TY - JOUR A1 - Kayser, Mark A. A1 - Orlowski, Matthias A1 - Rehmert, Jochen T1 - Coalition inclusion probabilities: a party-strategic measure for predicting policy and politics JF - Political Science Research and Methods N2 - Policy in coalition governments (a) depends on negotiations between parties that (b) continue between elections. No extant means of predicting policy—bargaining power indices, vote shares, seat shares, polling, veto players or measures of electoral competitiveness—recognizes both of these facts. We conceptualize, estimate and validate the first dynamic measure of parties’ bargaining leverage intended to predict policy and politics. We argue that those parties with the greatest leverage in policy negotiations are those with the highest probability of participating in an alternative government, were one to form. Combining a large set of political polls and an empirical coalition formation model developed with out-of-sample testing, we estimate coalition inclusion probabilities for parties in a sample of 21 parliamentary democracies at a monthly frequency over four decades. Applications to government spending and to the stringency of environmental policy show leverage from coalition inclusion probabilities to be strongly predictive while the primary alternatives—vote shares, seat shares and polls—are not. Y1 - 2023 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2021.75 VL - 11 IS - 2 SP - 328 EP - 346 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Gond, Jean-Pascal A1 - Mena, Sébastien A1 - Mosonyi, Szilvia T1 - The performativity of literature reviewing: Constituting the corporate social responsibility literature through re-presentation and intervention JF - Organizational Research Methods N2 - Although numerous books and articles provide toolkit approaches to explain how to conduct literature reviews, these prescriptions regard literature reviewing as the production of representations of academic fields. Such representationalism is rarely questioned. Building on insights from social studies of science, we conceptualize literature reviewing as a performative endeavor that co-constitutes the literature it is supposed to “neutrally” describe, through a dual movement of re-presenting—constructing an account different from the literature, and intervening—adding to and potentially shaping this literature. We discuss four problems inherent to this movement of performativity—description, explicitness, provocation, and simulacrum—and then explore them through a systematic review of 48 reviews of the literature on corporate social responsibility (CSR) for the period 1975 to 2019. We provide evidence for the performative role of literature reviewing in the CSR field through both re-presenting and intervening. We find that reviews performed the CSR literature and, accordingly, the field’s boundaries, categories, and priorities in a self-sustaining manner. By reflexively subjecting our own systematic review to the four performative problems we discuss, we also derive implications of performative analysis for the practice of literature reviewing. Y1 - 2023 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120935494 SN - 1094-4281 VL - 26 IS - 2 SP - 195 EP - 228 ER -