¹ Rath, Jan, “Voting Rights,” in Layton-Henry, Zig, ed., The Political Rights of Migrant Workers in Western Europe (London: Sage Publications, 1990)Google Scholar; Earnest, David C., “Voting Rights for Resident Aliens: Nationalism, Postnationalism and Sovereignty in an Era of Mass Migration” (Ph.D. diss.,The George Washington University, 2004)Google Scholar.

² One might prefer the term “internalist” to “nationalist” because the former avoids the negative connotations of “nationalism.” Yet other authors have used the term “nationalism” to refer to state-level factors; for consistency I opt to follow their example. See interalia Aleinikoff, T. Alexander, “Between Principles and Politics: U.S. Citizenship Policy,” in Aleinikoff, T. Alexander and Klusmeyer, Douglas, eds., From Migrants to Citizens: Membership in a Changing World (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2000)Google Scholar; idem, “Policing Boundaries: Migration, Citizenship and the State,” in Gerstle, Gary and Mollenkopf, John, eds., E Pluribus Unum? Contemporary and Historical Perspectives on Immigrant Political Incorporation (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2001)Google Scholar; Aleinikoff, T. Alexander and Klusmeyer, Douglas, eds., Citizenship Policies for an Age of Migration (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2002)Google Scholar; Galloway, Donald, “Citizenship Rights and Non-citizens: A Canadian Perspective,” in Kondo, Atsushi, ed., Citizenship in a Global World: Comparing Citizenship Rights for Aliens (New York: Palgrave, 2001)Google Scholar; Gerstle and Mollenkopf, E Pluribus Unum?; Atsushi Kondo, “Comparative Citizenship and Aliens' Rights,” in Kondo, Citizenship in a Global World; Koopmans, Ruud and Statham, Paul, “Challenging the Liberal Nation-State? Post-nationalism, Multiculturalism, and the Collective Claims Making of Migrants and Ethnic Minorities in Britain and Germany,” American Journal of Sociology 105 (November 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ Lowell Barrington, “Understanding Citizenship Policy in the Baltic States,” in Aleinikoff and Klusmeyer (fn. 2); Harper-Ho, Virginia, “Voting Rights for Resident Aliens: The History, the Law and Current Prospects for Change,” Journal of Law and Inequality 18 (Summer 2000)Google Scholar; Kondo (fn. 2); Neuman, Gerald L., “‘We Are the People’: Alien Suffrage in German and American Perspective,” Michigan Journal of International Law 13 (Winter 1992)Google Scholar; Raskin, Jamin B., “Legal Aliens, Local Citizens: The Historical, Constitutional and Theoretical Meanings of Alien Suffrage,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 141 (April 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴ Jacobs, Dirk, “Discourse, Politics and Policy: The Dutch Parliamentary Debate about Voting Rights for Foreign Residents,” International Migration Review 32 (Summer 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, “Immigration in a Multicultural Sphere: The Case of Brussels,” in Rogers, Alisdair and Tille, Jean, eds., Multicultural Policies and Modes of Citizenship in European Cities (Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate, 2001)Google Scholar; and Joppke, Christian, Immigration and the Nation-State: United States, Germany, and Great Britain (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵ Coppedge, Michael, “Thickening Thin Concepts and Theories: Combining Large N and Small in Comparative Politics,” Comparative Politics 31 (July 1999), 465CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶ Aleinikoff (fn. 2,2001); Joppke (fn. 4); Neuman (fn. 3).

⁷ Aleinikoff (fn. 2, 2000); Hammar, Tomas, Democracy and the Nation-State: Aliens, Denizens and Citizenship in a World of InternationalMigration (Aldershot, U.K.: Avebury, 1990)Google Scholar; Soysal, Yasemin Nuhoglu, Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994)Google Scholar.

⁸ Joppke (fn. 4); Klausen, Jytte, “Social Rights Advocacy and State Building: T. H. Marshall in the Hands of Social Reformers,” World Politics 47 (January 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹ Marshall, T. H., Class, Citizenship and Social Development: Essays, with an Introduction by Seymour Martin Lipset (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964)Google Scholar.

¹⁰ See “Introduction: Political Participation and Civil Rights of Immigrants, A Research Agenda,” International Migration Review 19 (special issue) (Autumn 1985) 405Google Scholar; Marco Martiniello, “Citizenship in the European Union,” in Aleinikoff and Klusmeyer (fn. 2).

¹¹ Hammar (fn. 7).

¹² Marshall (fn. 9); Rokkan, Stein, “The Four Thresholds of Democracy,” in Flora, Peter, Kunle, Stein, and Unwin, Derek, eds., State Formation, Nation-Building and Mass Politics in Europe: The Theory of Stein Rokkan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999)Google Scholar.

¹³ Marshall (fn. 9); Rokkan (fn. 12); and Rokkan, Stein and Lipset, Seymour Martin, Party Systems and VoterAlignments: Cross-National Perspectives (New York: Free Press, 1967)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Joppke (fn. 4); idem, “The Evolution of Alien Rights in the United States, Germany, and the European Union,” in Aleinikoff, T. Alexander and Klusmeyer, Douglas, eds., Citizenship Today: Global Perspectives and Practices (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2001)Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Brubaker, Rogers, Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Smith, Rogers, Civic Ideals: Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in U.S. History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997)Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Castles, Stephen and Davidson, Alastair, Citizenship and Migration: Globalization and the Politics of Belonging (New York: Routledge 2000), ixGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ Hammar (fn. 7); Castles and Davidson (fn. 16).

¹⁸ Soysal (fn. 7); Sassen, Saskia, Losing Control? Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996)Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Hammar (fn. 7); Brubaker (fn. 15); Barrington (fn. 3).

²⁰ Brubaker (fn. IS).

²¹ Adams, Sarah, “The Basic Right of Citizenship: A Comparative Study,” Center for Information Studies Backgrounder (Washington, D.C.: Center for Immigration Studies, 1993)Google Scholar, www.cis.org/articles/1993/back793.htm (accessed April 4,2006); Kondo (fn. 2); Patrick Weil, “Access to Citizenship: A Comparison of Twenty-five Nationality Laws,” in Aleinikoff and Klusmeyer (fn. 14).

²² Nagy, Gabor, “Citizenship in Hungary, from a Legislative Viewpoint,” in Liebich, Andre and Warner, Daniel, with Dragovic, Jasna, eds., Citizenship East and West (London: Kegan Paul International, 1995)Google Scholar. See Title II, Article 13(3) of Costa Rica's constitution of November 8,1949, and Section III, Chapter 1, Article 74 of Uruguay's constitution of December 8, 1996. My source for the documents and translation is Flanz, Gisbert H., ed., Constitutions of the Countries of the World (Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Oceana Publications, 2000)Google Scholar.

²³ Aleinikoff (fn. 2,2001).

²⁴ Joppke(fn. 4).

²⁵ Neuman (fn. 3).

²⁶ Lijphart, Arend, Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-six Countries (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999)Google Scholar.

²⁷ Howard, A. E. Dick, “Judicial Independence in Post-Communist Central and Eastern Europe,” in Russell, Peter H. and O'Brien, David M., eds., Judicial Independence in the Age of Democracy: Critical Perspectives from Around the World (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2001)Google Scholar; Skaar, Elin, “Judicial Independence: A Key to Justice—An Analysis of Latin America in the 1990s (Argentina, Chile, Uruguay)” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 2002)Google Scholar; Utter, Robert F. and Lundsgaard, David C., “Judicial Review in the New Nations of Central and Eastern Europe: Some Thoughts from a Comparative Perspective,” Ohio State Law Journal 54 (Summer 1993)Google Scholar.

²⁸ Klausen (fn. 8).

²⁹ Huber, Evelyne, Ragin, Charles, and Stephens, John D., “Comparative Welfare States Data Set” (Chicago and Chapel Hill: Northwestern University and University of North Carolina, 1997)Google Scholar, www. lisproject.org/publications/welfaredata/welfareaccess.htm (accessed April 7,2006).

³⁰ For missing yearly observations, I use a linear interpolation routine (the “ipolate” command in Stata version 7.0) to impute values for each subject state. International Labour Office, World Labor Report (Geneva: International Labour Office, 1984–1998)Google Scholar.

³¹ Hammar (fn. 7).

³² Blais, Andre, Blake, Donald, and Dion, Stephane, “Do Parties Make a Difference? Parties and the Size of Government in Liberal Democracies,” American Journal of Political Science 37 (February 1993), 49–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³³ Armingeon, Klaus, Beyeler, Michelle, and Menegale, Sarah, Comparative Political Data Set, 1960–2001 (Berne: Institute of Political Science, University of Berne, 2002)Google Scholar.

³⁴ Beck, Thorsten, Clark, George, Groff, Alberto, Keefer, Philip, and Walsh, Patrick, “New Tools in Comparative Political Economy: The Database of Political Institutions,” World Bank Economic Review 15 (September 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Woldendorp, Jaap, Keman, Hans, and Budge, Ian, “Party Government in Twenty Democracies: An Update (1990–1995),” European Journal of Political Research 33 (January 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁵ Sassen (fn. 18); Soysal (fn. 7).

³⁶ Louis DeSipio, “Building America, One Person at a Time: Naturalization and the Political Behavior of the Naturalized in Contemporary American Politics,” in Gerstle and Mollenkopf (fn. 2); Freeman, Gary P., “Modes of Immigration Politics in Liberal Democratic States,” International Migration Review 29 (Winter 1995)Google Scholar; Luis Eduardo Guarnizo, “On the Political Participation of Trans-national Migrants: Old Practices and New Trends,” in Gerstle and Mollenkopf (fn. 2); Money, Jeannette, Fences and Neighbors: The Political Geography of Immigration Control (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1999)Google Scholar.

³⁷ Sassen (fn. 18); Soysal (fn. 7).

³⁸ Barrington (fn. 3).

³⁹ Chikako Kashiwazaki, “Citizenship in Japan: Legal Practice and Contemporary Development,” in Aleinikoff and Klusmeyer (fn. 2).

⁴⁰ Beth A. Simmons, “Why Commit? Explaining State Acceptance of International Human Rights Obligations” (Lecture presented at the Colloquium on Law, Economics, and Politics, New York University School of Law, New York, September 24, 2002).

⁴¹ Sassen (fn. 18).

⁴² Aleinikoff(fn.2,2000).

⁴³ Sikkink, Kathryn, “Human Rights, Principled Issue-Networks, and Sovereignty in Latin American,” International Organization 47 (Summer 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁴ Because this measure is highly skewed toward states with small populations, Anheier and Stares recommend using the log of this measure, a recommendation I follow; Anheier, Helmut and Stares, Sally, “Introducing the Global Civil Society Index,” in Glasius, Marlies, Kaldor, Mary, and Anheier, Helmut, eds., Global Civil Society 2002 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002)Google Scholar. And see Anheier, Helmut, “Measuring Global Civil Society,” in Anheier, Helmut, Glasius, Marlies, and Kaldor, Mary, eds., Global Civil Society 2001 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001)Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ For ease of comparison across time, I look only at organizations coded by the UlA as types A, B, C, and D. The UlA did not classify organizations as types E, F, and G prior to 1984. See Anheier and Stares (fn. 44); Union of International Associations, Yearbook of International Organizations, 11th–39th eds. (Brussels: Union of International Associations, 1967–2002)Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Beck, Nathaniel, “Time-Series-Cross-Section Data: What Have We Learned in the Past Few Years?” Annual Review of Political Science 2001 4 (2001)Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Gleditsch, Kristian S. and Ward, Michael D., “War and Peace in Space and Time: The Role of Democratization,” International Studies Quarterly 44 (March 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; O'Loughlin, John, Ward, Michael D., Lofdahl, Corey L., Cohen, Jordin S., Brown, David S., Reilly, David, Gleditsch, Kristian S., and Shin, Michael, “The Diffusion of Democracy, 1946–1994,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 88 (1999)Google Scholar; Smith, Alastair, “Testing Theories of Strategic Choice: The Example of Crisis Escalation,” American Journal of Political Science 43 (October 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁸ Shanahan, Suzanne, “Scripted Debates: Twentieth-Century Immigration and Citizenship Policy in Great Britain, Ireland, and the United States,” in Hanagan, Michael and Tilly, Charles, eds., Extending Citizenship, Reconfiguring States (New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 1999)Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Lijphart, Arend, Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-seven Democracies, 1945–1990 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Beck et al. (fn. 34).

⁵⁰ Rokkan (fn. 12), 249.

⁵¹ One might argue that one should rank discriminatory national rights above nondiscriminatory local rights—in other words, to reverse ranks 3 and 4. To test nationalist and transnationalist hypotheses, however, I argue one must order the voting rights systems according to their use of nationality as a criterion for the franchise. In this sense, the orders of the dependent variable range from those that most emphasize nationality as a criterion (no rights) to those that do not use nationality as a criterion for the broadest range of rights. For this reason, I rank nondiscriminatory local rights as a higher order than discriminatory national rights, since the latter retains an emphasis on nationality.

⁵² Aleinikoff (fn. 2,2000); Miriam Feldblum, “Managing Membership: NewTrends in Citizenship and Nationality Policy,” in Aleinikoff and Klusmeyer (fn. 2, 2000); Hammar (fn. 7); Kashiwazaki (fn. 39); Soysal (fn. 7).

⁵³ Of the twenty-six states in Figure 1 that have some provision for immigrant voting rights, eight arguably are transitional democracies. Two (Hungary and Uruguay) are in the study's population. Of the remaining six, Bolivia and Colombia have constitutional provisions that allow their legislatures to enfranchise aliens at their discretion, though neither has done so. Estonia's franchise rights are discriminatory (for native Russian speakers only), while Belize, Chile, and Venezuela have local rights only. Given this variability among transitional democracies, it is not clear how alternative sampling criteria would affect the study's hypothesis tests. If anything, since most states that enfranchise aliens are consolidated democracies, the inclusion of a large number of transitional democracies with no rights probably would increase the likelihood of finding no effect for any hypothesized factor.

⁵⁴ Gastil, Raymond D., “The Comparative Survey of Freedom: Experience and Suggestions,” Studies in Comparative International Development 25 (Spring 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Freedom in the World 2001–2002: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties (New York: Freedom House, 2002)Google Scholar; Marshall, Monty G. and Jaggers, Keith, Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–1999, Dataset Users Manual (College Park: University of Maryland, 2000)Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Lijphart (fn. 26), chap. 4.

⁵⁶ Diamond, Larry, “A Report Card on Democracy,” Hoover Digest: Research and Opinion on Public Policy 3 (Summer 2000)Google Scholar; Pippa Norris, “Designing Democracies: Institutional Arrangements and System Support” (Paper presented at the John F. Kennedy School of Government Workshop on Confidence in Democratic Institutions: America in a Comparative Perspective, Washington, D.C., August 25–27,1997).

⁵⁷ United Nations, Department of Economic Affairs and Social Affairs, Population Division, International Migration Report 2002 (New York: United Nations, 2002)Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ Ibid.

⁵⁹ Earnest (fn. 1).

⁶⁰ Bowman, Kirk S., “Taming the Tiger: Militarization and Democracy in Latin America,” Journal of Peace Research 37 (February 1996)Google Scholar; Drury, A. Cooper, “Revisiting Economic Sanctions Revisited,” Journal of Peace Research 35 (July 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Partell, Peter J., “Executive Constraints and Success in International Crises,” Political Research Quarterly 50 (September 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Yoon, Mi Yung, “Explaining U.S. Intervention in Third World Internal Wars, 1945–1989,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 41 (August 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶¹ Beck, Nathaniel and Katz, Jonathan N., “What to Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data,” American Political Science Review 89 (September 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Beck (fn. 46).

⁶² Beck (fn. 46).

⁶³ Green, Donald P., Kim, Soo Yeon, and Yoon, David H., “Dirty Pool,” International Organization 55 (Spring 2001) 455CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁴ Beck (fn. 46), 287.

⁶⁵ Simmons (fn. 40), 17.

⁶⁶ For purposes of comparison and for validation of the findings, I also conducted a PCSE regression of the model. While such analysis is inappropriate for ordered dependent variables, Beck (fn. 46) notes that researchers using ordered variables with seven points commonly treat them as continuous and can estimate such variables with PCSE techniques (p. 273). The dependent variable for this study has only six points, making tenuous any inferences from PCSE estimation. When using PCSE estimation, I assume that there is panel-specific first-order autoregression. The PCSE analysis found the following nationalist and transnational factors significant: birthright citizenship (β = 1.512, s.e. = 0.225); density of NGOs (0.529, 0.092); and proximity to other states that enfranchise noncitizens (0.179, 0.046). The PCSE model also found several controls significant: membership in the British Commonwealth (1.412, 0.235); a history of representative institutions (0.742, 0.259); the center-formed state dummy (0.821, 0.252); and the control for unexplained temporal variation (0.021, 0.008). The PCSE model thus seems to find more support for transnational arguments than the ordered probit model. This support is qualified, however, for two reasons. First, the control variable for time illustrates that there is an overall increase in voting rights over time that the PCSE model does not explain. Second, the reader is again advised to keep in mind Beck's caution that we know little about the consistency of PCSE estimates and the degree to which they are unbiased when one uses an ordered dependent variable; Beck (fn. 46).

⁶⁷ Rath (fn. 1).

⁶⁸ Neuman (fa. 3).

⁶⁹ Rath (fn. 1).

⁷⁰ Klausen (fn. 8).

⁷¹ But see fn. 53.

⁷² Klotz, Audie, “Norms Reconstituting Interests: Global Racial Equality and U.S. Sanctions against South Africa,” International Organization 49 (Summer 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sikkink (fn. 43).

⁷³ Guamizo (fn. 36).

⁷⁴ See fn. 66.

⁷⁵ Rath (fn. 1).