their decision-making. The manner in which these decision-makers interpret their city’s circumstance influences the types of development proposals they will support and what kinds of projects they, and ultimately their city administration, will pursue.

Unfortunately, much of the previous empirical research into local economic development has relied on aggregate-level analysis of policy inputs and outcomes. Drawing upon a survey of city administrators in Texas, we have an opportunity to investigate suburb/central city economic development differences from the perspective of administrators’ attitudes and perceptions. Our research focus on local political economy in terms of the difference between suburbs and central cities is based on the extent of literature. Research concerning geographic, social, and economic differences between suburbs and central cities points to some meaningful divergence in policy preferences and outputs. Because central cities tend to be located at the geographic center of SMAs, are the nexus of transportation systems, and offer substantial employment (Mills and Lubuele, 2000a, 2000b), central city leaders can reflect an “outward-oriented development orientation” that stresses regional economic development (Lewis 2001).

By contrast, suburban leaders tend to emphasize local concerns (Maurer and Christenson 1982). Suburban dwellers may reflect a rather profound anti-urban and anti-city bias, and because of the higher level of participation among more educated and wealthier local residents (Hajnal and Clark 1998), suburban leaders are more likely to place emphasis on quality of life issues (Thomas 1998; Davis 1990). Suburban leaders oppose, or at least opt for slower, more managed economic development and growth, while central city leaders favor growth politics and more vigorous economic development efforts.

Perception of Economic Development Problems

As noted, a leadership’s perceptions are a potentially important linkage between policy inputs, such as citizen demands and development proposals, and policy outputs in the economic development process. Specifically, we

investigate responses of key city administrators to a question asking about the economic development problems confronting their city.

Because of the greater tendency of suburbs to reflect an anti-growth, anti-city bias, we expect unlike city administrators, suburban administrators tend to perceive the economic development that would threaten quality of life for suburban residents, and economic development that would risk becoming uncontrollable as development problems. Because of their city’s position as a regional economic leader, we expect central city administrators tend to perceive situations that would hamper economic growth as development problems.

Research and theory regarding the economic development of rural communities is comparatively more limited. To fill this research gap, we propose and test that rural administrators are more likely to perceive environmental damage as a problem associated with economic growth because of rural communities’ relatively more pristine physical environment.

Data and Method

The above-referenced survey was mailed to administrators of cities in Texas with a population of at least 5,000 during February and March 2000. A list of cities was obtained from Estimates of the Total Populations of Counties and Places in Texas for July 1, 1998 and January 1, 1999 (The Texas State Data Center, The Texas State Population Estimates and Projections Program, August 1999), and cross-checked against census data when these became available. A list of city administrators was obtained from the 1999-2000 Texas City Officials Directory and Buyer’s Guide (Texas Municipal League 1999).

The present study utilizes responses to the open-ended question, In your opinion, what is the biggest problem facing your city? Respondents understood this question in the context of local economic development. A cover sheet explained the economic development orientation of the survey and accompanied each questionnaire; the question of current interest followed a request that respondents rank-order a series of economic development considerations. One hundred eighty-one administrators responded to this open-ended question (out of 190 who returned the survey). Twenty-four responses came from central city administrators (out of 25 who returned the survey), 107 came from suburban administrators (out of 112 who returned the survey), and 50 came from rural (i.e., nonmetropolitan area) administrators (out of 53 who returned the survey). Though the majority of administrators gave one response, up to two responses per respondent were coded. Response coding was checked for intercoder reliability.

One hundred thirty three respondents listed their job title as city manager (73.5 percent), 20 as economic development coordinator (11.0 percent), and 10 as assistant city manager (5.5 percent). The remaining respondents listed job titles such as administrative assistant, finance director, planning director, or business development coordinator (none of these represented more than 3.0 percent of respondents).

Findings and Discussion

Table 1 reports the “biggest problem” response categories that garnered at least 10 percent of responses from administrators of a given city type, along with the percent response in those same categories from administrators in other cities. Fifty-five percent of responses from central city administrators related to problems in job creation, aging infrastructure, and lack of a diversified economy. About 65 percent of responses from suburban administrators noted an aging infrastructure, the need to manage growth/uncontrollable growth, and lack of sufficient city revenue as big development problems; a similar percent of responses from rural administrators related to problems in job creation, aging infrastructure, lack of adequate housing due to growth, and the adverse impact of development and growth on the environment.

Table 1: City Administrator’s Perception of the Biggest

Problem Facing Their City, by City Type

	Central City	Suburb	Rural
Mean:
Population	228749	29881	12370
% Black	12.8	8.5	10.2
% Hispanic	37.7	24.4	36.0
% Unemployment	4.3	3.4	3.2

Biggest Problem
% Responding
Diversity	10.3	0.0	1.7
Environment	6.9	2.4	10.0
Growth	6.9	17.7	1.7
Housing	3.4	3.2	15.0
Infrastructure	17.2	33.1	18.3
Jobs	27.6	2.4	22.0
Revenue	0.0	13.7	8.3

# Respondents	24	107	50

These findings reveal areas of commonality as well as meaningful differences. Infrastructure was perceived as a major problem by administrators regardless of city type. The plurality of responses in this category were general references about the need to upgrade, improve, or replaced aged infrastructure. Most of the specific responses centered on the adverse effect of economic growth on traffic and streets, and on the city’s ability to deliver an adequate supply of water. Though critical for economic growth, and therefore of

practical importance to a wide variety of communities, infrastructure reasonably might have been expected to be most important for central city administrators, given their city’s regional status. In this regard it is relevant to note that suburban administrators perceived aging infrastructure – more than any other single issue, and more frequently than administrators in other cities – as the biggest problem facing their city. This finding suggests a connection with the problem of revenue generation noted by suburban administrators. Comments in this category referred to the need for new revenue/new revenue sources, and lack of adequate funds; more specific comments tended to note the problem of insufficient revenue generated from sales tax. Many suburban administrators may be troubled by the idea that their community may be less than fully able to afford infrastructure replacement.

The problem of job creation also was perceived as a major problem by administrators in more than one type of city. Many of the responses in this category referred to a shortage of workers and, more specifically, to an insufficient number of skilled and trained workers to support economic growth. As expected, job creation was perceived as a major challenge by central city administrators. Job creation was also perceived as a major problem among rural administrators. Relatively few suburban administrators held this opinion, however.

Though the findings regarding job creation are compatible with the idea that central city administrators view their city as a regional economic leader, there also may have been local reasons to accent job opportunities, due to political and economic pressures. As reported in Table 1, the average percentage of ethnic and racial minorities was highest, and the level of unemployment was greatest, in the more populous central cities. Rural communities, however, also were home to a large percentage of African Americans and Hispanics. Further, the difference between city types in the level of unemployment was relatively modest. Even if weight is given to this modest differential, administrators of rural communities, whose cities on average enjoyed the lowest level of unemployment, also perceived job creation as a major challenge.

The concern with job creation likely has multiple origins. The greater distance of rural communities from central cities, for example, leaves these communities more dependent on their own ability to provide employment, and therefore their administrators likely are more sensitive to the need to create jobs. Comparatively, the closer proximity of suburbs to central cities allows administrators of the former to rely more heavily on the latter.

Along with aging infrastructure and lack of revenue, suburban administrators perceived uncontrolled and

unmanageable growth as a major problem. A plurality of responses in this category were generalized comments about the need to control and manage growth. There were a number of more specific comments, however. Among these were the problem of keeping up with increased demand for city services and the prospect that residential growth might come to surpass industrial and commercial growth (presumably, increasing unemployment). This finding regarding the problem of managing economic growth supports our expectations. Given the anti-city orientation reportedly reflected by many suburban dwellers, it makes sense that suburban administrators would perceive the need to manage and control economic development and growth. Otherwise (from the perspective of popular perception) problems associated with large cities, such as traffic and overcrowding, might visit themselves upon suburban jurisdictions.

In addition to job creation and infrastructure, central city administrators perceived lack of economic diversity as a major problem. Responses in this category referred to a stagnant local economy due to lack of economic diversity, and insufficient city incentives to encourage diversification. These three response categories are compatible with our expectations. Aged and inadequate infrastructure and lack of economic diversity dampen potential for economic growth; arguably, lack of jobs signals failure to grow.

Rural administrators perceive job creation, aging infrastructure, insufficient housing to accommodate growth, and the effect of development on the environment as major problems. The finding regarding the effect of economic growth on the environment is not quite as expected. Only one response referred to the adverse impact of economic growth on the environment, specifically air quality. Rather, from the perspective of rural administrators the challenge was the lack of natural resources, notably water, to accommodate growth.

In order to determine whether or not suburban policy makers perceive their biggest problems differently when other social economic factors are taken into consideration, we turn to multivariate analysis. Table 2 provides logistic models for the biggest problems, which treat the dependent variable as dichotomous. For example, as used in the first logistic model, a respondent may only indicate that the biggest problem facing her is either “the lack of jobs” (coded as 1) or not (coded as 0).

We only report three models because the other four models did not yield any statistically significant findings. As stated above, our main interest is in examining the differences of perceptions between suburban policy makers and other

policy makers, especially those from central city areas. Therefore, our main independent variables are three dummy variables, which measure whether a respondent is

from a central city, a suburban area, or a rural community. To run a multivariate analysis, certainly only two of these three variables are necessary to be included because the other omitted one can be used as the comparison group. In our case, the dummy that measures whether a respondent is from

Table 2: Logistic Models of Biggest Problems

	Lack of Jobs	Inter- Governmental	Growth
Rural	-1.43 (1.24)	-4.24 (2.0)**	-
Suburb	-3.75 (1.39)***	-3.04 (1.67)*	64.0 (1.15)***
Un-employment	.34 (.19)*	.27 (.26)	-.25 (.32)
Un- employment change	.022 (.022)	-.001 (.02)	-.002 (.02)
Median income	.00 (.00)	.00 (.00)	.00 (.00)
College education	.00 (.00)	.00 (.00)	.00 (.00)
Total population	.00 (.00)	.001 (.004)**	.00 (.00)
Population growth	-.01 (.02)	-.01 (.02)	.002 (.004)
Black population	.00 .00	-.001 (.0005)**	.00 (.00)
White population	.00 .00	-.001 (.0004)**	.00 (.00)
Hispanic population	.00 .00	-.0003 (.0002)*	.00 (.00)
% Black population	-.22 (.17)	.11 (.18)	-.11 (.16)
% White population	-.09 (.11)	.13 (.15)	-.03 (.11)
% Hispanic population	-.004 (.05)	-.01 (.066)	-.01 (.05)
Intercept	5.48 10.61	-10.56 (13.9)	-63.1 (10.9)***
N	154	154	154
Pseudo R2	.41	.26	.26
Percentage correctly classified	92.9%	94.8%	90.9%
Percentage error reduction	23.7%	19.2%	2.2%

*p<.1; **p<.05; ***p<.01

a central city area is excluded. The sign, magnitude, and significance of logistic coefficients for rural dummy and suburb dummy can be used to test the differences between city and rural administrators, and between city and suburban administrators.

Model one indicates that respondents from suburban areas are less likely than central city respondents to report the

lack of jobs as their biggest problem. This result, certainly, confirms our hypothesis. The model also shows that a respondent from an area with a high level of unemployment in 1999 is likely to perceive creating jobs as their most important problem. In the meantime, it should be noted that policymakers from rural areas are not significantly different than those from central cities as far as creating jobs is concerned. Other demographic variables are not statistically significant. The whole model correctly predicted 92.9 percent of the total 154 cases, which reduces the prediction error by almost 24 percent.

Model two reports the logistic regression results for the dependent variable as intergovernmental problems. Both rural and suburban policymakers were less likely to indicate that intergovernmental relations was their biggest problem. This finding also confirms our hypothesis. In addition, the policymakers from areas with higher levels of population were more likely to regard intergovernmental relations as their main concern. Equation two correctly predicted 94.8 percent of the results with an error reduction level at 19.2%. Interestingly, equation two also shows that the sizes of three racial group populations (black, white, and hispanic) negatively affect the possibility that a respondent would regard intergovernmental relations as the major problem. This result, however, was due to a high level of collinearity between the three populations (r=.826 for the correlation between white and black population; r=.918 for the correlation between white and hispanic populations). Dropping any one of these three independent variables would change both signs and significance of the remaining two independent variables in the equation (results not reported in this paper due to limited space).

Equation three is used to test whether or not the postmaterial thesis can be held at the elite level. We hypothesized that suburban elites are more likely to share the postmaterialists’ values. Our logistical result confirms this hypothesis. Suburban policymakers were more likely than central city administrators to report managing growth as their biggest problem in their daily decision-making process. All other independent variables, including the rural dummy variable, are not statistically significant. The model correctly

predicted 90.9 percent of the cases with the error reduction reduced to 2.2 percent.

In sum, our descriptive analysis and logistic models all point to the importance of different perceptions of economic development problems associated with the overall environments of central cities, suburbs, and rural areas. Our most important findings are administrators from suburban areas were less likely than central city administrators to report the lack of jobs as their biggest problem. Different from administrators in central cities, both rural and suburban policymakers were less likely to indicate that intergovernmental relations was their biggest problem. Furthermore, suburban elites were more likely to share the postmaterialists’ values, and to report managing growth as their biggest problem in their daily decision-making process.

References

Davis, Mike. 1990. City of Quartz. New York: Random House.

Hajnal, Zoltan, and Terry Nichols Clark. 1998. The Local Interest Group System: Who Governs and Why? Social Science Quarterly 79: 227-41.

Lewis, Paul. 2001. Looking Outward or Turning Inward? Motivations for Development Decisions in California Central Cities and Suburbs. Urban Affairs Review 36: 696-720.

Mills, Edwin, and Luan Sende Lubuele. 2000a. Projecting Growth of Metropolitan Areas. In Readings in Urban Economics: Issues and Public Policy, edited by Robert Wassmer. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, 3655.

Mills, Edwin, and Luan Sende Lubuele. 2000b. Inner Cities. In Readings in Urban Economics: Issues and Public Policy, edited by Robert Wassmer. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, 221-51.

Thomas, Scott. 1998. The United States Suburbia. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. ■

UW Parkside Political Science and Law Assessment Plan

By Anne Gurnack, UW Parkside

The UW Parkside Academic Assessment plan was prepared in 1997 as part of the reaccredidation process for NCA. The plan consists of a series of competencies related to general education such as written and oral communication, analytical skills and problem solving, as well as competencies in three areas of Political Science and Law; e.g, American Politics, World Politics, and Political Theory. The department also has a legal studies program.

For the traditional Political Science major, a senior seminar has existed since 1998 primarily to assess competencies in the assessment plan. During the senior seminar, students have surveyed graduates and employers as well as completed electronic portfolios. In the legal studies program there is a capstone course which also assesses legal competencies primarily through a moot course.

After several years of assessing our major, we have been mostly satisfied with our assessment plan, and have modified it somewhat during the last year. We have been able to make substantive changes to our program with data obtained from our assessment efforts. Courses have been added or deleted and the curriculum has become practice oriented and shorter in length.

Political Science Department Mission

Political Science allows the systematic study of political and governmental institutions, behaviors, and processes. The core mission of this department is to provide a sound education in the discipline. We believe that education is best acquired within the framework of the liberal arts through careful analysis, systematic evaluation, and rigorous and disciplined thinking. Since we believe that students must be able to communicate clearly what they have learned, we are committed to the enhancement of writing and speaking skills as well.

Student Learning Outcomes

Departmental

1. Students will be able to gather, analyze, and synthesize political/legal information.

2. Students will be able to interpret and evaluate political/legal information and ideas.

3. Students will be able to distinguish between political/legal factual information and opinions, i.e., critical thinking.

4. Students will be able to communicate clearly, precisely, and in a professional manner; demonstrating an in-depth understanding of a political science or legal studies topic.

5. Students will demonstrate an in-depth knowledge of major areas of knowledge of political science major.

a. In the traditional political science major this will include American Politics, Political Theory, and World Politics.

b. In legal studies, this will include judicial institutions, processes, behaviors, and outcomes.

6. Students will be able to integrate the above academic skills and apply them to a real life employment/internship setting.

Sub Disciplines

A. Legal Studies

Students will:

1. demonstrate ability to conduct legal research.

2. articulate the understanding of the structure and process of the American court system.

3. write in a clear, organized manner.

4. demonstrate ability to analyze, understand, and articulate judicial reasoning.

5. present legal research in an effective and organized fashion.

6. articulate and understand (at least) one substantive area of American law.

7. demonstrate ability to integrate the philosophical, political, and legal aspects of American law.

B. American Politics

Students will:

1. learn the fundamental facts of American government and politics.

2. understand that politics in democracies involve conflict and are not necessarily neat, tidy or efficient.

3. develop/improve analytical skills in evaluating issues and policies.

4. develop/sharpen own personal political beliefs and values.

5. use American politics as a vehicle to become familiar with the Internet.

6. learn rudiments of statistics and data analysis.

7. explain individual group or mass political behavior in the context of

a. electoral or policy process

b. legislative, executive, or judicial institutions

C. World Politics

Students will:

1. identify the major types of political systems and forms of governance found among the states of the world.

2. evaluate and critically analyze cultural, historical, institutional, and symbolic factors shaping various political systems.

3. identify, understand, and apply basic concepts used in comparative political research to the study of political systems.

4. demonstrate knowledge of the characteristics and functions of major actors in international relations, including, but not limited to nation-states, nongovernmental organizations, and international governmental organizations.

5. demonstrate familiarity with central concepts (e.g., power, sovereignty) and theories in international relations.

6. demonstrate familiarity with alternative structural interpretations of international relations, including regimes, alliance, and core-periphery relations.

7. be able to critically analyze international strategic issues (e.g., foreign policy questions, international conflicts)

8. be able to utilize and integrate micro, middle, and macro level models of international relations behavior to analyze foreign policy.

9. demonstrate an ability to assess current events in a larger theoretical framework and to determine the impact events have on the larger system.

10. have a familiarity with relevant and current literature in international relations.

D. Political Theory Learning Outcomes

Students will be able to:

1. identify thinkers and their ideas within the western political-philosophical tradition.

2. identify and critically engage the main thesis of a political-philosophical text and its supporting arguments.

3. evaluate and critically analyze political-philosophic arguments as to their cogency, logical consistency, and empirical verifiability.

Expected Results

1. Students majoring in Political Science/Legal Studies will demonstrate their competence for the previous learning outcomes through the preparation of a senior portfolio.

2. Students will also demonstrate their competence in Political Science/Legal Studies through the completion of an internship in a local, regional, or national public services organization. During this internship experience, students, will be able to integrate academic and applied skills. Internship agencies will also develop their own list of competencies and integrate them with those of UWP’s Political Science Department.

Assessment Methods

Students in Political Science/Legal studies will participate in a two-credit senior capstone course. The major assignment of this capstone course will be the development of a portfolio in which they will show evidence of competence in the learning outcomes previously outlined.

Measurement of Results

The Political Science faculty will review the portfolios according to agreed upon criteria and will assign the students grades of:

1) Outstanding 2) Satisfactory 3) Poor 4) Failure

The students will have the opportunity to improve their grades once their portfolios have been graded by the Political Science faculty.

Implementation of Assessment Results

The Political Science faulty will meet annually to assess the overall performances and competency of graduating seniors after the capstone course is completed. Changes, if any, to the curriculum will be made at that time. ■

How Americans View Higher Education

Chronicle of Higher Education

An extensive poll of public opinion sponsored by the Chronicle of Higher Education showed an extraordinary level of support for the nation's colleges but it also indicated many questions about their priorities and cost. While the public seems satisfied with the quality of our universities, many respondents were skeptical about big-time athletics, affirmative action and tenure. Americans seem to want their universities to focus less on economic development and research mission and more on basics like career preparation, general education, teacher training, coping skills, and ethical values.

Important roles for a college to perform:
	Very Important	Important	Somewhat Important	Not Important	No Answer
Prepare its undergraduate students for a career	71%	21%	7%	1%	0%
Provide education to adults so they qualify for better jobs	65	25	9	1
Prepare future leaders of society	65	23	10	1	0
Prepare students to be responsible citizens	65	20	11	4	0
Help elementary and high schools do a better job teaching children	63	20	13	4	0
Offer a broad-based general education to undergraduate students	59	29	11	2	0
Teach students how to cope with a rapidly changing world	59	24	12	4	1
Teach students to get along with people from different backgrounds	59	21	13	6	0
Help students develop good values and ethical positions	58	23	14	6	0
Prepare undergraduate students for graduate or professional school	57	28	14	1	0
Discover more about the world through research	56	28	14	1	0
Prepare students from minority groups to become successful	51	26	17	4	1
Conduct research that will make American businesses more competitive	42	28	24	5	1
Enroll students from all parts of the country	41	29	22	7	0
Help attract new business to local region	39	23	27	10	0
Help local businesses and industries in the area to be successful	36	27	27	9	1
Provide useful information to the public on issues affecting their daily lives	35	27	27	10	1
Improve the image of the state in which it is located	33	27	28	12	1
Promote international understanding by encouraging students to study in other countries	31	25	32	12	0
Provide cultural events to the community	30	30	32	8	0
Play athletics for the entertainment of the community	13	22	42	23	1

Level of Confidence in Institutions:

	A Great Deal	Some	Very Little	None	No Opinion
U.S. military	65%	28%	4%	2%	1%
4-year private colleges & universities	51	38	5	2	4
Local police force	48	41	7	4	1
4-year public state-supported colleges & universities	46	44	6	1	3
Community colleges	43	46	8	1	2
Churches & religious organizations	43	40	11	4	2
Doctors	40	51	7	2	1
Hospitals	36	52	9	2	1
Presidential branch of the U.S. government	33	41	18	7	1
Public elementary & high schools	32	47	16	4	1
Local government	18	59	17	5	1
Television news	17	54	21	7	1
Newspapers	16	58	19	6	1
State government	15	59	20	5	1
U.S. Congress	14	59	20	5	2
Lawyers	9	50	27	13	2
Large corporations	6	49	33	10	2

In Defense of Europe

Martin Gruberg, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh

One of the ugly consequences of our Government’s obsession with crushing Iraq is the Euro-bashing that’s been produced among many true believers. Too many in our country have not gotten beyond the reading-writing-and responding to slogans stage. Perhaps Lincoln was wrong; you can fool a lot of the people a lot of the time.

Militarily we’re #1. Culturally we’re back of the pack. How many Americans can find Iraq (or Vietnam or North Korea) on a map? A National Geographic Society survey of the geographic knowledge of citizens of many nations had the U.S. in last place (43 percent were unable to locate England; 14 percent couldn’t even find their own country on a map).

The National Endowment for The Humanities found that 32 percent of Americans believe the President can suspend the Bill of Rights in wartime. The National Constitution Center found that 24 percent couldn’t name any of the First Amendment rights and only 6 percent could name all four. Can you?

The National Assessment of Educational Progress found that one in eight 17-year olds believed that the President was not required to obey the law and one of every two students at ages 17 and 13 believed that the President could appoint members of Congress (No wonder Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were able to get away with so much for so long). Twenty percent of the 17-year-olds thought that the United States was the only country to have political parties.

Among college students less than one-quarter could identify James Madison as the Father of the Constitution and only 22 percent could recognize “Government of the people, by the people, for the people” as from the Gettysburg Address (Yet 99 percent of the students surveyed knew the cartoon characters Beavis and Butt-Head).

What does this have to do with our sour-grapes attitude toward Europe? Before I respond let me acknowledge where I’m coming from. I’m guilty of some Un-American Activities; I studied Spanish and French (though after 6 years of Spanish and five of French, I can read but not speak these languages). In the last 35 years I visited and taught in Europe (from 1968 when I visited the UK, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium to 2002 when I went to the UK and France). I have relatives (including my mother) who

came from central Europe. I’ve lectured and presented papers on European politics and law. Way back (perhaps when I went to college, CCNY, with Colin Powell), I learned that you should know what you’re talking about before you open your mouth. At Columbia University I had courses on the government, politics, foreign policy, economics, law, and religions of the Middle East. Too bad some others never learned that lesson.

As the sole superpower, we should expect to be envied, feared, and hated by others. It goes with the territory. That was the lot of Spain, France, and Great Britain when they were where we are. However, it doesn’t make our role any easier when we act like a bully or a spoiled brat. The first President Bush knew how to act in a New World Order; cultivate allies and not lapdogs. Don’t unilaterally say “no” to environmental agreements, the International Criminal Court, and the anti-ballistic missile accord. Don’t threaten preemptive war and say we don’t care what the UN, NATO, or the Pope say.

We think the Europeans are ingrates because they’ve forgotten that we liberated them in WW I and II. We forget that they took a lot more punishment in these wars than we did and for a lot longer (and that we acted in our own self-interest, not theirs), that they’ve had more centuries to understand world affairs than our relatively new nation. When Rumsfeld dismisses France and Germany as “Old Europe,” perhaps that’s an unconscious compliment.

We’re an impatient people with a short attention span. We left Lebanon and Somalia when things got tough. What did we accomplish in Haiti, Bosnia, and Afghanistan? What did we think we could accomplish in Vietnam? The “old” French, with their centuries of familiarity with Indochina couldn’t win; how then could naïve America do better?

Yet we’re about to enter another quagmire. Sure, Saddam is evil, as is Al-Qaida, and our people are good, as are our troops. Still, that’s not enough. Whatever happened to W’s campaign condemnation of nation building and Powell’s insistence on an exit strategy? Why are we riding off to be policeman of the world? Why don’t we focus on our sick economy and the greed and fear that has caused soaring petroleum prices?

It’s tommyrot to chant: “My Country, Right or Wrong!”

That’s like “My Father, Drunk or Sober!” I’ve often preferred Carl Schurz’ formulation: “My country. When right to be kept right; when wrong to be set right!” ■

Governance Questionnaire

By Jim Simmons, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh

Several years ago the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh Faculty Senate conducted a survey of campus faculty and staff in an attempt to determine the quality of the university's "shared governance" system. This survey was a modified version of the surveys conducted in the early 1980s for System Administration in an attempt to determine compliance with Chapter 36 of Wisconsin Statutes on UW campuses. This UWO 1999 study showed some serious problems with the governance process just as the 1981 survey had. Most faculty were satisfied with the role in personnel decisions, curricular development, and departmental activities; but they tended to be less happy with their compensation, role in university governance and participation in institutional policy-making. It was hoped that other UW campuses would use this instrument to conduct their own estimates of faculty satisfaction with governance but none did. This questionnaire was implemented during relatively placid times. It is unclear today how faculty might respond to these same questions or how we will react to the strains on the university governance systems that are likely to be generated by the state's current budget crisis.

1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neutral 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree

Personnel and Compensation Decisions

1. The faculty exercises primary responsibility for faculty promotion decisions 3.746

2. The faculty exercises primary responsibility in tenure and renewal decisions. 3.545

3. The faculty exercises primary responsibility for faculty appointments (hiring). 3.594

4. This university's faculty personnel policies and practices are fair and equitable. 3.383

5. The faculty exercises primary responsibility for merit criteria and allocation. 3.748

6. University standards for faculty compensation decisions are fair and equitable. 2.799

7. My salary and benefits are more than adequate given the duties that I perform. 2.191

8. I will remain at UWO even if my salary falls behind my peers at other college. 2.991

University Governance

9. The faculty effectively participates in department or equivalent unit decisions. 3.933

10. The faculty effectively participates in decision making at the college level. 3.244

11. The Faculty Senate represents the faculty effectively at the university level. 3.030

12. The committee system represents the faculty effectively at the university level. 3.104

13 Membership organizations (TAUWP, AAUP, etc) effectively represent faculty. 2.768

14. The university administration shares governance responsibility with the faculty. 3.032

Academic and Educational Activities

15. The faculty exercises primary responsibility for the university's curriculum. 4.086

16. The course and program approval process results in sound academic decisions. 3.346

17. The faculty exercises primary responsibility for student academic policies. 3.359

18. Student academic policies and practices are rigorous and academically sound. 3.028

19. The faculty has academic freedom in determining course content and evaluation. 3.909

20. The faculty has academic freedom of self‑expression both on and off campus. 3.695

21. Student opinion surveys are a valid measure of teaching in personnel decisions. 2.321

22. I am more active in my discipline's associations than I have been on campus. 2.919

Participation in Institutional Policy-Making

23. The faculty participates actively in the development of the university budget. 2.196

24. The faculty participates actively in the search and screen for administrators. 3.372

25. The faculty participates actively in the university's strategic planning process. 2.833

26. The faculty participates actively in the management of university facilities. 2.396

27. The administration engages in meaningful consultation with the faculty. 2.793

Issues and Attitudes

28. Teamwork and quality improvement techniques enhance shared governance. 2.834

29. Unionization and collective bargaining would empower faculty and academic staff. 3.366

30. Shared governance demands time that should be devoted to research and teaching. 2.912

31. The administration should have broad discretion in establishing university priorities. 2.469

32. Committee work and service activities are both stimulating and rewarding. 3.093

33. Faculty should get service and teach load reductions to promote development. 3.581

34. Members of the surrounding community should participate in university policy. 2.585

35. Academic staff and students should play a more significant role in governance. 3.321

36. The growing number of temporary instructional staff undercut shared governance. 3.425

37. Overall, I have more than sufficient influence in the governance of this university. 2.645 ■

What Professors Earn

Source: American Association of University Professors

Average Salaries for Full-Time Faculty Members, 2002-3

	All		Public
	Salary	1-year change	Salary	1-year change
Doctoral Institutions
Professor	$97,910	+3.4%	$92,387	+3.1%
Associate Professor	67,043	+3.1	64,938	+2.6
Assistant Professor	57,131	+3.5	54,986	+3.2
Instructor	39,069	+2.1	37,589	+1.5
Lecturer	44,785	-	43,390	-
No Rank	48,743	-	45,857	-
All	73,997	+3.1	70,357	+2.9

Master’s Institutions
Professor	$75,334	+3.4%	$74,545	+3.3%
Associate Professor	59,326	+3.0	59,145	+2.8
Assistant Professor	48,965	+3.8	49,086	+3.8
Instructor	36,929	+1.1	36,398	+0.3
Lecturer	42,731	-	42,968	-
No Rank	48,500	-	46,403	-
All	58,769	+2.9	58.440	+2.8

Baccalaureate Institutions
Professor	$69,598	+2.9%	$67,004	+3.2%
Associate Professor	53,575	+3.5	54,694	+4.1
Assistant Professor	44,700	+3.5	45,587	+3.5
Instructor	36,191	+3.1	36,503	+3.3
Lecturer	41,813	-	39,334	-
No Rank	46,583	-	49,772	-
All	54,051	+3.1	52,841	+3.1

2-year institutions w/academic ranks
Professor	$65,608	+4.1%	$65,730	+4.1%
Associate Professor	51,589	+3.3	51,696	+3.3
Assistant Professor	45,471	+4.2	45,653	+4.2
Instructor	37,914	+4.1	38,215	+4.1
Lecturer	44,101	-	44,135	-
No Rank	43,082	-	43,196	-
All	51,619	+3.7	51,824	+3.7

Average Annual Salaries – University of Wisconsin

Political Science Departments – Doctorial Institutions

	Professor	Associate Professor	Assistant Professor
Madison	$96,975	NA	NA
Milwaukee	$76,372	$59,869	$54,581

Wisconsin

Alverno C, IIB	53.1	42.5	35.8
Beloit C, IIB	70.0	52.2	44.6	37.9
Cardinal Stritch U, IIA	57.8	49.3	41.1	36.8
Carroll C, IIB	61.0	53.1	41.6	32.8
Carthage C, IIB	60.1	53.6	44.2
Concordia U Wisconsin, IIB	56.4	53.6	45.345.3	41.241.2
Edgewood C, IIA	55.4	47.3	40.2	34.4
Lakeland C, IIB	54.2	45.1	42.5	32.7
Lawrence U, IIB	71.4	57.4	47.5	39.4
Marian C of Fond du Lac, IIB	59.8	46.9	39.4	35.4
Marquette U, I	85.2	64.6	54.5	39.5
Milwaukee School of Engineering, IIB	66.4	58.2	55.0	44.2
Mount Mary C, IIB	53.6	44.7	38.2	35.1
Northland C, IIB	54.2	42.8	37.2
Ripon C, IIB	53.1	44.0	34.2
Saint Norbert C, IIB	64.7	52.7	46.8	36.9
University of Wisconsin:
Madison, I	96.4	73.7	62.0	48.2
Eau Claire, IIA	66.4	54.2	47.3
Green Bay, IIA	64.0	54.2	46.1
La Crosse, IIA	72.3	56.1	47.9
Milwaukee, I	83.6	65.3	56.9	36.8
Oshkosh, IIA	68.7	56.7	49.3
Parkside, IIA	69.9	59.3	49.2	40.3
Platteville, IIA	67.6	52.8	47.1
River Falls, IIA	62.7	54.0	48.3
Stevens Point, IIA	67.2	54.0	45.3	38.5
Stout, IIA	67.0	53.8	46.3
Superior, IIA	63.1	51.6	47.6
Whitewater, IIA	71.3	56.8	51.0
C’s, III	61.9	50.7	40.8
Viterbo U, IIA	54.3	46.0	40.0	37.2

The following are figures of university faculty earnings on the average for both comprehensive and doctorial colleges. The average was taken from salaries as noted in the 2002-2003 “Red Book” found on-line.

Average Annual Salaries – University of Wisconsin

Political Science Departments

Comprehensive Institutions

	Professor	Associate Professor	Assistant Professor
Eau Claire	$64,143	$50,472	$43,073
La Crosse	$66,515	$52,395	$42,188
Oshkosh	$66,343	$50,545	$45,835
Parkside	$66,523	$57,154	$46,947
River Falls	$63,350	$48,199	$43,705
Superior	$60,576	$50,488	NA
Stevens Point	$68,575	NA	$43,517
Whitewater	$74,035	$50,744	$42,929

Bush’s Domestic Proposal

Kevin McGee, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh

There’s an irony in President Bush’s domestic proposals, as outlined in his State of the Union address. He’s correct that the keys to stimulating economic growth are to get more companies to invest and expand and more individuals to spend. But his tax proposals have almost no likelihood of doing either.

This is most clearly the case with his proposal to eliminate personal taxes on dividends. Ending the “double taxation” of dividends may at first glance seem like a laudable goal. But if you look deeper, you see that it accomplishes almost nothing, except to reduce the taxes of corporate shareholders.

To get corporations to invest, you must either expand the demand for their products, or lower their costs of new funds. High income households don’t spend much of their tax cuts, so from purely a consumer spending prospective, cutting dividend taxes (or the top income tax rate or estate taxes) has very little short term stimulative effect. The tax cuts do result in more private saving by those high income households, but those additional flows into our credit markets are more than offset by the additional government borrowing due to the tax cut.

Ending the “double tax” on dividends might seem to work by lowering corporations’ costs of funds. Corporations fund new investments in three ways: (1) by borrowing, (2) by reinvesting their retained earnings, and (3) by issuing new shares. The cost of borrowing is the interest rate; Bush’s tax cuts won’t reduce interest rates. By increasing the federal deficit, and hence the Federal Governments demand for loanable funds, the tax cuts may very well increase them. Hence, we would expect that debt financed investment will, at best, stay unchanged and will most likely decrease because of the tax cuts.

The cost of retained earnings is, interestingly enough, also the market interest rate. Reinvested earnings eventually result in more dividends tomorrow, but those earnings are “retained” by not paying them out as dividends today. So investing retained earnings in effect trades off between dividends today and dividends tomorrow, and will be attractive only if those

future dividends pay a market rate of return on today’s foregone dividends.

Cutting the dividend tax increases the value of the future dividends you earn, but it also increases the value of the dividends that you give up today - so the optimal level of retained earnings investment at a constant interest rate stays exactly the same! If interest rates rise, and the required market rate of return for any particular investment is higher, then retained earnings investment, like debt financed investment, will decline.

Ending the “double tax” on dividends does lower the cost of investment financed by new share issues, but here’s the rub: very few corporations issue new shares, and no dividend paying corporations do. After all, the latter group of corporations have more earnings than they can profitably reinvest - that’s why they pay some earnings out as dividends - so they have no need to sell new shares.

So for the vast majority of corporations, Bush’s tax proposal will have, at best, zero stimulative effect. More than likely, if the higher deficits increase interest rates and hence the costs of borrowing and retained earnings, it will have a negative effect. For a small minority of corporations, it will have a positive effect, increasing their payoff to new shares. Overall, though, we’ll be lucky if the net effect is only a little bit negative.

A tax cut more likely to slow economic growth than stimulate it should be a total nonstarter. Congress should dump this proposal, fast. ■

Book Review

By Andrew O’Shaughnessy, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh

David J. Siemers, Ratifying the Republic: Antifederalists and Federalists in Constitutional Time (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002)

Ratifying the Republic is a commendably bold and ambitious work that addresses a much-contested subject using interdisciplinary methods. It is written against a tradition of relegating the Antifederalists to an existence as historical footnotes” (p. 1). Siemers argues to the contrary that they were a major influence in American politics both before and after the ratification of the Constitution. David Siemers reminds us that the Constitution passed with bare majorities in the three largest states: Virginia, Massachusetts and New York. They remained prominent in national and local politics after Ratification. Furthermore, far from being merely a negative force, “they were the Federalists’ partners in the Constitution’s success” (p. 194).

The Antifederatlists were instrumental in gaining acceptance for the Constitution. They played a “key role in the Constitution’s legitimation” (p.215). Their insistence on the need of the Constitution to guarantee individual rights was a factor in the passing of the first ten amendments – the Bill of Rights – with which Federalists hoped to assuage the supporters of the Antifederalists. The Antifederalists were not unalterably opposed to change: Rhode Island was the only state not to send delegates to Philadelphia. They were willing to abide by the rules for electoral purposes (p. 7). They were not prepared to use violent means to oppose the Constitution. They accepted the verdict of the state votes and “embraced” the Constitution “quickly, uniformly, and wholeheartedly” (p. 5). They shared the Federalist belief in the rule of law and in the need for reform that helped preserve “an uneasy unity after ratification” (p. 15). Siemers argues that they acted “out of principle” (p. 29) and that they willingly took oaths to the Constitution (p. 37).

The Antifederalists’ influence was also apparent in the “enduring precedents in the conduct and nature of American politics” after the ratification of the Constitution. Siemers uses prosopographical methods and an analysis of voting records in Congress to demonstrate that the Antifederalists joined forces with former Federalists especially Madisonians with whom they collaborated to form the Republican Party. The Federalists were more disunited than is often assumed and Siemers demonstrates that some of them, especially in the South, moved into opposition after 1791. He even identifies distinct party groupings in the first three Congresses during which he notes the cohesion of the Madisonians and Antifederalists; especially in the Third

Congress when Madisonians never joined the Federalists in votes against the Antifederalists.

James Madison was receptive to the Antifederalists. He “was more consistent in his constitutional philosophy than not” (p. 94) but Siemers finds that his position changed radically not from opposition but rather a principled objection to the Hamiltonian Program (p. 95). He sought an alliance with the Antifederatlists: “Rather than turn on the Constitution, Madison turned toward partisanship, something that had been highly suspect, as a vehicle for ensuring that the republic would remain a popular, rights-orientated regime” (p. 114). The “essay usually considered the most important work of political theory from the founding, Federalist #10, was the first to become irrelevant and obsolete in the mind of the author” (p. 133). He modified his views on faction and party owing to his experience and to contemporary events that Siemers calls “political time.”

In association with Madison and former Federalists, the Antifederalists helped pioneer a “strict construction” and “original intent” approach to the Constitution. They took literally Federalist claims in the ratification debates that the national government would only possess those expressed powers granted by the Constitution. They thus inaugurated a dialogue and approach that has continued ever since. They came to believe that “they themselves were more faithful to the Constitution than those who had written and championed it” (p. 46). Siemers therefore argues against the belief that there was a complete cleavage in political issues but rather considerable continuity between the 1780s and 1790s. The debate about the role of national government and power continued and remained central which contradicts some recent interpretations which see the rise of party politics as evidence that the role of national government was no longer contentious (p. xvi). It also challenges a traditional chronology that often divides the period after 1787.

Indeed, Siemers’ interpretation challenges a wide array of specialists in the field. He denies John Aldrich’s claim that the first impetus to form a party came from the Federalists: “In my estimation, the Republicans were the first to organize their partisan apparatus as an electioneering device” p. xvi). He critiques Michael Kammen’s A Machine That Would Go of Itself arguing that Kammen is wrong in suggesting that there was “hostility verging on denunciation” for the Constitution against which Siemers contends that the Antifederalists embraced the Constitution. Siemers notes the slim evidence provided by Kammen and he faults the few examples that Kammen offers (p. 5). He is critical of the failure of Steven R. Boyd The Politics of Opposition to appreciate “the principled nature of the Antifederalist’s acquiescence” to the Constitution (p. 27). He similarly disagrees with Christopher M. Duncan in seeing the

Antifederalists and their agenda as the precursors of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in the 1960s (pp. 216-217). He favors the work of Lance Banning and Linda Grant de Pauw who suggest an enthusiastic embrace of the Constitution (pp. 7-8). However, he believes that Lance Banning’s interpretation lacks nuance in its tendency to see the Antifederalist embrace of strict construction as the “complete story” of why they embraced the Constitution (p. 46). Siemers rather argues that there were two steps beginning with acceptance and secondly an apotheosis.

He questions Saul Cornell’s, The Other Founders, thesis that there continued to be popular radical opposition to the Constitution after 1787. Cornell’s “documentary evidence leads me to wonder whether the plebeian radicalism Cornell discerns was widespread. It would be easy to overestimate the persistence and virulence of anticonstitutional sentiment in the nation as a whole based on a few cases of popular unrest in one part of Pennsylvania (Carlisle)” (p. 28). Siemers wonders why there were not more spontaneous popular uprisings “if grassroots Antifederalists were so hostile to the Constitution and remained so after the ratification “and suggests that “Carlisle was a notable exception.” (p. 216).

He accuses J.G.A. Pocock and some Straussian political philosophers of making a “questionable assumption” (p. 20) that the ratification signaled the embrace of modernity and acceptance of self-interest as a motivation in politics. He criticizes Jack Rakove, David Currie, Harry Jaffa, H. Jefferson Powell, and Joseph Lynch for not addressing the ideas of the Antifederalists “being much more interested in how the two early parties formed their constitutional ideologies” (p. 64). He contends that William N. Chambers, Rudolf M. Bell and John F. Hoadley fail to see the continuities in the party divisions over the Constitution and exaggerate the novelty of party divisions in the 1790s (p. 141). He similarly finds Stanley Elkins, Eric McKittric, and Gordon Wood guilty of giving too unified an impression of the Federalists in their belief in a natural aristocracy (p.156) when Federalists were split by the Madisonians. (p.156). He is suspicious of Joseph Cooper’s view that Federalists disliked the Committee of the Whole, which is “based primarily on a few well-heeled quotes of Federalist stalwart Fisher Ames” (p. 174).

Siemers disagrees with Madison’s biographers, Irving Brant and Ralph Ketcham together with Stanley Elkins and Eric McKittrick, in their belief that Madison’s “thinking changed dramatically in the years after ratification, in large part because Virginia’s interests and the influence of Jefferson moved him from a fervent nationalizer to a champion of states’ rights” (p. 89).

He is similarly wary of Joseph M. Lynch’s view that Madison was inconsistent and opportunistic in his use of constitutional arguments and “Lynch’s habit of viewing constitutional arguments primarily as instrumental, post hoc rationalizations” (p. 94). Nor does he accept Jack Rakove’s view that Madison “groped his way toward an effective concept of originalism through the 1790s” (p. 90). He agrees with Lance Banning that Madison was always a strict constructionist and that critics have placed too much emphasis on the Federalist No. 10. He concurs with Joseph Read, who sees Madison as reacting to what he perceived as a threat to liberty posed by the Federalist interpretation of the Constitution (p. 90-1).

Siemers’ lament against the narrow fragmentation of this period and his emphasis on continuities between the 1780s and 1790s might be extended back further to Colonial America. The issue of the limits of central government power was central to the 1760s and 1770s, in what was similarly a federal system with the capital in London, and it remained central to politics during the antebellum period. The colonial assemblies were political nurseries of future national statesmen in which they gained experience of standing committees, partisan politics, and the assertion of local rights, which practices and precedents Siemers seems to attribute to the early Congresses. Hannah Arendt argued that the existence of an institutional framework in the colonial assemblies that could readily be adapted in the new Republic was a major factor in explaining the stability of the American Revolution in contrast to the later revolutions in South America. Siemers might be faulted by social historians for his exclusive concern with the elites in Congress rather than the rank and file membership of the Antifederalists who are discussed by Saul Cornell. His emphasis on the role of James Madison seems justified given the “first retirement” of Thomas Jefferson in the late 1790s but it is curious that so little mention is given to the role of Jefferson.

Nevertheless, Siemers combines the conceptual and theoretical approach of a political scientist with the contextual perspective of a historian. The combination, together with his willingness to boldly engage the existing literature, is a stimulating and thoughtful book. Ratifying the Republic is a useful source of reference, not least the tables of voting patterns and party affiliations in Congress and the composition and tenure of committees in Congress. It will encourage scholars and teachers to rethink the chronological divisions imposed on this period and to give more attention to the active role of the Antifederalists in the making of the Constitution both before and after 1787. ■

Political Scientist

A Publication of the Wisconsin Political Science Association

Spring 2003 Volume IX Number 1

Submission Guidelines

News, Announcements, & Reviews