Do the leaders of minority communities in divided cities influence group members’ expressed willingness to engage politically with rival groups? Studies typically link group members’ willingness to engage with rival groups to direct contact between individuals from opposing groups. However, such contact is problematic in divided cities, wherein opportunities to interact are scarce and frowned upon. Focusing on the contested urban space of Jerusalem, we find indications that the diverse nature of community leadership in East Jerusalem can influence Palestinian residents’ attitudes towards political engagement with Israeli authorities via municipal elections. The ‘middlemen’ role can explain community leaders’ influence in divided cities. They facilitate indirect contact between their constituents and the other group’s members or institutions. Our analysis employs original data from a public opinion survey conducted among Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem immediately prior to the Jerusalem 2018 municipal elections. It has ramifications regarding urban governance for other divided cities.
What are the conditions under which business corporations expand their institutional power? This paper argues that institutional power is affected by the architecture of the “acquisition regime” – the set of formal (and informal) rules that govern how states purchase public services. A shift towards marketization in this regime leads to micro-level policy feedback effects that contribute to the accumulation of institutional power among large business corporations. We illustrate this through process tracing the change in the acquisition regime of social services in Israel in the 2010s, relying on multiple data sources and analysis, including interviews, public procurement data, policy documents and corporate reports. We argue that the alignment of market-based approach and practices in social services acquisition with business corporations' capitalist, expansionary logic and competitive experience contributed to their empowerment in a changing institutional environment. Additionally, the increasing embeddedness of corporations in state service provision enabled them to reshape further procurement rules to their advantage. Our work contributes to the conceptualization and theory on institutional power.
Minimal sufficiency readings of exclusive modifiers (Just the thought of food makes me hungry) have resisted a comprehensive semantic analysis that accurately predicts their distribution. In this paper we show that the distribution of minimal sufficiency readings is directly correlated with the interpretation of plural arguments and that the distributional facts reflect the connection between plural predication and scalarity: sufficiency readings are licensed precisely in contexts where ordering relations over alternatives are reversed. We develop a semantics for exclusives that is capable of generating either exclusive or sufficiency readings depending on the direction of scalarity.
This paper develops a formal methodology for capturing and representing the semantics of causal expressions in natural languages. Focusing on two causative constructions—covert causatives (change-of-state verbs) and overt causatives (the verb cause)—it provides a proof of concept for analyzing the distinguished meanings of different causative constructions. We adopt the formal framework of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to analyze causality and integrate it into model-theoretic semantics for interpreting causal statements. In our approach, the selection of a cause within a particular construction depends on its inclusion in a sufficient set of conditions that bring about the effect, as well as on specific properties of the cause itself. To formalize this process, we introduce the concept of causative-construction selection (CC-selection), which captures how speakers select a causative construction that aligns with the relational structure between states of affairs. For each relevant condition within the sufficient set, CC-selection determines whether it can be encoded as the cause in a statement articulated through a specific causative construction, thereby describing a particular state of affairs. We argue that CC-selection plays a central role in shaping the meaning of causal statements. By leveraging the SEM framework, CC-selection effects can be formally explained through contrasts within the structure of a model. For instance, notions of sufficiency and necessity, which play a crucial role in these selections, are rigorously defined within SEM, allowing for a precise account of CC-selection effects. This paper further illustrates how CC-selection accounts for contrastive inference patterns across constructions. By focusing on the two causative constructions central to our discussion, it resolves longstanding puzzles associated with change-of-state verbs. The proposed framework establishes a foundation for the systematic study of causal language, bridging semantics and philosophy while providing tools to investigate the interplay between causative constructions and their associated causal meanings.
