European Political Science

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 244–258

Prospects for the New US Administration: What can Social Science Offer? Debate

  • Philip Davies
  • Dilys Hill
  • Andrew Rudalevige
  • George C EdwardsIII
  • Jenel Virden
  • Robert Singh


A trans-Atlantic panel of social scientists addresses the question of what social science might offer the new President of the United States in various areas of policy and government action. Andrew Rudalevige's analysis of the scholarship on managing the presidency leads him to state that ‘most of the major happenings of the Bush years were essentially administrative in nature. That is likely to continue. Thus, how and whether presidents achieve the sort of advice and responsiveness they desire from the bureaucracy has important implications not only for the kinds of policy the government implements, but for assessing democratic governance itself’. George Edwards examines presidential strategies for government with the conclusion that ‘Social science shows us that there is no silver bullet’ when a president is trying to obtain the support of the public or Congress. Jenel Virden points out that in 2008 women turned out to vote more than men, voted for Obama more than men, and were strongly hopeful that under the new administration prospects would improve. Having engaged so successfully with this sector of the population, the Obama administration is under pressure to recognize and address its needs. Robert Singh points out that there are necessary reservations about the utility of social science in informing an Obama foreign policy, but nonetheless elaborates propositions and principles that could usefully frame the administration's approach. Dilys Hill provides an overview and draws the debate to a close. The discussion in these pages is based on the 2009 Academy of Social Sciences annual debate, convened by Philip Davies and hosted by the Eccles Centre for American Studies at the British Library (Davies et al, 2009).


US presidency Obama leadership transitions 


  1. Baird, J. (2008) ‘From Seneca falls to … Sarah Palin’, Newsweek 22 September,
  2. Bartels, L. (2002) ‘Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions’, Political Behavior 24: 117–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burke, J.P. (2000) The Institutional Presidency: Organizing and Managing the White House from FDR to Bill Clinton, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Calvert, R. (1985) ‘The value of biased information’, Journal of Politics 47 (2): 530–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carmines, E.G. and Stimson, J.A. (1980) ‘The two faces of issue voting’, American Political Science Review 74: 78–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cobb, M.D. and Kuklinski, J.H. (1997) ‘Changing minds: Political arguments and political persuasion’, American Journal of Political Science 41: 88–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Converse, P.E. (1964) ‘The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics’, in D.E. Apter (ed.) Ideology and Discontent, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  8. Crouse, J.S. (2008) ‘Women's voting patterns in election 2008’, 14 November,
  9. Davies, P.J., Hill, D., Rudalevige, A., Edwards III, G.E., Virden, J. and Singh, R. (2009) ‘The Obama administration: What can social science offer?’ 21st Century Society: Journal of the Academy of Social Sciences 4 (3): 319–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Druckman, J.N. (2001a) ‘On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame?’ Journal of Politics 63: 1041–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Druckman, J.N. (2001b) ‘Using credible advice to overcome framing effects’, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 17: 62–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edsall, T.B. (2008) ‘Ethnic, race, male-female voting patterns deciding the democratic nomination’, The Huffington Post 21 January,
  13. Edwards III, G.C. (2003) On Deaf Ears: The Limits of the Bully Pulpit, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Edwards III, G.C. (2007) Governing by Campaigning: The Politics of the Bush Presidency, 2nd edn. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  15. Edwards III, G.C. (2009) The Strategic President: Persuasion and Opportunity in Presidential Leadership, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Erikson, R.S., MacKuen, M.B. and Stimson, J.A. (2002) The Macro Polity, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Fiske, S.T. (1980) ‘Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38: 889–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gaines, B.J., Kuklinski, J.H., Quirk, P.J., Peyton, B. and Verkuilen, J. (2007) ‘Same facts, different interpretations: Partisan motivation and opinion on Iraq’, Journal of Politics 69: 957–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gardner, P.S. and Podesta, J. (2008) ‘Overlooked so far: The Nation's unmarried women in 2008, a new agenda to build opportunity, women's voices’, Women Vote and Center for American Progress Action Fund, April.Google Scholar
  20. Goodwin, D.K. (2005) Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  21. Hamilton, D.L. and Zanna, M.P. (1972) ‘Differential weighting of favorable and unfavorable attributes in impressions of personality’, Journal of Experimental Research in Personality 6: 204–212.Google Scholar
  22. Hammond, T.H. (1994) ‘Structure, Strategy, and the Agenda of the Firm’, in R.P. Rumelt, D.E. Schendel and D.J. Teece (eds.) Fundamental Issues in Strategy: A Research Agenda, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hart, J. (1995) The Presidential Branch, 2nd edn. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  24. Institute for Women's Policy Research. (2008) ‘Women's vote clinches election victory: 8 million more women than men vote for Obama’, 6 November,
  25. Jacoby, W.G. (1988) ‘The sources of liberal-conservative thinking: Education and conceptualization’, Political Behavior 10: 316–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson, R.T. (1974) Managing the White House, New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  27. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979) ‘Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk’, Econometrica 47: 263–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1984) ‘Choices, values, and frames’, American Psychologist 39: 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kelley, C. (2007) ‘Contextualizing the signing statement’, Presidential Studies Quarterly 37 (December): 737–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuklinski, J.H., Quirk, P.J., Jerit, J., Schwieder, D. and Rich, R.F. (2000) ‘Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship’, Journal of Politics 62: 790–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lau, R. (1985) ‘Two explanations for negativity effects in political behavior’, American Journal of Political Science 29: 119–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lewis, D.E. (2008) The Politics of Presidential Appointments: Political Control and Bureaucratic Performance, Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Luskin, R.C. (1987) ‘Measuring political sophistication’, American Journal of Political Science 31: 856–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marcus, G.E., Neuman, W.R. and MacKuen, M. (2000) Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Miller, G.J. (1992) Managerial Dilemmas: The Political Economy of Hierarchy, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miller, J.M. (2007) ‘Examining the mediators of agenda setting: A new experimental paradigm reveals the role of emotions’, Political Psychology 28: 689–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Miller, J.M. and Krosnick, J.A. (2000) ‘News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source’, American Journal of Political Science 44: 301–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Neuman, W.R. (1986) The Paradox of Mass Politics; Knowledge and Opinion in the American Electorate, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Patterson, B.H. (2008) To Serve the President: Continuity and Innovation in the White House Staff, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  40. Pew Research Center. (2008) ‘Some final thoughts on campaign ‘08’’, 8 December,
  41. Rose, R. (1991) ‘Organizing Issues in and Organizing Problems out’, in J.P. Pfiffnered (ed.) The Managerial Presidency, Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  42. Rudalevige, A. (2002) Managing the President's Program: Presidential Leadership and Legislative Policy Formulation, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Rudalevige, A. (2005) ‘The structure of leadership: Presidents, hierarchies, and information flow’, Presidential Studies Quarterly 35 (June): 333–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rudalevige, A. (2009) ‘‘Therefore, get wisdom’: What should the president know, and how can he know it?’ Governance 22 (April): 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Simon, H.A. (1976) Administrative Behavior, 3rd edn. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  46. Whitford, A.B. (2006) ‘Unitary, divisional, and matrix forms as political governance systems’, Journal of Management Governance 10: 435–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wlezien, C. (1996) ‘Dynamics of representation: The case of US spending on defense’, British Journal of Political Science 26: 81–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Women's Voices. Women Vote. (2008) ‘Unmarried women play crucial role in historic election’, November,
  49. Women's Voices. Women Vote with Lake Research Partners. (2008) ‘Portrait of unmarried African American women and the importance of economic issues in the 2008 election’, January,
  50. Zaller, J.R. (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Consortium for Political Research 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip Davies
    • 1
  • Dilys Hill
    • 2
  • Andrew Rudalevige
    • 3
  • George C EdwardsIII
    • 4
  • Jenel Virden
    • 5
  • Robert Singh
    • 6
  1. 1.Eccles Centre for American Studies, The British LibraryLondonUK
  2. 2.School of Social Sciences, University of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  3. 3.Dickinson CollegeCarlisleUSA
  4. 4.Department of Political ScienceTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  5. 5.The University of HullUK
  6. 6.School of Social Sciences, History & Philosophy, Birkbeck College, University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations