Home

The Heinz Eulau Award is for the best article published in the American Political Science Review and Perspectives on Politics during the previous calendar year. Two Eulau Awards are made, one for each journal.
 
Award Committee Chair: Carol C. Gould, CUNY Graduate Center

American Political Science Review Committee: Catherine Boone, University of Texas at Austin; and Dean P. Lacy, Dartmouth College

APSR Recipients: Michael A. Neblo, Ohio State University; Kevin M. Esterling, University of California, Riverside; Ryan P. Kennedy, University of Houston; David M.J. Lazer, Northeastern University; Anand E. Sokhey, University of Colorado, Boulder

Title: "Who Wants to Deliberate--And Why?"

Citation: “Who Wants to Deliberate – And Why?” offers a theoretical advance, a sharp turn, and a methodological innovation in the literature on deliberative democracy. The theoretical advance is the authors’ introduction of the idea that people’s preferences for deliberating political issues may depend on their beliefs about whether politicians are self-serving and government is run by special interests.  Using an innovative survey experiment, Neblo, Esterling, Kennedy, Lazar, and Sokhey find that most people support more deliberation when they believe that politicians and the political process are less corrupt.  Few people prefer the stealth democracy model of more deliberation when self-serving politicians and special interests have greater influence in government.  Prior evidence that people do not want to deliberate may say less about the public’s preferences for deliberation and more about their perceptions of the current political process.   This theoretical advance leads to a sharp turn in our understanding of public support for deliberative democracy.  Where many previous studies conclude that most people dislike politics and avoid deliberating political issues, the authors find significant proportions of the public are willing to deliberate. The people who most want to deliberate are those often left out of conventional electoral and interest group politics:  the young, lower income groups, and racial minorities.  The authors base their conclusions on an innovative set of large-scale, nationwide survey experiments, including one that allowed people to enter an on-line deliberative session with their Member of Congress.  Neblo, Esterling, Kennedy, Lazar, and Sokhey’s research moves the important literature on deliberative democracy forward in new and exciting ways by showing us that support for deliberative democracy is more widespread than we once believed.   Citizens are very willing to discuss politics when given incentives or opportunities for real deliberation.

Perspectives on Politics Committee: Pradeep Chhibber, University of California, Berkeley; and Karen M. Kaufmann, University of Maryland, College Park

Perspectives on Politics Recipients: Mary Fainsod Katzenstein, Cornell University; Leila Mohsen Ibrahim, Cornell University; and Katherine D. Rubin, The Bronx Defenders

Title: "The Dark Side of American Liberalism and Felony Disenfranchisement"

Citation: “The Dark Side of American Liberalism and Felony Disenfranchisement” extends a growing body of academic inquiry into liberalism in innovative directions that insightfully connect political theory, the history of American political thought, and public policy.  Katzenstein, Ibrahim, and Rubin argue that the history of racialized felony disenfranchisement in the United States betrays an exclusionary politics that is embedded in American liberalism.  The article discerns in concrete judicial, legislative, and policy debates three strands of liberalism that variously appeal to purportedly universal and impartial notions of intentional discrimination, social contract, and individual responsibility but that in fact paradoxically function to buttress exclusionary notions of citizenship. This article provides a trenchant and original analysis that serves to deepen our understanding of American liberalism as both theory and practice.