Abstract: The aim of our study is to understand whether different incumbent attitudes towards desirable successor attributes have an impact on their intention to nominate a family member or a non-family member as CEO and the extent to which this intention is moderated by the number of family members working in the firm as a proxy of socioemotional wealth preservation. Our main findings suggest that an incumbent’s intention to nominate a family member as the next CEO increases when they believe family standing attributes to be important and decreases when they consider managerial competence attributes to be important. However, the latter relationship weakens as the number of family members working in the firm increases.

Abstract: Previous research dismisses the possibility that populist, male-dominated parties could positively affect gender equality. Yet, evidence from Eastern Europe points at the opposite: Center-rightist formations, led by notable men, have effectively nominated women to office. What can explain such a puzzling phenomenon? This study argues that i) the centralized structure and practices in these populist parties make it possible to avoid the reluctance of gatekeepers to let female candidates run; and that ii) regardless of ideological or cultural predispositions, supporters loyally approve the nomination decisions made by their charismatic leader. We analyze data on three populist parties in Bulgaria and Poland. Our findings confirm that these formations elected more women than the leftist parties because of strategies to nominate female candidates higher on the list. Voters were also more likely to favor female candidates in the open-list system in Poland.

Abstract: During his campaign, President Donald Trump promised to “Make America Great Again.” When do Americans think America was at its greatest, and how do they decide on that year? We asked Americans to nominate America's greatest year, their personal greatest year, and to explain why they nominated those years. Americans could not agree on America's greatest year. Instead, some Americans nominated years when nationally relevant events occurred, such as 1776 and 1945. Others nominated years when they were between 0 and 20 years old; people nominated a similar pattern of years when asked the year they were at their personal greatest. Our findings establish, for the first time, a set of memories for the events that shape America's identity. Our findings also add to the literature on the reminiscence bump, showing that decisions about America's greatest time and one's personal greatest time are most likely to occur during one's youth.

Abstract: Gottlieb wants less regulation of drugs and devices and quicker approvals, writes Jeanne Lenzer

Abstract: IntroductionHow best to select judges has been the subject of great debate ever since the founding of the United States. Over the course of American history, four basic methods of selection have been tried (with some variations among them): appointment by elected officials, partisan election, nonpartisan election, and selection by a technocratic commission.1 The first three methods will be familiar to most readers: gubernatorial or legislative appointment of judges, contested elections with party affiliation on the ballot, and contested elections without party affiliation on the ballot. But readers may be less familiar with the last method: many states today use unelected commissions often comprised largely of lawyers selected by the state bar to nominate judges to the governor, who must appoint one of the commission's nominees; in many of these states, the judges later run for retention only in a yes-no referendum with no opponent.2 Commentators and scholars have long debated which of these methods creates judiciaries with, for example, the greatest technical capabilities, the most independence and accountability, and the widest demographic diversity.3Until an article I published in the Missouri Law Review a few years ago,4 however, scholars had never asked whether there are any ideological consequences to employing one selection method versus another. Might one method lead to judges who are more liberal or more conservative than other methods? Might this then lead to decisions from those courts that are more liberal or conservative than decisions from courts selected by different methods? In my Missouri Law Review piece, I hypothesized that one of these methods-selection by a technocratic commission-might very well create judiciaries that are systematically more liberal than the others.5 I gave two reasons for this hypothesis. First, in many states that use the commission method (also called the "Missouri Plan," after the first state to adopt it, or "merit selection," as its proponents like to refer to it), lawyers' organizations have control (or at least outsized influence) over the commissions.6 Lawyers as a group are more liberal than the public at large,7 and, I suggested, because those who select judges probably care about the decisions those judges will reach and know those decisions are correlated with the judges' own ideological preferences,8 these lawyerheavy commissions might very well pick more liberal judges than the public or an elected official might have picked.9 Second, I thought that, even if the commissions put aside all considerations of how they hope judges will decide cases, the use of commissions might still have ideological consequences because, again, lawyers are thought to be more liberal than average, and picking judges from their lot without regard to their ideological preferences might skew judiciaries to the left so long as governors and the public do not put such considerations to the side.10 At the time I published my Missouri Law Review piece there was, frankly, not very good evidence that lawyers were more liberal than the general population (even though it was conventional wisdom),11 but the conventional wisdom has now been bolstered by a rigorous paper by Adam Bonica, Adam Chilton, and Maya Sen.12 They ran the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory in 2012 through the databases on campaign contributions and found that "American lawyers lean to the left of the ideological spectrum."13In my article, I looked at two states that used the commission method and compared the ideological preferences of the judges proposed by the commissions to the ideological preferences of the public in those states.14 I found, using common proxies for ideological preferences, that the judges proposed by commissions in those states did appear to be quite a bit more to the left than the public at large was in those states.15The study I published in the Missouri Law Review had several limitations. …

Abstract: This article looks at how the two major parties in the United States nominate their candidates for the presidency. Because states and state parties in America have jurisdiction over many parts of the nominating process, details of the system are complex and change every election. Since the 1970s, however, both parties have sought to nominate the candidate who has received the greatest support from party voters and, in some states, independents. Whether this system encourages responsible campaigns and finds the best candidates have been much debated, but a fundamental change of the nominating system in the near future appears highly unlikely.

Abstract: The process of recruiting candidates for elected positions is one of the major challenges faced by party leaders. When they decide to nominate candidates who will later stand for elected posts, they must take into account many, often conflicting, factors. It is therefore not surprising that the mechanisms which govern these processes are an object of study for political scientists.1

Abstract: Political recruitment is one of the political parties functions that should be performed by a political party that could generate the future leaders. Weak cadre in political parties is seen in local elections, the party can not nominate its cadres themselves as a local head candidate, it is caused by the function of political recruitment that not worked properly, because the management of political parties are not work well, their work program that does not run and the lack of availability funds for their political party to do the political recruitment. Keywords: political recruitment, regeneration and the local head elections

Abstract: In her piece for the November 2016 issue of The Forum, “How the News Media Helped to Nominate Trump,” Julia Azari contends that the media played a crucial coordination function for Donald Trump’s r...

Abstract: Although often conceived as nonpartisan actors, presidents wield considerable political and institutional powers in parliamentary and semipresidential democracies. Do they interfere in the government-formation process in such a way as to change the outcome that parliamentary parties would have otherwise reached? We address this issue by examining the conditions under which the parties of presidents and prime ministers are the same in parliamentary and semipresidential democracies. We use data for twenty-one countries over the postwar period and find that when presidents are directly elected and are constitutionally empowered to nominate the prime minister, the two leaders tend to come from the same party. This, however, is only true when the bargaining environment within parliament is complex, that is, when there are multiple viable governing coalitions. In this sense, the distribution of forces within parliament is still the main factor determining the identity of the prime minister, even in the presence...

Abstract: Gender discrimination, based on taste or on perception of competence, remains to be a likely contributor to females’ lower wages and slower professional advancement. In this project we use a novel data set of decisions made by participants of the Ten to One TV show. During the game, contestants repeatedly nominate the next person to answer a question. Being nominated reduces one’s probability of eventually winning the game. General tendency to nominate one gender more often than the other signifies taste-based discrimination against this gender. The construction of the game makes it relatively more profitable to nominate the most competent rather than the least competent opponents in some strategic circumstances, which allows to identify biased perception of the two genders’ competence. Having analyzed over 6000 decisions from 117 episodes aired in the last 21 years we find clear evidence of belief-based discrimination against females, yet taste-based in favor of them.