Marijke Breuning, Ph.D.
marijke.breuning@unt.edu
University of North Texas
Country: United States (Texas)
Research Interests
Foreign Policy
Foreign Aid
Gender and Politics
Human Rights
Publications:
Journal Articles:
How international in scope is publishing in political science? Previous studies have shown that the top journals primarily publish work by scholars from the United States and, to a lesser extent, other global-north countries. However, these studies used published content and could not evaluate the impact of the review process on the relative absence of international scholars in journals. This article evaluates patterns of submission and publication by US and international scholars for the American Political Science Review—one of the most selective peer-reviewed journals in the discipline. We found that scholars from the United States and other global-north countries are published approximately in proportion to submissions but that global-south scholars fare less well. We also found that scholars affiliated with prestigious universities are overrepresented, irrespective of geographic location. The article concludes with observations about the implications of these findings for efforts to internationalize the discipline.
Is the peer-review process at academic journals gendered? The answer to this question has important implications for the advancement of women in the political science profession. However, few studies have had access to data that can evaluate whether the peer-review process is gendered. We investigate this for papers submitted to the American Political Science Review across two editorial teams to identify trends over time. We evaluate overall differences across gender, but we also present more fine-grained data to evaluate gender differences across subfield, methodology, and submitting author’s institutional affiliation and academic rank. Furthermore, we show that prior service as a reviewer is associated with a higher acceptance rate for first-time submitters. We demonstrate that the review process is not gendered. Women’s share of submissions and acceptances has risen but remains lower than their presence in the discipline.
Does women’s representation influence foreign (aid) policy? And, if so, is this best explained as a function of women’s unique values or attributable to the impact of greater gender equality? Building on previous work, we investigate whether women’s greater presence in political life – evidence of greater gender equality – is associated with greater generosity, or whether women’s values and (some) women’s ability to influence policy as ministers affect aid’s generosity. We find that women’s representation in the parliament and in the cabinet is positively associated with a donor state’s generosity, but that female ministers of foreign policy-related ministries do not influence the state’s generosity. These findings suggest that gender equality is a more promising explanation for the generosity of states’ foreign aid than women’s values.
Critics of intercountry adoption define it as a demand-driven market for babies, from which parents in rich countries benefit at the expense of those in poor countries. Advocates hold that it often provides the best chance for orphaned children to grow up in a family. This paper investigates these opposing claims. It develops a theory that outlines the circumstances under which intercountry adoption is likely to result in a “baby trade,” and evaluates expectations derived from that theory on the basis of data on adoptions to the United States. The findings suggest that sending countries with large and fast-growing adoption programs may be particularly vulnerable to the temptation to supply a demand-driven market. However, sending countries do not simply respond to international incentives. Instead, the variation in participation in intercountry adoption between sending countries is partially driven by domestic incentives. The paper ends with suggestions for future research and policy.
The adoption of international norms by a state depends on the active support of decision makers in key gatekeeping positions. Yet, political change does not inevitably follow the initiatives of norm entrepreneurs. The literature on norm dynamics has largely focused on successful norm change. This focus on cases that support the notion that norms matter constitutes selection on the dependent variable. To more fully grasp the role and limits of gatekeepers, it is important to also investigate cases where political resistance prevented the domestic adoption of international norms. This study uses an illustrative case study in which circumstances appeared ripe for a new policy direction but where change failed to materialize. The study concludes that gatekeepers matter, but also that norm change crucially, depends not only on gatekeepers’ ability to frame norms in terms that resonate domestically but also on their ability to build coalitions with other relevant political actors.
Objective. This study systematically investigates the factors that determine sending country openness or restrictiveness regarding intercountry adoption. It hypothesizes that larger orphan populations, greater global interconnectedness, and accession to the Hague Convention are associated with greater openness, whereas the political empowerment of women and larger Islamic populations are expected to be associated with greater restrictiveness. Methods. The study employs an original, global data set to empirically test the significance of the hypothesized factors in explaining a country’s openness to intercountry adoption. Results. The study finds that burgeoning orphan populations are associated with greater openness to intercountry adoption and women’s presence in political decision making is associated with greater restrictiveness. Conclusion. The findings call into question the effectiveness of the current intercountry adoption regime.