Search

Effective response to and rapid and reliable detection of infectious disease outbreaks require successful coordination of countries' border policies early on. As threats from diseases are highly salient to the public, researchers agree that a better understanding of domestic politics is crucial. This article investigates a key piece of this question: public demands for border closures. Our experiments in the United Kingdom and the United States show that a greater pandemic threat mildly increases support for border closures, but the World Health Organization's (WHO) guidance against border closures and reminders about international legal obligations to follow the guidance substantially weaken support for border closures. However, during the COVID‐19 pandemic, many countries flouted WHO's recommendations and restricted their borders. Examining media attention suggests people's lack of knowledge of the WHO guidance as a crucial reason for those border closures. Our study produces insights into the design of effective global health governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the politics of welfare, citizens often prioritize natives over immigrants. What conditions reduce welfare discrimination against immigrants? Original survey experiments from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Italy reveal that the divide between natives and immigrants remains the fundamental cleavage in the politics of welfare. All immigrants face welfare penalties, including immigrants from Western countries. Even young, progressive, highly educated, and economically secure native citizens strongly penalize immigrants. Although immigrants never fully overcome identity barriers, the welfare support gap between natives and immigrants decreases when immigrants have a long work history. A history of employment provides evidence of reciprocity through past contributions and signals immigrants' commitment to the community. Other immigrants' characteristics, such as higher education and proactive work attitude, fail to decrease the gap. This article contributes to the study of solidarity in diverse societies and the impact of immigration on the welfare state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bureaucratic reputation is one of the most important concepts used to understand the behavior of administrative agencies and their interactions with multiple audiences. Despite a rich theoretical literature discussing reputation, we do not have a comparable measure across agencies, between countries, and over time. I present a new strategy to measure bureaucratic reputation from legislative speeches with word‐embedding techniques. I introduce an original dataset on the reputation of 465 bureaucratic bodies over a period of 40 years, and across two countries—the U.S. and the U.K. I perform several validation tests and present an application of this method to investigate whether partisanship and agency politicization matter for reputation. I find that agencies enjoy a better reputation among the members of the party in government, with partisan differences less pronounced for independent bodies. Finally, I discuss how this measurement strategy can contribute to classical and new questions about political–administrative interactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]