<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	
	xmlns:adano="http://adambrown.info/p/xmlns/adano#" 
>

<channel>
	<title>Abstract Politics &#187; spatial models</title>
	<atom:link href="http://abstractpolitics.com/tag/spatial-models/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://abstractpolitics.com</link>
	<description>Notes on political science research</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:07:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>A Formal Model of Learning and Policy Diffusion</title>
		<link>http://abstractpolitics.com/2009/02/a-formal-model-of-learning-and-policy-diffusion/</link>
		<comments>http://abstractpolitics.com/2009/02/a-formal-model-of-learning-and-policy-diffusion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:25:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>A.B.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[American Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american political science review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[diffusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[game theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[responsiveness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spatial models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://abstractpolitics.com/?p=42</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Those who advocate federalism argue that devolution improves policy outcomes nationwide by providing opportunities for local experimentation. In the words of Louis Brandeis, justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1932): It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://abstractpolitics.com/2009/02/a-formal-model-of-learning-and-policy-diffusion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Candidate Positioning and Voter Choice</title>
		<link>http://abstractpolitics.com/2009/01/candidate-positioning-and-voter-choice/</link>
		<comments>http://abstractpolitics.com/2009/01/candidate-positioning-and-voter-choice/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:53:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>A.B.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[American Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american political science review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[experiment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ideology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[median voter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[partisanship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polarization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spatial models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voting and elections]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://abstractpolitics.com/?p=34</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Issue-based voting seems simple enough on its face: Support the candidate who will produce the policies you want. Simple as it sounds, though, there are three competing theories as to how voters actually make this decision. The lengthy previous literature on candidate positioning has failed to distinguish empirically between these three theories&#8211;something that Tomz and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://abstractpolitics.com/2009/01/candidate-positioning-and-voter-choice/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

