Kira Pronin

Biographic Data

ID4179994
NAMEKira Pronin
GIVEN NAMESKira
FAMILY NAMEPronin
SIGNATUREPRONIN K
AFFILIATIONSSyracuse University
ORCID0000-0003-4010-2450
VERIFIEDYes
TOTAL WORKS7
TOTAL CITATIONS11
WORKS AS AUTHOR7
WORKS AS EDITOR0
FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR2017
LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR2025
H-INDEX2

  • Bespoke science

    Open AccessRoger Koppl, Kira Pronin et al.ARTICLEPublic Choice2025Cited by: 1References: 58

    Many governments formed ad hoc scientific advisory committees in the Covid-19 pandemic because they offered the government greater control over policy advice than standing agencies. The difference between ad hoc and standing advisory bodies has been little noted in the literature. High-uncertainty crises demanding expertise and requiring action from the national government increase the value of policy discretion, raising the value of controlling …

  • Experts in governance

    Open AccessJohan Christensen, Stine Hesstvedt et al.ARTICLEPolicy & Politics2025References: 1

    The Nordic countries have traditionally been seen to share a distinct and successful governance model, combining high administrative capacity, extensive interest-group involvement and active channels for incorporating expert input in policy making. Starting in the 1980s, this model came under pressure. Yet, while changes to the statist and corporatist elements of this model are well documented, we know less about the changing role of expertise in…

  • Does allowing private communication lead to less prosocial collective choice

    Open AccessKira Pronin, Jonathan WoonARTICLESocial Choice and Welfare2023

  • Discussion and Fairness in a Laboratory Voting Experiment

    Open AccessJonathan Woon, Minsu Jang et al.ARTICLEJournal of Experimental Political…2023References: 8

    We conduct a laboratory experiment to investigate whether public discussion before a majority vote increases the saliency of minority interests and results in more egalitarian outcomes or whether voters use discussion to form majorities that benefit at the expense of minorities. When there are two alternatives, we find that public discussion increases the likelihood that individuals vote for equal allocations, but has little to no impact on the g…

  • Discussion and Fairness in a Laboratory Voting Experiment – Addendum

    Open AccessJonathan Woon, Minsu Jang et al.ARTICLEJournal of Experimental Political…2023

    An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button

  • No More Political Compromise? Swedish Commissions of Inquiry 1990–2016

    Open AccessCarl Dahlström, Erik Lundberg et al.ARTICLEScandinavian Political Studies2021Cited by: 8References: 33

    This article studies recent trends in the composition and uses of Swedish commissions of inquiry in preparing policy for the government. For much of the 20th century, commissions with representatives of major parliamentary parties and other policy stakeholders served as an arena of negotiation and compromise between the government, the opposition parties, and organised interests. Drawing on a unique data set of 2,087 commissions appointed between…

  • Evaluating the Effects of Multiple Opinion Rationales on Supreme Court Legitimacy

    Open AccessChris W Bonneau, Jarrod T Kelly et al.ARTICLEAmerican Politics Research2017Cited by: 2References: 33

    The literature on the U.S. Supreme Court has paid substantial attention to the perceived legitimacy of the Court’s decisions. However, much less attention has been paid to the perceived legitimacy of the reasons the Court provides for its opinions. We design two experiments to understand how the public perceives opinion content. Unlike prior studies, we take it as a given that the Court uses legal reasons in its decisions. This offers us a baseli…