The states' scramble for federal funds: Who wins,who loses?

Interstate differences between federal expenditures and receipts are very large, generally favoring the southern and western states. The more slowly growing states of the northeast and midwest point to these imbalances as one source of their economic difficulties. The major source of disparity lies in revenue patterns, not in expenditure allocations. Reallocating federal expenditures on an equal per capita basis would reduce regional disparities in flows of federal funds by only about 25 percent. The principal regional beneficiary of equalized expenditures would be the midwest states of the Great Lakes region. However, contrary to the expectations of proponents of such redistribution, the southeastern states would also be major beneficiaries while the larger states of the mideast and New England would be hurt. Selective expenditure changes might be targeted more effectively to individual regions or states; but finding consistent, generally acceptable principles upon which to base such changes is a formidable problem.     

Does WIC work? The effects of WIC on pregnancy and birth outcomes

Support for WIC, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, is based on the belief that "WIC works." This consensus has lately been questioned by researchers who point out that most WIC research fails to properly control for selection into the program. This paper evaluates the selection problem using rich data from the national Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System. We show that relative to Medicaid mothers, all of whom are eligible for WIC, WIC participants are negatively selected on a wide array of observable dimensions, and yet WIC participation is associated with improved birth outcomes, even after controlling for observables and for a full set of state-year interactions intended to capture unobservables that vary at the state-year level. The positive impacts of WIC are larger among subsets of even more disadvantaged women, such as those who received public assistance last year, single high school dropouts, and teen mothers.     

The CAFTA Conflict and Costa Rica's Democracy: Assessing the 2007 Referendum

The process of ratifying CAFTA in Costa Rica required traversing a contentious political landscape involving intense legislative battles, massive public demonstrations, and finally a national referendum in October 2007. By employing the mechanism of direct democracy to ratify a free trade agreement, Costa Rica made history. But how did this experiment with direct participation affect Costa Rica's democracy? This article evaluates what the referendum achieved in terms of promoting citizen engagement, equipping voters to make informed choices, resolving the CAFTA conflict in a way viewed as legitimate, and shaping citizens' relationships to representative institutions. While the referendum had positive effects, it had several negative consequences for representative democracy, which raises questions about the limits of democratic control over economic policy in the era of globalization.     

Conceptualising legal culture and lawyering stress

Recent evidence of the prevalence of stress and mental health issues among Australian lawyers has led to calls for legal culture to be changed to promote a better work–life balance and wellbeing for practitioners. Yet three decades of empirical studies in North America have shown consistently high levels of job satisfaction among lawyers. This paper investigates the role of legal culture in sustaining the paradox of satisfied lawyers under working conditions that may be conducive to stress. Drawing on Bourdieu's theory of practice and the literature on work stress, the paper conceptualises the relationships between the demand of legal work, the culture of legal practice, and lawyering stress. It concludes with a discussion of the implications of this kind of analysis for reforming the legal profession. In spite of the difficulty of cultural change, the paper argues that as consciousness is raised and the field changes, alternative models of practice will need to emerge, so that lawyering stress may become a mechanism for change not reproduction.     

Cherry-Picking Records in Independent Medical Examinations: Strategies for Intervention to Mitigate a Legal and Ethical Imbroglio

Independent medical examinations (IMEs) theoretically construe a means of “independently” assessing a claimant’s physical and psychological status, as well as to determine whether treatment that has been and will potentially be provided is reasonable and necessary. IMEs may be undertaken both for the plaintiff and defense or related adversaries. In the present case, we focus on IMEs that are requested by insurers. One can query the degree to which IMEs are actually “independent.” It has been posited that one of the ways in which claims managers contribute to potential bias against claimants is through a process of selectively providing examiners with medical records, which has been described as “cherry-picking.” Despite the existence of rules and laws that are designed to prevent cherry-picking, the practice still occurs. This analysis discusses the legal as well as ethical implications of cherry-picking and its potential to cause or exacerbate psychological injury that a claimant may experience. The authors propose that psychologists as well as attorneys can advocate for their vulnerable patients/clients in cases of cherry-picking. A recent case study from the clinical practice of the first author in which he so acted is provided. We conclude with a discussion of the ethical implications of the psychologist’s intervention.