No Substitute for Competence. On the origins and consequences of issue ownership. Lanz, SimonLondon / New York, ECPR Press / Rowman & Littlefield International (2020), 145p., ISBN 978‐1‐78552‐344‐1
No Substitute for Competence. On the origins and consequences of issue ownership. Lanz, SimonLondon / New York, ECPR Press / Rowman & Littlefield International (2020), 145p., ISBN 978‐1‐78552‐344‐1
复制标题
能力无可替代。Lanz，SimonLondon / 纽约，ECPR Press / Rowman & Littlefield International (2020)，145p.，ISBN 978‐1‐78552‐344‐1。
DOI：
10.1111/spsr.12396
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
2.1
通讯作者：
J. Lefevere
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Lefevere
西蒙·兰兹（ECPR出版社/Rowman & Littlefield International）的《能力的替代品》提出了一个雄心勃勃的问题能力评估的比较分析。本文试图探讨三个问题：选民对政党能力的评价来源是什么？对政党能力的评估如何影响投票选择？政党能力对投票的影响在多大程度上因背景而异？这本书源于兰茨的获奖论文，并有很多提供给读者。首先，它提供了一个丰富的比较研究问题的所有权。关于发行所有权的比较研究极为罕见。这本书提供的证据涵盖了24个国家，超越了少数西方民主国家，往往主导的问题所有权文献（如美国，比利时，荷兰）。此外，它利用比较设计，并调查能力评价的投票效果的上下文变化。其次，除了在开篇章节中对相关文献进行了出色的介绍外，兰茨还在理论上开辟了新的领域，即背景因素（如政党制度碎片化）如何影响能力评估对投票的影响。第三，它通过一个强大的分析策略来评估丰富的理论框架，同时仍然使结果可供广大受众使用。本书的结构简单明了：在导论之后，第二章和第三章讨论了理论框架;第四章介绍了数据和方法选择;第五章到第七章探讨了能力评估的决定因素（第五章），胜任力评价对投票和个人水平主持人的影响（第6章），以及能力对投票的影响在不同情况下的程度（第7章）。本书最后对设计的局限性进行了简短的总结和反思。理论框架由两章组成。第二章介绍了理性选择模型和发行所有权理论。这使得它可以访问的读者是新的领域的问题所有权。Lanz的讨论超越了Petrocik（1996）和Budge & Farlie（1983）等“通常的嫌疑人”。它既包括关于发行所有权的经典著作，如RePass（1971）和Kuechler（1991），也包括该领域杰出学者的当代见解。对于任何不熟悉问题所有权的人来说，第2章提供了一个很好的概述。然而，对于研究议题投票的学者来说，最有趣的章节是第三章。兰茨提出了一套丰富的假设，关于问题能力的来源，它对投票的影响，以及后者是如何由微观（意识形态，党派）和宏观层面的因素（分裂，两极分化，责任的清晰度）。关于发行股票所有权对投票权影响的宏观层面决定因素的讨论开辟了新的领域，提出了一个引人注目的理论难题（第33-38页）。
No Substitute for Competence by Simon Lanz (ECPR Press/Rowman & Littlefield International) presents an ambitious, comparative analysis of issue competence evaluations. It sets out to investigate three questions: what are the sources of voters’ evaluations of party competence? How do evaluations of party competence influence vote choices? And to what extent does the impact of party competence on the vote vary across contexts? The book originates from Lanz’award-winning dissertation, and has a lot to offer to the reader. First, it presents a rich comparative study on issue ownership. Comparative work on issue ownership is exceedingly rare. This book presents evidence covering 24 countries, moving beyond the few Western democracies that tend to dominate the issue ownership literature (eg the US, Belgium, the Netherlands). Furthermore, it leverages the comparative design and investigates contextual variations in competence evaluations’ effect on the vote. Second, in addition to offering an excellent introduction to the relevant literature in its opening chapters, Lanz breaks new ground in theorizing how contextual factors (eg party system fragmentation) may condition the impact of competence evaluations on the vote. Third, it evaluates the rich theoretical framework through a robust analytical strategy while still making the results accessible to a broad audience. The structure of the book is straightforward and sensible: after the introductory chapter, chapters 2 and 3 discuss the theoretical framework; chapter 4 presents the data and methodological choices; and chapters 5 through 7 examine the determinants of competence evaluations (chapter 5), the impact of competence evaluations on the vote and individuallevel moderators (chapter 6), as well as the extent to which the impact of competence on the vote varies across contexts (chapter 7). The book closes up with a brief conclusion and reflection on the limitations of the design.The theoretical framework consists of two chapters. Chapter 2 offers an accessible introduction to rational choice models and issue ownership theory. This makes it accessible to readers that are new to the field of issue ownership. Lanz’discussion moves beyond the ‘usual suspects’ such as Petrocik (1996) and Budge & Farlie (1983). It includes both classic works on issue ownership such as RePass (1971) and Kuechler (1991), and contemporary insights emanating from prominent scholars in the field. For anyone unfamiliar with issue ownership, chapter 2 thus provides an excellent overview. The most interesting chapter for scholars of issue voting is chapter 3, however. Lanz presents a rich set of hypotheses regarding the sources of issue competence, its effect on the vote, and the way the latter is conditioned by micro-(ideology, partisanship) and macro-level factors (fragmentation, polarization, and clarity of responsibility). The discussion on more macro-level determinants of issue ownership’s effect on the vote breaks new ground and presents a compelling theoretical puzzle (p. 33-38).