國立虎尾科技大學 |

Narrow Representation? The Impact of Implicitly and Explicitly Racial Issues on Opinion and Representation.

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,手稿 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Narrow Representation? The Impact of Implicitly and Explicitly Racial Issues on Opinion and Representation./
作者:	Nestor, Franchesca V.
面頁冊數:	1 online resource (220 pages)
附註:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 79-01(E), Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International79-01A(E).
標題:	Political science. -
電子資源:	click for full text (PQDT)
ISBN:	9780355152821

Narrow Representation? The Impact of Implicitly and Explicitly Racial Issues on Opinion and Representation.
Nestor, Franchesca V.

Narrow Representation? The Impact of Implicitly and Explicitly Racial Issues on Opinion and Representation. - 1 online resource (220 pages)

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 79-01(E), Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)

Includes bibliographical references

My dissertation combines knowledge from the opinion, racial and ethnic politics, and representation literatures to examine Black and Latino opinion and representation on racially salient issues. I theorize that representation of Blacks and Latinos is a "narrow" representation, much more in line with Black and Latino opinion on issues that are explicitly, rather than implicitly, racial. To test this theory, I build upon the literature by considering intersectional identity and multiple methods of representation. In Chapter 2, I examine two questions: when do income and racial group differences occur on racially salient issues, and if splits occur between respondents of higher and lower incomes according to the racialized nature of the issues, on which type of issues do government outputs respond better to either group? My approach extends Gilens's (2012) method for imputing opinion by income to racial groups. I find income can be an important driver of opinion for not only whites but also Blacks and Latinos. Government outputs on racially salient issues, however, do not seem to follow either Gilens's (2012) findings that high income opinion drives government, or Griffin and Newman's (2008) findings that African Americans experience better government representation on racially salient issues. Rather, Blacks' and Latinos' desire for change does not seem to drive government outputs on implicitly racial issues, and whites' desire for change does not seem to drive government outputs on explicitly racial issues. In Chapter 3, I move to consider descriptive representation and the effects of racially salient issues upon individual legislator responsiveness. Do African American and Latino legislators do a better job of representing low-income African Americans and low-income Latinos on two implicitly racial issues where their opinions are unique? I find that this is largely not the case, although Latino Republicans show some promise. In addition, a sponsorship analysis on both implicitly and explicitly racial issues shows that African American and Latino legislators are more active than other legislators in sponsoring legislation that supports low-income Black and Latino interests on immigration (an explicitly racial issue), but not different from other legislators in their sponsorship behavior for Iraq withdrawal (an implicitly racial issue). Moreover, chapter 3 reveals that large numbers of low-income Blacks and Latinos in districts have no bearing on the behavior of legislators in these analyses, including Black and Latino legislators. Finally, chapter 4 considers committee oversight, examining the influence of Black and Latino committee members, and of early 1990s redistricting, upon explicitly and implicitly racial oversight. Chapter 4 reveals a distinct difference after redistricting for implicitly racial issues, with the number of African American members heavily affecting such oversight after the 103rd Congress. This project builds understanding of racial disadvantage, and how it occurs in government.

Electronic reproduction.
Ann Arbor, Mich. :
ProQuest,
2018

Mode of access: World Wide Web

ISBN: 9780355152821Subjects--Topical Terms:

558774
Political science.
Index Terms--Genre/Form:

554714
Electronic books.

Narrow Representation? The Impact of Implicitly and Explicitly Racial Issues on Opinion and Representation.
LDR:04349ntm a2200337Ki 4500 001 911706
005 20180531091028.5
006 m o u
007 cr mn||||a|a||
008 190606s2017 xx obm 000 0 eng d
020 $a 9780355152821
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI10605558
035 $a (MiAaPQ)wvu:11694
035 $a AAI10605558
040 $a MiAaPQ $b eng $c MiAaPQ
099 $a TUL $f hyy $c available through World Wide Web
100 1 $a Nestor, Franchesca V. $3 1183706
245 1 0 $a Narrow Representation? The Impact of Implicitly and Explicitly Racial Issues on Opinion and Representation.
264 0 $c 2017
300 $a 1 online resource (220 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 79-01(E), Section: A.
500 $a Adviser: Jason A. McDonald.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.) $c West Virginia University $d 2017.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references
520 $a My dissertation combines knowledge from the opinion, racial and ethnic politics, and representation literatures to examine Black and Latino opinion and representation on racially salient issues. I theorize that representation of Blacks and Latinos is a "narrow" representation, much more in line with Black and Latino opinion on issues that are explicitly, rather than implicitly, racial. To test this theory, I build upon the literature by considering intersectional identity and multiple methods of representation. In Chapter 2, I examine two questions: when do income and racial group differences occur on racially salient issues, and if splits occur between respondents of higher and lower incomes according to the racialized nature of the issues, on which type of issues do government outputs respond better to either group? My approach extends Gilens's (2012) method for imputing opinion by income to racial groups. I find income can be an important driver of opinion for not only whites but also Blacks and Latinos. Government outputs on racially salient issues, however, do not seem to follow either Gilens's (2012) findings that high income opinion drives government, or Griffin and Newman's (2008) findings that African Americans experience better government representation on racially salient issues. Rather, Blacks' and Latinos' desire for change does not seem to drive government outputs on implicitly racial issues, and whites' desire for change does not seem to drive government outputs on explicitly racial issues. In Chapter 3, I move to consider descriptive representation and the effects of racially salient issues upon individual legislator responsiveness. Do African American and Latino legislators do a better job of representing low-income African Americans and low-income Latinos on two implicitly racial issues where their opinions are unique? I find that this is largely not the case, although Latino Republicans show some promise. In addition, a sponsorship analysis on both implicitly and explicitly racial issues shows that African American and Latino legislators are more active than other legislators in sponsoring legislation that supports low-income Black and Latino interests on immigration (an explicitly racial issue), but not different from other legislators in their sponsorship behavior for Iraq withdrawal (an implicitly racial issue). Moreover, chapter 3 reveals that large numbers of low-income Blacks and Latinos in districts have no bearing on the behavior of legislators in these analyses, including Black and Latino legislators. Finally, chapter 4 considers committee oversight, examining the influence of Black and Latino committee members, and of early 1990s redistricting, upon explicitly and implicitly racial oversight. Chapter 4 reveals a distinct difference after redistricting for implicitly racial issues, with the number of African American members heavily affecting such oversight after the 103rd Congress. This project builds understanding of racial disadvantage, and how it occurs in government.
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Ann Arbor, Mich. : $c ProQuest, $d 2018
538 $a Mode of access: World Wide Web
650 4 $a Political science. $3 558774
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 local $3 554714
690 $a 0615
710 2 $a ProQuest Information and Learning Co. $3 1178819
710 2 $a West Virginia University. $b Political Science. $3 1183707
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 79-01A(E).
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10605558 $z click for full text (PQDT)