Volume 58, Number 4, July 2026

Research on social movements has illuminated when and how they influence policy formulation, but less is known about what shapes the durability of those policies once adopted. Why do some victories endure while others erode? Drawing on the process-tracing of seventeen movements around mining conflicts in Ecuador and Peru during the 2000s commodity boom, we argue that post-adoption politics are critical. Policy durability requires movements to sustain pressure both from civil society and the state. Beyond sustained mobilization power, durable full gains hinge on two strategic objectives: leveraging a decision point in regulatory agencies and securing a favorable ruling from a higher-level authority such as the presidency or high courts. Movements achieving only the former attain temporary partial gains; lacking both leads to defeat.

Political corruption is a leading governance challenge, yet governments often lack the will to tackle it and may use anti-corruption to undermine democracy. This dilemma has given rise to international anti-corruption commissions (IACCs), which rely on partnerships between international experts and domestic personnel. Why are some IACCs granted independence, while others are politically subordinate? Focusing on northern Central America, this article argues that where coalitions comprised of government insiders and domestic activists maintain a seat at the negotiating table, they use their agenda-setting capacities, expertise, and ability to raise the audience costs of incumbent maneuvers to dilute anti-corruption to ensure greater IACC independence. Additionally, struggles over IACC autonomy are influenced by transnational dynamics, as political leaders learn from one another how to limit anti-corruption enforcement.

Why can support for cash transfers decrease among beneficiaries when poverty is growing? This article argues that support for redistributive policies is dynamic and shaped by citizens’ evaluations of policy results. When beneficiaries feel cash transfers help them cope with hardship, support can increase. However, if recipients perceive these policies as insufficient in offsetting their economic situation, they may view them as ineffective in consistently alleviating poverty. Consequently, recipients may oppose expanding cash transfers while continuing to support deeper redistributive policies—such as education and job-training programs—that offer long-term economic improvement. Using a multi-method design that combines weighted difference-in-differences estimations, machine learning models, focus groups, and a novel face-to-face survey in Argentina, the findings show how preferences for redistribution can change in different contexts.

Amid rising illiberal anti-LGBTQI backlash, some opposition politicians fear that resisting it is a political trap that could jeopardize their electoral fortunes. We evaluate this concern in Hungary, where Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz government passed a law banning Pride marches. The leading opposition figure, Péter Magyar of Tisza, initially avoided opposing the law, ostensibly to protect his party’s future electoral prospects. In a May 2025 survey experiment, we find that this “avoidance” strategy reduces Magyar’s approval while failing to increase support for his party. Theoretically, we conceptualize a value-credibility cost mechanism through which elite silence diminishes moral authority, cedes issue ownership, and weakens support for LGBTQI rights. Our results, buttressed by interviews with LGBTQI organizers, contribute to a literature on the costs and benefits of minority rights inclusion in electoral strategy.

The colonial origins of development paradigm have generated important explanations for unequal development in the Global South. Through a review of four recently published books, I critique the colonial origins framework to highlight its limitations. I first critique the colonial origins paradigm for its empirical focus on variation among formerly colonized countries, which obscures the large-scale and enduring inequalities between states in the Global South and the Global North. Secondly, I critique the colonial logic of “development,” which centers the epistemic and material dominance of the Global North and marginalizes the ways of knowing and social organization of indigenous and internally colonized subjects. I conclude by discussing the implications of these critiques for how we understand global inequality and alternative solutions articulated from the Global South.