Over at GLOBALCIT, we have a blog post on our recent research note on Covid-19 travel restrictions. We ask what we can learn from previous public health emergencies, and use this as the basis to discuss 5 research avenues that can advance our understanding of the effects of a public health emergency on the global mobility regime.
Piccoli, Lorenzo, Jelena Dzankic, Timothy Jacobs-Owen, and Didier Ruedin. 2022. ‘Restricting Human Movement during the COVID-19 Pandemic: New Research Avenues in the Study of Mobility, Migration, and Citizenship’. International Migration Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/01979183221118907
I’m happy to announce that our research note on studying border closures and related restrictions to human mobility in the context of Covid-19 is now available at the International Migration Review.
We highlight how restrictions to human mobility were far from uniform across time and countries. The research note identifies 7 different databases that systematically collected information on these restrictions, which should help others identify the right database — they vary in what exactly they cover.
We also present possible research avenues in connection with these data on mobility restrictions: (1) drivers of Covid-19 mobility restrictions, (2) patterns of policy convergence and divergence, (3) the legality of mobility restrictions, (4) continuity and change in global migration policy, (5) citizenship and international mobility rights. In all these cases, data on restrictions during the pandemic can significantly advance research on the governance of mobility, migration, and citizenship.
Piccoli, Lorenzo, Jelena Dzankic, Didier Ruedin, and Timothy Jacobs-Owen. 2022. “Restricting Human Movement during the COVID-19 Pandemic: New Research Avenues in the Study of Mobility, Migration, and Citizenship.” International Migration Review. doi: 10.1177/01979183221118907.
It’s been a while since Maria Sobolewska suggested to me, that perhaps the association between public attitudes and political representation may be different under different electoral systems (PR versus majoritarian). The intuition here is that institutions always work in a particular context. To some extent, my work acknowledged this by leaving out unfree countries because the expected dynamics are different — but there indeed is more to it.
I have shown that there is a strong association between positive attitudes to minorities and the inclusion of minorities in political offices.
If we look at the interaction between attitudes and electoral system, we find that this association is much stronger under majoritarian/MMM systems. Although I’m not sure that we should read much into the blue line here (PR/MMP systems) because the ethnic representation score does not vary that much.
At the same time, looking at gender representation, we find a strong association between attitudes in the population and gender representation scores.
Ruedin, Didier. 2009. “Ethnic Group Representation in a Cross-National Comparison.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 15(4):335–54. doi: 10.1080/13572330903302448.
Ruedin, Didier. 2012. “The Representation of Women in National Parliaments: A Cross-National Comparison.” European Sociological Review 28(1):96–109. doi: 10.1093/esr/jcq050.
Ruedin, Didier. 2013. Why Aren’t They There? The Political Representation of Women, Ethnic Groups and Issue Positions in Legislatures. Colchester: ECPR Press.
Ruedin, Didier. 2020. “Ethnic and Regional Minorities.” Pp. 211–28 in Handbook of Political Representation in Liberal Democracies, edited by R. Rohrschneider and J. J. Thomassen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1177/01979183221118907
Didier Ruedin 