To explain women’s underrepresentation in American politics, researchers have directed their attention to differences between men and women, especially during the candidate emergence process, which includes recruitment, perception of qualifications, and political ambition. Although these previous analyses have shown that consistent dissimilarities likely explain why men outnumber women in government, they have overlooked a more explicit role for gender (masculinity and femininity) in explanations of candidate emergence variation. Meredith Conroy and Sarah Oliver focus on the candidate emergence process (recruitment, perceived qualifications, and ambition), and investigate the affects of individuals’ gender personality on these variables to improve theories of women’s underrepresentation in government. They argue that since politics and masculinity are congruent, we should observe more precise variation in the candidate emergence process along gender differences, than along sex differences in isolation. Individuals who are more masculine will be more likely to be recruited, perceive of themselves as qualified, and express political ambition, than less masculine individuals. This differs from studies that look at sex differences, because it accepts that some women defy gender norms and break into politics. By including a measure of gender personality we can more fully grapple with women’s progress in American politics, and consider whether this progress rests on masculine behaviors and attributes. Who Runs? The Masculine Advantage in Candidate Emergence explores this possibility and the potential ramifications.

Welcome to the Matriarchy. Sixty years after a virus has wiped out almost all the men on the planet, things are pretty much just as you would imagine a world run by women might be: war has ended; greed is not tolerated; the ecological needs of the planet are always put first. In two generations, the female population has grieved, pulled together and moved on, and life really is pretty good - if you're a girl. It's not so great if you're a boy, but fourteen-year-old River wouldn't know that. Until she met Mason, she thought they were extinct.

The world is a mess. It’s constantly at war, things cost too much, and the average person struggles to survive against powers they can barely see, let alone control. It appears so at odds with common sense, in fact, that it begs a fundamental question: Who runs the world? This book looks at the conspiracies in everyday life, both hidden and not-so-hidden. It examines actual people, businesses, social networks, corporate alliances, and the dark forces of conspiracy and secret history that hold them together. The conclusions reached may shock and scandalize some people—especially those who fervently believe in democracy—but will fascinate everyone.

To explain women’s underrepresentation in American politics, researchers have directed their attention to differences between men and women, especially during the candidate emergence process, which includes recruitment, perception of qualifications, and political ambition. Although these previous analyses have shown that consistent dissimilarities likely explain why men outnumber women in government, they have overlooked a more explicit role for gender (masculinity and femininity) in explanations of candidate emergence variation. Meredith Conroy and Sarah Oliver focus on the candidate emergence process (recruitment, perceived qualifications, and ambition), and investigate the affects of individuals’ gender personality on these variables to improve theories of women’s underrepresentation in government. They argue that since politics and masculinity are congruent, we should observe more precise variation in the candidate emergence process along gender differences, than along sex differences in isolation. Individuals who are more masculine will be more likely to be recruited, perceive of themselves as qualified, and express political ambition, than less masculine individuals. This differs from studies that look at sex differences, because it accepts that some women defy gender norms and break into politics. By including a measure of gender personality we can more fully grapple with women’s progress in American politics, and consider whether this progress rests on masculine behaviors and attributes. Who Runs? The Masculine Advantage in Candidate Emergence explores this possibility and the potential ramifications.

Nearly one hundred thousand newly enfranchised blacks voted against race-baiting Eugene Talmadge in Georgia's 1946 Democratic primary. His opponent won the popular vote by a majority of sixteen thousand. Talmadge was elected anyway, thanks to the malapportioning county unit system, but died before he could be inaugurated, whereupon the General Assembly chose his son Herman to take his place. For the next sixty-three days, Georgia waited in shock for the state supreme court to decide whether Herman or the lieutenant governor-elect would be seated. What had happened to so suddenly reverse four years of progressive reform under retiring governor Ellis Arnall? To find out, Calvin Kytle and James A. Mackay sat through the tumultuous 1947 assembly, then toured Georgia's 159 counties asking politicians, public officials, editors, businessmen, farmers, factory workers, civic leaders, lobbyists, academicians, and preachers the question "Who runs Georgia?" Among those interviewed were editor Ralph McGill, novelist Lillian Smith, defeated gubernatorial candidate James V. Carmichael, powerbroker Roy Harris, pollwatcher Ira Butt, and more than a hundred others--men and women, black and white, heroes and rogues--of all stripes and stations. The result, as Dan T. Carter says in his foreword, captures "the substance and texture of political life in the American South" during an era that historians have heretofore neglected--those years of tension between the end of the New Deal and the explosive start of the civil rights movement. What's more, Who Runs Georgia? has much to tell us about campaign finance and the political influence of Big Money, as relevant for the nation today as it was then for the state.

Churches have split and denominations have formed over the issue of church government. While many Christians can explain their church's form of rule or defend it because of its "tried and true" traditions, few people understand their church's administrative customs from a biblical perspective. Who Runs the Church? explores questions such as: What model for governing the church does the Bible provide, and is such a model given for practical or spiritual reasons? Is there room for different methods within Christianity? Or is there a right way of "doing church"? And, finally, how (and by whom) should the church be governed? Four predominant approaches to church government are presented by respected proponents: Episcopalianism - represented by Peter Toon Presbyterianism - represented by L. Roy Taylor Single-Elder Congregationalism - represented by Paige Patterson Plural-Elder Congregationalism - represented by Samuel E. Waldron As in other Counterpoints books, each view is followed by critiques from the other contributors, and its advocate then responds.

The past few decades have seen a massive increase in the number of international organizations focusing on global health. Campaigns to eradicate or stem the spread of AIDS, SARS, malaria, and Ebola attest to the increasing importance of globally-oriented health organizations. These organizations may be national, regional, international, or even non-state organizations-like Medicins Sans Frontieres. One of the more important recent trends in global health governance, though, has been the rise of public-private partnerships (PPPs) where private non-governmental organizations, for-profit enterprises, and various other social entrepreneurs work hand-in-hand with governments to combat specific maladies. A primary driver for this development is the widespread belief that by joining together, PPPs will attack health problems and fund shared efforts more effectively than other systems. As Chelsea Clinton and Devi Sridhar show in Governing Global Health, these partnerships are not only important for combating infectious diseases; they also provide models for developing solutions to a host of other serious global health challenges and questions beyond health. But what do we actually know about the accountability and effectiveness of PPPs in relation to the traditional multilaterals? According to Clinton and Sridhar, we have known very little because scholars have not accumulated enough data or developed effective ways to assess them-until now. In their analysis, they uncovered both strength and weaknesses of the model. Using principal-agent theory in which governments are the principals directing international agents of various type, they take a closer look at two major PPPs-the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria and the GAVI Alliance-and two major more traditional international organizations-the World Health Organization and the World Bank. An even-handed and thorough empirical analysis of one of the most pressing topics in world affairs, Governing Global Health will reshape our understanding of how organizations can more effectively prevent the spread of communicable diseases like AIDS and reduce pervasive chronic health problems like malnutrition.