Excluded from the ranks of elite executive decision-makers for generations, women are now exercising power as chiefs of government and chiefs of state. As of April 2016, 112 women in 73 countries have served as presidents or prime ministers.  

The Gendered Executive is a critical examination of national executives, focusing on matters of identity, representation, and power. The editors and contributors to this volume address the impact of female executives through political mobilization and participation, policy- and decision-making, and institutional change. Other topics include party nomination processes, the intersectionality of race and gender, and women-centered U.S. foreign policy in southern Africa. In addition, case studies from Chile, India, Portugal, and the United States are presented, as are cross-national comparisons of women leaders in Latin America. 

The Gendered Executive will enhance our understanding of the complexity of gender in  and comparative analyses of executive politics.

Contributors include: Amy C. Alexander, Sheetal Chhabria, Georgia Duerst-Lahti, Maria C. Escobar-Lemmon, Cory Charles Gooding, Lilly Goren, Karen M. Hult, Farida Jalalzai, Daniela F. Melo, Catherine Reyes-Housholder, Ariella R. Rotramel, Leslie A. Schwindt-Bayer, Michelle M. Taylor-Robinson, and the editors

Focused on structural and political intersectionalities, Gendered Pluralism takes a broader approach to understanding the constellation of factors that drive gender and racial differences on an array of public policy issues. Belinda Robnett and Katherine Tate examine a broader set of actors absent the contextual factors that may drive them to compromise their opinions. Their study examines the ways in which (1) men and women differ on public policy issues and the factors that drive these differences; (2) whites and racial-ethnic minorities differ on public policy issues and the factors that drive these differences; (3) women differ on public policy issues and the factors that drive these differences; (4) African-American men and women differ on public policy issues and the factors that drive these differences; and (5) African-American women differ on public policy issues and the factors that drive these differences.

This volume provides systematic information on the campaigns, political parties, and results of the Bundestag elections of 1980, 1983, and 1987. It explores the issues between elections in addition to providing an overview of the campaigns and an analysis of the three election results. The contributors examine the various parties involved—the Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union, the Social Democratic Party, the Free Democratic Party, and the Greens. They also analyze the role of the media in the 1980 and 1983 campaigns. Cerny concludes with a general assessment of the wider significance of the three elections for the West German political system.

Contributors. Kendall L. Baker, Karl H. Cerny, David P. Conradt, Arthur B. Gunlicks, Alice McGillivray, Peter H. Merkl, Ferdinand Muller-Rommel, Helmut Norpoth, Richard M. Scammon, Donald Schoonmaker, Christian Soe

Each of the past few election cycles has featured at least one instance of "primarying," a challenge to an incumbent on the grounds that he or she is not sufficiently partisan. For many observers, such races signify an increasingly polarized electorate and an increasing threat to moderates of both parties.

In Getting Primaried, Robert G. Boatright shows that primary challenges are not becoming more frequent; they wax and wane in accordance with partisan turnover in Congress. The recent rise of primarying corresponds to the rise of national fundraising bases and new types of partisan organizations supporting candidates around the country. National fundraising efforts and interest group–supported primary challenges have garnered media attention disproportionate to their success in winning elections. Such challenges can work only if groups focus on a small number of incumbents.

Getting Primaried makes several key contributions to congressional scholarship. It presents a history of congressional primary challenges over the past forty years, measuring the frequency of competitive challenges and distinguishing among types of challenges. It provides a correction to accounts of the link between primary competition and political polarization. Further, this study offers a new theoretical understanding of the role of interest groups in congressional elections.

"To discover who rules, follow the gold." This is the argument of Golden Rule, a provocative, pungent history of modern American politics. Although the role big money plays in defining political outcomes has long been obvious to ordinary Americans, most pundits and scholars have virtually dismissed this assumption. Even in light of skyrocketing campaign costs, the belief that major financial interests primarily determine who parties nominate and where they stand on the issues—that, in effect, Democrats and Republicans are merely the left and right wings of the "Property Party"—has been ignored by most political scientists. Offering evidence ranging from the nineteenth century to the 1994 mid-term elections, Golden Rule shows that voters are "right on the money."

Thomas Ferguson breaks completely with traditional voter centered accounts of party politics. In its place he outlines an "investment approach," in which powerful investors, not unorganized voters, dominate campaigns and elections. Because businesses "invest" in political parties and their candidates, changes in industrial structures—between large firms and sectors—can alter the agenda of party politics and the shape of public policy.

Golden Rule presents revised versions of widely read essays in which Ferguson advanced and tested his theory, including his seminal study of the role played by capital intensive multinationals and international financiers in the New Deal. The chapter "Studies in Money Driven Politics" brings this aspect of American politics into better focus, along with other studies of Federal Reserve policy making and campaign finance in the 1936 election. Ferguson analyzes how a changing world economy and other social developments broke up the New Deal system in our own time, through careful studies of the 1988 and 1992 elections. The essay on 1992 contains an extended analysis of the emergence of the Clinton coalition and Ross Perot's dramatic independent insurgency. A postscript on the 1994 elections demonstrates the controlling impact of money on several key campaigns.

This controversial work by a theorist of money and politics in the U.S. relates to issues in campaign finance reform, PACs, policymaking, public financing, and how today's elections work.