This feature is part of an ongoing RSF blog series, Work in Progress, which highlights some of the ongoing research of our current class of Visiting Scholars.

During his time in residence at the Russell Sage Foundation, Thomas Palfrey (California Institute of Technology) is writing a book on Quantal Response Equilibrium (QRE) and its applications to the social sciences. Developed by Palfrey and Richard McKelvey, QRE is a game theory concept that is now one of the leading approaches to modeling bounded rationality—the idea that individuals’ rationality is limited by the information they have—in games.

In a new interview with the Foundation, Palfrey explained some of the basic applications of game theory to public policy, and the limitations of those approaches.

Q. What is Nash Equilibrium? How has it been applied to public policy, and what are its limitations?

A new article by RSF grantee Sadeq Rahimi, who also contributed to the 2011 RSF publication Shattering Culture, has been published in Anthropology & Medicine. The abstract states:

It is not uncommon to encounter ‘the culture of psychiatry’ used as a descriptive or even explanatory concept in discussions of psychiatric practices and services, specifically in research addressing cultural aspects of psychiatry. Drawing on data from research on the role of culture in psychiatric services in the Boston area, this paper critically examines the attribution of a ‘culture’ to psychiatry, which is prevalent not simply in mainstream psychiatric literature, but also in certain lines of cultural psychiatry, specifically those dedicated to political and anti-racist activism. It is argued that the use of such terminology could be misleading as it implicitly attributes a sense of coherence and agency to what may best be described as a set of related discourses and sociopolitical practices. It is further suggested that, given the implications of using such terminology as ‘culture’ in our discussions of psychiatry as a social institution, a scientific discourse, or a clinical practice, it would be more fruitful to address the analytic concepts of power, meaning, and the sociopolitical functions of psychiatry instead.

Below is a first look at new and forthcoming books from the Foundation for Spring 2015. The list includes Beyond Obamacare, a major new analysis of how to reorient the broken health care system in the U.S.; The Asian American Achievement Paradox, an investigation of the “model minority” stereotype and why certain immigrant groups succeed; Too Many Children Left Behind, a comparative study across four countries of the socioeconomic achievement gap among grade-school children; and Gender and International Migration, a historical evaluation of the changes in gendered migration patterns over several centuries.

To request a printed copy of our Spring 2015 catalog, please contact Bruce Thongsack at bruce@rsage.org, or view the complete list of RSF books on our publications page.

This feature is part of an ongoing RSF blog series, Work in Progress, which highlights some of the ongoing research of our current class of Visiting Scholars.

During her time in residence at the Russell Sage Foundation, Susan Stokes (Yale) is writing a book investigating why people choose to participate in elections and demonstrations. She argues that the cost of abstention—or how much a person feels he or she will lose by not voting—can explain why people turn out at higher rates when the office to be filled is elevated. Stokes is also exploring how the cost of abstention may shed new insight on why low-income populations vote at lower rates than more affluent populations.

In a new interview with the Foundation, Stokes discussed how this theory complements prior models of political participation. She also detailed how the cost of abstention can help us understand what drives people to vote and to take part in political demonstrations—including, surprisingly, when violent police repression occurs.

Q. Much of the research on political participation has focused on the cost of participation. By contrast, your current research offers a model of the cost of abstention, which includes factors like the guilt or discomfort that may result from not voting. How does this complement the classic Riker and Ordeshook theory of the calculus of voting? Can we think of the costs of abstention as being similar to feeling a sense of duty when it comes to political participation?

In his State of the Union address on January 20, President Obama introduced the idea of “middle-class economics.” Recounting the story of the Erlers, a Minneapolis family struggling to pay off student loans and recover from a stint of unemployment, Obama stressed the need to “restore the link between hard work and growing opportunity for every American.” Middle-class economics would entail more aid for working families such as a higher minimum wage, quality child care, access to higher education, and paid sick leave. These policies, he concluded, would support “the idea that this country does best when everyone gets their fair shot, everyone does their fair share, everyone plays by the same set of rules.”

A new article in the New York Times confirms that America’s middle class has, indeed, been floundering. Though most Americans continue to identify as middle class—and 60% of those believe that it is still possible for them to become rich—incomes have stagnated, leaving more and more families struggling to get by. The Times article cites RSF trustee Lawrence Katz, who observed that while those at the top of the income ladder have benefited from the economy’s slow recovery from the Great Recession, most middle-class workers have seen few economic gains. He noted, “You’ve got an iPhone now and a better TV, but your median income hasn’t changed. What’s really changed is the penthouse has become supernice.”