This letter presents a distributive environmental justice analysis of unconventional gas development in the area of Pennsylvania lying over the Marcellus Shale, the largest shale gas formation in play in the United States. The extraction of shale gas using unconventional wells, which are hydraulically fractured (fracking), has increased dramatically since 2005. As the number of wells has grown, so have concerns about the potential public health effects on nearby communities. These concerns make shale gas development an environmental justice issue. This letter examines whether the hazards associated with proximity to wells and the economic benefits of shale gas production are fairly distributed. We distinguish two types of distributive environmental justice: traditional and benefit sharing. We ask the traditional question: are there a disproportionate number of minority or low-income residents in areas near to unconventional wells in Pennsylvania? However, we extend this analysis in two ways: we examine income distribution and level of education; and we compare before and after shale gas development. This contributes to discussions of benefit sharing by showing how the income distribution of the population has changed. We use a binary dasymetric technique to remap the data from the 2000 US Census and the 2009-2013 American Communities Survey and combine that data with a buffer containment analysis of unconventional wells to compare the characteristics of the population living nearer to unconventional wells with those further away before and after shale gas development. Our analysis indicates that there is no evidence of traditional distributive environmental injustice: there is not a disproportionate number of minority or low-income residents in areas near to unconventional wells. However, our analysis is consistent with the claim that there is benefit sharing distributive environmental injustice: the income distribution of the population nearer to shale gas wells has not been transformed since shale gas development.

No abstract

Political scientists have long recognized that the number of parties in a country influences the way that interests are represented in that country. One explanation for the number of parties in a system relies on the idea of strategic voting, i.e. voters may not want to ‘waste a vote’ by voting for a third party. However, work in this area does not address the role of an important factor that may affect party systems through strategic voting: information. Without polls, how could voters know which parties were likely to win, and hence how to vote strategically? Using an agent-based model, this article assesses the role that information plays in shaping the party system through strategic voting. The results of this model demonstrate that, contrary to Duverger's Law, more than two parties may emerge in single-member plurality systems, even when all voters are strategic.

Civil society is one of the most widely used-and widely maligned-concepts in development studies. In this paper, we argue that much confusion regarding civil society stems from the omnibus nature of its conceptualization. We consider civil society to be an omnibus concept because it has been imbued with several distinct meanings-a normative meaning (civil society as civilized), a functional meaning (civil society as democratizing), and a structural meaning (civil society as a third sector). Using the example of humanitarian NGOs, we demonstrate how the omnibus nature of civil society resists systematization and requires scholars to make problematic assumptions when designing empirical research. As a solution, we propose replacing "civil society" in empirical research with the structural "third-sector" concept. This move narrows the gap between the actors that scholars study and the theoretical construct that they are supposed to represent; it brings the third sector into conceptual alignment with our understanding of the first and second sectors (the market and the state); and it improves our efforts to compare findings across cases and build generalized theories. It also enables scholars to consider questions of power, resources, and influence when studying development NGOs-questions that are difficult to ask when notions of "civil society" are defined as actors that understand, represent, and advocate on behalf of their "constituents." We conclude that "civil society" as a concept should be maintained for theoretical analyses of what makes society civil but that empirical studies of development are best served by a third-sector approach. KEYWORDS development, civil society, NGOs, third sector, concept stretching Civil society is one of the most widely used-and widely maligned-concepts in development studies.1 On the one hand, civil society is considered to be enormously consequential for development processes. Among its many responsibilities, a strong civil society is expected to create responsive states (Putnam ; Carothers ; Peruzzotti ), strengthen democracy (Muller and Seligson ; Verba, Schlozman, and Brady ; Blair ; Gibson ; Newton ; Jordan ), defend human rights (Risse ; Ward ), promote the efficient and fair distribution of basic social services (Gordon Drabek ; Fowler ; Colclough and Manor ; Meyer ), generate social capital and expand levels of generalized trust (Inglehart ; Putnam ; Mishler and Rose ; Woolcock ; Uslaner ), serve as a conduit between constituencies and the public sphere (Verba, Nie, and Kim ; Rosenstone and Hansen ), mediate conflict between ethnic communities (Varshney ; Uslaner and Conley ), and spread progressive cultural norms (Risse ; Edelman ).