Introduction and Contribution

One cannot today talk about important political phenomena such as democratic backsliding. Indeed, political leaders and parties in both democracies and autocracies increasingly appeal to differences between places, especially the divide between urban and rural communities, to mobilize voters. Narratives that blame urbanites for the social and economic problems facing rural communities have become an important tool for justifying anti-democratic measures and polarizing electorates. At the same time, voters in many urban places feel increasingly resentful toward rural residents, arguing that these residents exert too much political control over their lives. Apart from these broader developments, however, much remains unknown about how places shape and are shaped by politics. 

In “Place Attachments,” Elizabeth Mitchell Elder and Hans Lueders argue that social scientists have failed to make an important distinction between being attached to a place and identifying with groups that live in a place. Place attachments provide a sense of continuity and stability in one’s life. By contrast, place identities are tied to various “reference groups” that share attributes and values and provide members with a sense of self-esteem. This distinction matters: individuals can be attached to a specific place, such as rural Appalachia or New York City, while not identifying with rural or urban places or the people who inhabit them. The former — what the authors call “place attachment” — brings about a deep investment in one’s local community and strong local political engagement. The latter — what the authors call “place identity” — may bring about the same amount of local political engagement, but can also come with animosity toward individuals residing in other places or types of places — animosity that can be exploited by political leaders. 

To understand the consequences of place attachments, Elder and Lueders conduct original surveys of voters in Germany, the United States, and the Appalachian region of the United States. Survey respondents with a strong sense of belonging and commitment to their place are more trusting of local governments, more engaged with local politics, and tend to prefer local candidates. “Place Attachments” makes an important contribution by conceptualizing and measuring a phenomenon that has often been conflated with identity and that shapes political behavior  in consequential  ways.

The Importance of American and German Place-Based Attachments

Elder and Lueders leverage original surveys of voters in the United States and Germany because they differ considerably in terms of mobility and the role that place and geographic identity have played in each country’s history. An additional survey run among residents of Appalachia draws attention to a region where place attachments are strong despite the region’s poor socioeconomic outcomes; many residents remain strongly attached to it. 

The authors operationalize place attachments in terms of respondents’ agreement with five statements about their current place of residence: that they feel like they belong there, that it is an important part of who they are, that they feel at home there, that it reminds them of their past, and that they would like to remain there for the rest of their lives. Respondents varied significantly in terms of the strength of their place attachments: about 25% agreed with all five statements, 15% disagreed with all five, and the remainder were evenly distributed across the other combinations (e.g., agreeing with two, agreeing with three). However, distributions were similar across all three geographic samples.
 

Image

Fig. 1: Distribution of strength of local attachments in all three samples: share of respondents who agree somewhat or strongly with the number of statements reported on the horizontal axis.
 

Two main demographic correlates of place attachments are found to be of importance: older people and those who have resided for longer in a place have stronger attachments. In terms of politics, Germans who support the Social Democratic Party and the center-right Christian Democratic Union have stronger place attachments than do supporters of the far-right Alternative for Germany. In the United States, by contrast, the strength of one’s partisan identity matters more than party affiliation: Democrats and Republicans both score higher, especially as they identify more strongly with either party, than Independents.
 

Image

Fig. 2: Demographic correlates of local attachments. Estimated strength of local attachments by select demographic groups.
 

Local attachments are weakly related to measures of a place’s “objective” quality, such as life expectancy or unemployment rates, and they also vary little across urbanites and ruralites. The latter is surprising given the common assumption that rural residents have especially strong attachments to place. When asked to describe what they like most about a place, respondents rarely mentioned their co-residents’ physical attributes or values. This provides evidence for the authors’ claim that place attachments are conceptually distinct from place identities.

The authors then analyze how place attachments relate to political behavior. They find that respondents with stronger place attachments are relatively more engaged in their local communities: they are more trusting of their local governments, spend more time reading and talking about local politics, and are more likely to believe that they can influence political outcomes in their local communities. Individuals with strong local attachments are also more likely to participate in local elections or local voluntary organizations.
 

Image

Fig. 5: Correlations between local attachments and engagement in national and local politics. Left and center panels: estimated relationship between local attachments and various measures of political engagement at the national and local levels. Right panel: estimated relationship between local attachments and the difference in national vs. local engagement (negative values here mean relatively more local than national engagement).
 

Finally, respondents participated in a “forced-choice conjoint experiment,” which involved choosing between pairs of hypothetical candidates. Candidate profiles included their position on the importance of local autonomy, their experience in local politics, and length of residence in the community. Respondents with higher place attachments were significantly more likely to choose hypothetical candidates with stronger local orientations or connections — that is, candidates who supported autonomy, had local experience, and had lived in the community. Place attachments thus seem to shape not only how individuals perceive their communities but the criteria they use to evaluate politicians. 
 

Image

Fig. 6: Local considerations have a stronger effect on candidate choice among voters with strong local attachments. Left panel: propensity that a candidate with the attribute on the y axis is selected (marginal means), estimated separately for voters with strong and weak local attachments. Center panel: difference in marginal means between voters with strong and weak local attachments. Right panel: differences in average marginal component effects (AMCEs) between respondents with strong and weak local attachments for a particular attribute level compared to the baseline. See Figure A4 in appendix B.3 full results. See Figure A5 in appendix B.4 for AMCEs.
 

*Brief prepared by Adam Fefer.

“SEUS is an extraordinary opportunity for high schoolers who are curious enough to question, confident enough to share their mind, and open-minded enough to change their point of views.” —Haya Y., VA
 

Stanford e-Japan enrolls exceptional high school students from Japan to engage in an intensive study of U.S. society and culture. The Reischauer Scholars Program (RSP) enrolls exceptional high school students from the United States to engage in an intensive study of Japanese society and culture. Both courses underscore the importance of U.S.–Japan relations. The Yanai Tadashi Foundation is the current supporter of Stanford e-Japan, and the Japan Fund at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) is the current supporter of the RSP.

On August 3, 2026, the 2026 Japan Day award ceremony was held at Stanford University to honor SPICE’s Spring and Fall 2025 Stanford e-Japan student honorees and 2026 RSP student honorees. Stanford e-Japan instructors Waka Takahashi Brown (spring course) and Meiko Kotani (fall course), RSP instructor Naomi Funahashi, and the research paper review committees selected the honorees. The honorees are:

Spring 2025 Stanford e-Japan
Mahono Fuji, Seinan High School, “From White Flight to Gentrification: Rethinking Urban Spatial Inequality”

Nagi Matsuyama, Doshisha International High School, “Reconsidering U.S.–Japan Food Trade”

Jinichiro Taguchi, Kaijo High School, “U.S. Foreign Policy and the Monroe Doctrine”

Honorable Mentions:
Dion Munasingha, Yaizu Chuo High School, “Language Support for Children of Immigrants in Japan and the United States”

Natsuka Yamamoto, Keio Girls Senior High School, “Future of Natural Disaster Response Management in Japan and the United States”

Fall 2025 Stanford e-Japan
Sawa Ito, Iida High School, “Mental Health in the United States and Japan: Beyond the Numbers”

Yurino Ohara, Okayama Asahi High School, “Redesigning Japan’s OTC Policy: A Digital Strategy for Fiscal Sustainability and Patient Protection”

Amy Yanai, The British School in Tokyo, “Community Resilience and Soft Power: Disaster Recovery in the U.S. and Japan”

Honorable Mentions:
Takaki Okada, Musashi High School, “Anti-Globalism Sentiment in the United States: Its Causes and Effects”

Aiko Nakano, Shizuoka Futaba Senior High School, “A Comparison of Refugee Recognition Systems in Japan and the United States: The Role of Public Awareness”

2026 Reischauer Scholars Program
Emma Bouvard, The Nightingale-Bamford School, “The Unfinished Promise of Womenomics: Entrepreneurship and the Limits of Gender Equality in Japan”

Erin Tsutsui, Gunn High School, “Reaffirming Japan’s Commitment to the Three Non-Nuclear Principles”

Lisa Yoshida, Monta Vista High School, “The Architecture of Achievement: Structural Equity, Affect Valuation, and the Future of Education in Japan and the U.S.”

Honorable Mentions:
Anmol Singh Josan, Eastside Preparatory School, “The Digital Escape Hatch: Virtual Schools, Futon, and Japan’s Unfinished Educational Reform”

Mika Shimada, Hilton Head Prep, “From Stagnation to Adaptation: Japan and the Redefinition of Economic Success for Developed Nations”

Takahiro Uchida, The Wheeler School, “How Economic Policy Shaped the Soft Power Divide Between J-Pop and K-Pop”

Image

The program began with welcoming comments from the Honorable Kotaro Otsuki, Consul General of Japan in San Francisco. He commented that the Reischauer Scholars Program and Stanford e-Japan are very important for our two nations—given that both engage future leaders in both countries—and extended congratulatory comments on behalf of the Consulate to the honorees. SPICE was honored with his presence. 

Image

Following the welcoming and opening comments, Brown, Kotani, and Funahashi gave overviews of their courses and introduced the student honorees. The student honorees made articulate presentations based on their research papers and demonstrated so much poise while answering questions from the audience. Each honoree received a plaque from their instructor. Photo above courtesy of Jonas Edman. 

The RSP will enter its 24th year in 2027, and Stanford e-Japan is about to enter its 12th year. Many of the alumni are studying U.S.–Japan relations, engaged in various fields related to U.S.–Japan relations, and continue to give back to both programs by being guest speakers and mentors to the new students. This year, honoree Amy Yanai, who will be a freshman at Yale, has agreed to meet with the Fall 2026 Stanford e-Japan cohort.

Following the formal event, the student honorees—most having just met each other in person for the first time—had the chance to enjoy lunch and a Stanford campus tour together. It is the hope of Brown, Kotani, and Funahashi that the Japanese and American student honorees will continue to stay in touch not only during their high school and college years but also beyond, into their careers. 

SPICE is grateful to President Tadashi Yanai for his generous support of Stanford e-Japan and to the staff of the Yanai Tadashi Foundation for their regular correspondence and encouragement. SPICE is thankful to the Japan Fund committee at FSI for its generous support of the Reischauer Scholars Program. These courses and the ceremony would not be possible without them. SPICE is also grateful to SPICE Event Coordinator Sabrina Ishimatsu for meticulously planning and implementing the event.

SPICE is currently accepting applications for the 2027 Reischauer Scholars Program. The deadline to apply is October 23, 2026.

The application for the 2027 spring session of Stanford e-Japan will open on November 15, 2026.

SPICE also offers online courses to U.S. high school students on China (China Scholars Program), Korea (Sejong Korea Scholars Program), and entrepreneurship (Stanford e-Entrepreneurship U.S.), to Chinese high school students on the United States (Stanford e-China), and to Japanese high school students on entrepreneurship (Stanford e-Entrepreneurship Japan).

To stay informed of SPICE news, join our email list and follow us on Facebook, X, and Instagram.

In 2016, SPICE launched its first regional online program in Japan. Today, SPICE works with local partners across Japan to offer programs that engage students in the study of U.S. society and culture, U.S.–Japan relations, and global issues. Students develop their perspectives through discussion and research and present their work at the end of their courses.

In August 2026, SPICE held four award ceremonies at Stanford University. Eighteen honorees from eight regional programs and one school-based program were recognized for their accomplishments during the 2025–26 year, including the quality of their final research projects. SPICE Director Dr. Gary Mukai welcomed guests and delivered closing remarks at each event.

The students’ visits extended beyond the ceremonies. Depending on their itineraries, groups explored San Francisco, toured Stanford’s campus, visited technology companies such as Google, Apple, and Sony, and spent time at the Computer History Museum. These experiences gave students opportunities to learn about the Bay Area and connect what they had studied online with places and people they encountered in person.

Image

The first ceremony was held on August 6, 2026, for students from Stanford e-Kobe and Stanford e-Minamata. Opening remarks were delivered by Consul Asami Chikae, Consul for Science, Technology and Education at the Consulate General of Japan in San Francisco. Stanford e-Kobe instructor Alison Harsch and Stanford e-Minamata instructor Natalie Montecino also offered opening comments before the honorees gave their presentations. The honorees are:

Stanford e-Kobe

• Sakura Oe; Kobe Municipal Fukiai High School
• Shotaro Take; Kobe Municipal Fukiai High School
   

Stanford e-Minamata

• Rento Hiraishi; Minamata High School
• Asuka Umekawa; Minamata High School
   

Image

In the second ceremony, on August 10, 2026, top students from Stanford e-Fukuoka and Stanford e-Oita were honored. Aya Nakajima, Advisor for Cultural and Educational Affairs at the Consulate General of Japan in San Francisco, delivered opening remarks. Kasumi Yamashita, instructor of both Stanford e-Fukuoka and Stanford e-Oita, also offered opening comments before the honorees presented their work. The honorees are:

Stanford e-Fukuoka

• Konoha Inoyusu; Fukuoka Daichi High School
• Haruki Kenyon; Kurume High School
   

Stanford e-Oita

• Mao Hieida; Nakatsu Minami High School
• Taichi Morikawa; Takada High School
   

Image

During the third ceremony, on August 18, 2026, students from Stanford e-Hiroshima and Stanford e-Yamaguchi were recognized. Consul Mayu Hagiwara, Director of the Japan Information and Culture Center at the Consulate General of Japan in San Francisco, offered opening remarks. Stanford e-Hiroshima instructor Rylan Sekiguchi and Stanford e-Yamaguchi instructor Jonas Edman also gave opening comments before the honorees presented their research. The honorees are:

Stanford e-Hiroshima

• Konatsu Haga; Fukuyama Akenohoshi Girls’ High School
• Momoka Nagayama; Hiroshima Inokuchi High School
   

Stanford e-Yamaguchi

• Misaki Kobayashi; Keishin Senior High School
• Hiroi Tomokawa; Iwakuni Senior High School
   

Image

The fourth ceremony was held on August 20, 2026, for honorees from Stanford e-Kagoshima City, Stanford e-Kawasaki, and Stanford e-Tottori. Daniel Busto, Coordinator of Educational Affairs at the Consulate General of Japan in San Francisco, delivered opening remarks. Stanford e-Kagoshima City instructor Amy Cheng, Stanford e-Kawasaki instructor Maiko Tamagawa Bacha, and Stanford e-Tottori instructor Jonas Edman also offered opening comments before the honorees gave their presentations. The honorees are:

Stanford e-Kagoshima City

• Nayuta Nei; Kagoshima Gyokuryu High School
• Shiori Nishizono; Kagoshima Girls’ High School
   

Stanford e-Kawasaki

• Rio Hojo; Tachibana High School
• Mio Suzuki; Kawasaki High School
   

Stanford e-Tottori

• Una Ishikawa; National Institute of Technology, Yonago College
• Asumi Nishimura; Tottori Nishi High School
   

SPICE congratulates all 18 honorees and thanks the instructors, local partners, and guests who supported and celebrated the students. The ceremonies gave the students an opportunity to share their research with an audience at Stanford and to mark the conclusion of their year of study.

Importantly, SPICE is grateful to the school, municipal, and prefectural representatives who accompanied the students to Stanford. They are Yuki Uchimura (Fukuoka); Noriyo Hayashi (Hiroshima); Takahiko Uchitani and Nanami Nomaguchi (Kagoshima); Fuka Okutani and Tracey Freyre (Kobe); Yasunori Takaki, Masha Boyko, and Kayo Fuchigami (Minamata); Keiichi Takakura and Yuki Matsumoto (Oita); Satoru Hamahashi (Tottori); and Akinobu Tomonari (Yamaguchi).

SPICE also offers online courses to U.S. high school students on Japan (Reischauer Scholars Program), China (China Scholars Program), Korea (Sejong Korea Scholars Program), and entrepreneurship (Stanford e-Entrepreneurship U.S.), to Chinese high school students on the United States (Stanford e-China), and to Japanese high school students on U.S. society and U.S.–Japan relations (Stanford e-Japan) and entrepreneurship (Stanford e-Entrepreneurship Japan).

To stay informed of SPICE news, join our email list and follow us on Facebook, X, and Instagram.

Introduction and Contribution

The United States is frequently described as exceptional among other advanced industrial democracies, especially those of Western Europe. Popular narratives attribute this to the US Constitution, a commitment to individual liberty, and economic opportunity, or the “American dream.” Scholarly accounts, by contrast, have focused on institutional differences, especially the absence of a comprehensive American welfare state. To be sure, these claims must be qualified. Social and economic mobility has declined substantially in the US over recent decades, while Americans derive sizable welfare benefits from tax relief schemes such as retirement savings. In what sense, and relative to which countries, is the US in fact exceptional? 

In “American Exceptionalism in Comparative Perspective,” Julieta Casas argues that exceptionalism should be conceptualized in two distinct ways: (1) The US’s lack of convergence with Western European countries, despite similar outcomes (e.g., prosperity and industrialization) and different starting points (limited vs. comprehensive welfare states). (2) The US’s divergence from Latin American countries in terms of outcomes (e.g., development vs. underdevelopment) despite similar starting points (colonization, independence movements seeking Republican government). Put differently, if initial conditions are X and outcomes are Y, the two corresponding questions are “Why Y despite no X?” and “Why X but not Y?” Casas maintains that while much valuable scholarship has focused on (1), especially in the ‘American Political Development’ tradition, an analysis of (2) holds promise to sharpen our explanations of exceptionalism and methodological rigor. 

This reframing of exceptionalism has broader significance beyond academic debates. Indeed, the United States is currently undergoing the most pronounced democratic decline in its history. Similar kinds of declines — particularly those motivated by right-wing, anti-immigrant, populist sentiment — have been observed across Europe and Latin America. Resisting authoritarian leaders and movements in the US requires understanding cases of successful and failed resistance elsewhere. This kind of understanding depends on making appropriate kinds of comparisons.

Two Ways of Thinking About Exceptionalism

Lack of Convergence with Western Europe:

Perceptions of American exceptionalism vis-à-vis Europe date to at least the early nineteenth century. Alexis de Tocqueville saw the US as uniquely equal compared to his native France, owing to its lack of a feudal past and abundance of land, among other factors. Twentieth-century observers highlighted the absence of a strong American socialist party as well as dramatic rises in incarceration rates and income inequality — especially after the late 1970s. However, these accounts have been tempered by those who sought to show how, for example, the early American state was not exceptionally weaker than its European counterparts. Although the US lacked a powerful federal government, other institutions, such as Congress, the judiciary, and political parties, were quite strong.

One significant, less disputed case of exceptionalism is the early American bureaucracy, which was substantially more ‘patrimonial’ than in Western Europe. In other words, US politicians treated bureaucratic privileges — such as jobs — as rewards or ‘patronage’ to be doled out in exchange for political support. This lack of convergence with professionalized European bureaucracies was most famously explained by reference to the ‘sequencing’ of popular suffrage and bureaucratic development. In the US, suffrage came first, which gave politicians incentives to behave as patrons interacting with voters or ‘clients.’ In Europe, by contrast, suffrage came later, which enabled bureaucracies to professionalize without electoral pressures. 

Divergence from Latin America:

Although the United States is often seen as standing apart from other countries in the Americas, they share many starting points. These include similar times of independence from the European colonial powers, presidential and Republican as opposed to parliamentary and monarchical systems, and racialized hierarchies where darker-skinned and indigenous groups were oppressed. Across the Americas, weak federal governments struggled to exercise authority over vast territories. This led to intransigent pockets of authoritarian rule — compare the US South under Jim Crow with the decades-long rule by the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) in Oaxaca, Mexico. However, the US proved quite exceptional in terms of its prosperity and industrialization; indeed, it surpassed not only Latin America but also its former colonizer.

Social scientists have analyzed divergence by using the US as a comparative case study. This includes asking why the US diverged from Canada in terms of their different healthcare systems. In addition, the question of divergence within Latin America, in terms of different kinds of twentieth-century regimes (e.g., military dictatorship, traditional dictatorship, democracy), has received much scholarly attention. American exceptionalism vis-à-vis Latin America, however, has not. 

One of Casas’ key contributions is to show how comparing the US and Latin America forces a rethinking of the above-mentioned sequencing debate. It is true that the American bureaucracy professionalized much later than in Europe. However, explaining this development in terms of the timing of suffrage runs into a problem: Latin American countries also introduced suffrage before building their bureaucracies, yet in these cases, professionalization was either extremely slow or has yet to occur. In Mexico, it was not until 100 years after the franchise was expanded that civil service reforms were enacted. 

In comparison to Latin America, then, the US looks like a pioneer and success story of bureaucratic development — not a laggard in comparison to Western Europe. Casas thus highlights an important point about reference classes or vantage points. To use a related example, Americans may rightly view the US as more free relative to India or Brazil, yet overlook its distance from more robust democracies such as Canada or Japan. This underscores that exceptionalism is not a fixed property, but rather is defined by the comparisons we make.

*Brief prepared by Adam Fefer.