We are sitting in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, and they are sitting in Cumbayá, Ecuador, and we are discussing the inequalities of globalization. In Quito, over 150,000 people are protesting in front of the Presidential Palace with signs reading, “Basta con la dictadura!” (Enough with the dictatorship!), furious over then-President Lucio Gutierrez's controversial dismissal of the country's Supreme Court. Meanwhile, back in Myrtle Beach, we're witnessing events live through video footage my students shot while in Quito participating in the protests. Political demonstrations like this are common in the less developed world, but they seldom translate this vividly into a globalization classroom. At Coastal Carolina University and La Universidad San Francisco de Quito, however, images like this and conversations about such dramatic daily events are made possible by a videoconference link between the two universities that facilitates a semester-long class on globalization.

Judging by their answers on public opinion surveys, many Russian citizens favor democracy, at least as long as the stakes are not too high or rights are not being extended to people they do not like (e.g., Tikhonova 2005, 39; Colton and McFaul 2001; Gibson 1998). But Russians' behavior at times belies those findings. Ordinary Russians expressed little outrage when the first president of independent Russia, Boris Yeltsin, bombed the parliament in 1993. Nor did they forcefully protest the actions of their second president, Vladimir Putin, when he restricted personal freedoms, strengthened executive power, and undermined the electoral process. Indeed, Russians continue to give Putin high approval ratings (Fond Obshchestvennoe Mnenie 2006). Russians' electoral choices also have not tended to favor democrats. In many local elections and in elections to the State Duma throughout the 1990s, significant numbers of Russians chose Communists, near-fascist nationalists, or others of questionable democratic credentials to represent them. Liberal democratic parties fared poorly in a number of elections and in the 2003 Duma elections failed to win a single seat. Since 2003, support for liberal parties declined still further (Levashov 2006, 10).

On March 28, 2006, the following televised exchange took place between two professors at Al-Azhar University in Egypt and the station newscaster for Kuwaiti Al-Rai TV on the subject of female circumcision.

The purpose of the John Gaus Award and Lectureship is to recognize “scholarship in the joint tradition of political science and public administration.” That tradition has a long and honorable history. Many of the presidents of the American Political Science Association were scholars of public administration (Frank J. Goodnow, Woodrow Wilson, W. W. Willoughby, Leonard White, Luther Gulick, Pendleton Herring, Emmette S. Redford, Carl J. Friedrich, James Q. Wilson, and Matthew Holden, Jr.) and several others made contributions to the literature (V. O. Key, Jr., Charles S. Hyneman, Robert A. Dahl, Aaron Wildavsky, and Elinor Ostrom). Yet a visitor from another planet studying political science and public administration might conclude that these tribes have evolved into two distinct species.Prepared for presentation as the John Gaus Distinguished Lecture, American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, September 1, 2006, Philadelphia. I would like to thank Paul Brace, George Krause, Alisa Hicklin, Larry O'Toole, Jim Rogers, and Michael Thies for their assistance.

In order to keep members informed about APSA financial pratices, the APSA Trust and Development Board, which is charged by the APSA Constitution to oversee Association assets, reports from time to time on Association investment practices.

APSA's investments are managed professionally by Mr. Loren Ross of Cedarpoint Capital Management, Inc., New York, with oversight by the APSA Trust and Development Board. The following is a statement of investment philosophy circulated by Cedarpoint Capital Management on APSA's behalf. The holdings in APSA's Trust and Congressional Fellowship Portfolios, as of June 2006, are also listed.

March 15, 2006

I argue in this paper that one possible way of addressing the critical issue of preparing students for their future role as citizens in a global society is to integrate active learning exercises such as case studies and problem-based learning scenarios that focus on international issues and events and significant global conditions. These provide an opportunity for students to practice the skills that are essential for participation in modern democratic societies. In this brief discussion paper, I present two very practical strategies for introducing students to global realities and exposing them to different cultural and ideological ways of “seeing the world.” Both strategies emphasize skills that are essential for analysis, evaluation and, eventually, problem-solving.

Our collective experience as academics has led us to fear that departmental assessment plans will just sit on some anonymous shelf; our hard work will disappear into the black hole of administrative demands; and the lack of university response will become one more chip on our faculty's shoulders as yet another example of wasted effort. The question thus facing the departmental chair is: How do we ensure that our work benefits our programs? In other words, how do we make mandated assessment plans meaningful?

If disciplines can be likened to living things, then perhaps political science is best characterized not by familiar symbols—e.g., the elephant, the donkey, or the eagle—but by a small sea creature: the hermit crab. Rather than generating its own protective cover, the hermit crab adopts the foreign shells that it comes across; it makes a home for itself by utilizing the previous works of other crustaceans. For many years, the discipline of political science—like other areas within the social and behavioral sciences—built its own frameworks using the analytical tools found in outside disciplines. Borrowing heavily from econometrics, psychometrics, and biometrics, political scientists examined empirical data as they tested theories about individual behavior, organizational dynamics, and governmental processes. The substantive ends were of primary interest, and therefore less attention was paid to the means of inquiry.The authors wish to thank Michael Brintnall for sharing the American Political Science Association's data on job postings, and David Campbell, Tom Carsey, Suzanna DeBoef, Jeff Gill, John Jackson, Jonathan Nagler, Herb Weisberg, and Sarah Wilson for helpful comments and suggestions on previous versions of this article.

In the first year after the attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress agreed with President George W. Bush and his administration that the key to national security at home and abroad was enhancing executive branch power. To this end, leaders smoothed the legislative process and members largely consented to the new policies and rapid review pace. By December 2002, Congress passed two major domestic laws related to the new War on Terrorism and two war resolutions. But beginning in 2003, many members, largely but not all Democrats, renewed their interest in legislative powers and prerogatives by mounting small rebellions against these once-popular policies, especially the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. Committees and the chamber floors re-emerged as arenas for heated debate on policy oversight, funding, and implementation and management. While members critical of the war have had a hard time gaining traction to alter the nation's course in Iraq, there was a golden opportunity to recalibrate power and policy on the Patriot Act as 16 of its most controversial provisions were scheduled to sunset in 2005. Although the Patriot Act's second legislative round was far more complex than the first, the result gave even more power to the executive branch. Congress's ambition subsided, again.My thanks to the College of Arts and Sciences, University of Louisville, for funding related to this project. A version of this paper was presented at the 2005 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association and I thank the discussant, Lilly Goren, for her comments and suggestions, as well as the anonymous reviewers for PS.

L. Harmon Zeigler died from a massive heart attack in Tacoma on July 31, 2006. He is survived by his wife of 50 years, Pat; his two children, Mike and Amanda; and three grandchildren, Ben, Zoe and Ruby.

Months after Mexico's independent electoral institute had validated the July 2, 2006, presidential elections, and weeks after the autonomous electoral court had certified National Action Party (PAN) candidate Felipe Calderón as president, runner-up Andrés Manuel López Obrador continued to cry foul. Days before the court's final September 5 ruling, López Obrador (known widely as “AMLO”), representing the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) and the Coalition for the Good of All, decided to disband the mobilizations blocking some of Mexico City's main transportation arteries, but to continue protesting indefinitely, and to name a “shadow cabinet,” to press Calderón. López Obrador lost the election by a hair (a mere 233,831 votes, out of over 41,700,000 cast—the final certified number after electoral court rulings), but he did lose, and in a “free and fair” contest organized by one of the world's more respected electoral institutions.

The question of global justice is among the most salient and controversial issues of our day. In the popular press it inspires a constant stream of books, articles, and film documentaries. It serves as the calling card for a major new social movement in rich and poor countries throughout the world (sometimes referred to as the “anti-globalization” movement). And it is an increasingly prominent issue in mainstream politics in Europe and the developing world (though not yet in the United States). If present trends continue, debates over global justice may become as ubiquitous in the 21st century as debates over socialism were in the previous century.For comments and suggestions on various versions of this manuscript I thank Wendy Hunter, Jim McGuire, Michael Ross, Strom Thacker, and the anonymous reviewers for this journal. For research assistance I am indebted to Hernan Roman. For financial support, I am grateful to Fred Pardee and the Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future at Boston University.

There's no better place to celebrate the diversity of the political science profession than in the Windy City, home of the ground-breaking social science innovation of the various Chicago Schools of the mid-twentieth century. In keeping with those innovations, the 103rd APSA Annual Meeting takes as its theme “Political Science and Beyond,” a look at what political science can teach to, and learn from, cognate disciplines. In addition, take this opportunity to visit Chicago's stunning architecture, world-famous museums and parks, and world-class dining.

The editors of PS and the staff of APSA would like to apologize for an error printed in the October 2006 issue. The names of two of the APSA award winners were inadvertently switched. The corrected citations are printed below:

The Leo Strauss Award, for the best doctoral dissertation in the field of political philosophy, was presented to Xavier Marquez. Guided by Catherine Zuckert at the University of Notre Dame, Marquez completed his dissertation, “The Stranger's Knowledge: Political Knowledge in Plato's Statesman.”

The Leonard D. White Award for best doctoral dissertation in the field of public administration was awarded to David Pitts of Georgia State University. He completed his dissertation, “Diversity, Representation, and Performance: Evidence about Ethnicity in Public Organizations,” under the direction of Laurence J. O'Toole, Jr. at the University of Georgia.

Pi Sigma Alpha, the National Political Science Honor Society, is proud to announce the winners of its 2006 Chapter Activity Grants Competition. In this annual program, Pi Sigma Alpha chapters submit proposals for activities they would not be able to carry out without funding. The maximum grant to any chapter is $2,000. The proposed activities may be in areas such as chapter and student development, social service, and the like. A grants committee reviews the proposals competitively and makes awards based on the quality and feasibility of the activity proposed, the completeness and appropriateness of the budget, and other factors. This was the first year in which chapters were permitted to submit proposals for two activities. Some proposals received full funding, some received partial funding with instructions on how to scale back the activity, and some were rejected. This year the committee funded proposals from 87 chapters for a total of over $75,000. Now in its 25th year, the Chapter Activity Grants program is the biggest and most important of the honor society's award programs both because of the size of its budget and the very large number of students who benefit.

People in political science.

As the University of Washington prepared for the arrival of Dr. Paul Farmer, a global health doctor and the subject of the campus common book, Mountains Beyond Mountains (New York: Random House, 2003), a team of faculty, administrators, and community leaders promoted ideas of global citizenship both on and off the territorial boundaries of the campus. The book, selected for its resonance with issues of general interest to the campus (interdisciplinary approaches, student engagement, a new global health initiative, the power of ideas, the role of entrepreneurship, and the capacity for non-state actors in world politics to shape agendas), had acquired a following more like a social movement than an administrative initiative. Coffee shops adjoining the campus featured copies of the book, and honors students coordinated and invited faculty members to come to evening discussion sessions. As University of Washington Professor Jonathan Mayer commented, “I have seen this book change careers and change lives.”

On July 2, 2006, Mexican voters elected National Action Party (PAN) candidate Felipe Calderón as the next president of Mexico. Calderón's victory was extremely narrow; he won under 36% of the total vote and less that 0.6% more than his leftist rival, Andrés Manuel López Obrador. This potentially problematic situation was aggravated by López Obrador's decision to challenge Calderón's victory, both in the courts and in the streets. López Obrador's protest campaign culminated on September 16, when tens of thousands of his followers gathered in downtown Mexico City to acclaim him “legitimate president” of Mexico. Meanwhile, in the legislature, leaders of López Obrador's Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) oscillated between hints that they would collaborate with Calderón's administration and signs that they would adopt a posture of untrammeled hostility.

The Fourth Congress of the Russian Political Science Association (RPSA) met in Moscow over October 20–22, 2006. The theme of the congress was “Democracy, Security, and Good Governance: New Challenges for Political Science.” I represented the American Political Science Association at the Congress, and representatives of the IPSA and of the Greek, Korean, Ukrainian, and Belarus Political Science Associations were there as well on behalf of their organizations. Political scientists from Germany, Egypt, and Switzerland also took part. Friday was devoted to plenary sessions, Saturday to thematic panel sessions, and Sunday to section meetings. Some 400 members of the RPSA from throughout the country attended the congress. Many of these were young scholars, including graduate students. In Russia, political science—politology, as it is more commonly termed—has become a recognized discipline in many universities and research institutes, and a number of textbooks have been published for use in political science courses.

Collaborative institutions, which involve the collective decision-making by multiple political agencies, communities, and stakeholders, are becoming increasingly important for addressing policy dilemmas that are not bound within a single jurisdiction. This is especially true in the environmental arena (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000; Karkkainen 2002; Koontz et al. 2004; Lubell 2004; McKinney and Harmon 2004; Brick et al. 2001; Sabel et al. 2000). In the water management field, for instance, Sabatier, Weible, and Ficker (2005) have argued that the growth of collaborative efforts among small watersheds is so widespread that it has become a new paradigm of management. A considerable body of policy research, particularly on watershed management, has begun to examine the factors that support the emergence of collaborative environmental governance (Lubell et al. 2002; Blomquist 1992; Ostrom 1990). Understanding what factors affect the performance of collaborative institutions has also become an emerging theme in this scholarship (Sabatier, Leach, Lubell, and Pelkey 2005; Leach, Pelkey, and Sabatier 2002; Conley and Moote 2003; Innes and Booher 1999). Empirically and methodologically however, what is often missing from research on collaborative institutions is a clearer picture of what factors support the endurance of collaborative institutions over time.