Racially Restrictive Covenants—Were They Dignity Takings?

Racially restrictive covenants—subdivision rules or neighborhood agreements that “run with the land” to bar sales of rentals by minority members—were common and legally enforceable in the United States in the first half of the twentieth century. In spite of their demeaning character, these racial covenants took away opportunities from excluded minorities, rather than things, and thus they amounted to something less than the dramatic “dignity takings” that Bernadette Atuahene (2014) describes in her new book on dignity takings in South Africa. In this article, I explore some significant ways in which racially restrictive covenants differed from dignity takings as Atuahene defines them, as well as the shadowy similarities between racial covenants and Atuahene's dignity takings; I focus here on the dimensions of dehumanization, state involvement, and property takings. I conclude with a discussion of remedies, particularly considering measures that restore dignity through both public policies and private actions.     

Short-Term Forces and Partisanship

One of the most intriguing aspects of the debate regarding the persistence of party identification is that proponents of different schools of thought have each managed to use the same quasi-experimental data and similar state of the art techniques to defend their point of view. In this article we argue that this debate cannot be resolved with quasi-experimental data alone and propose another method that we believe can help us triangulate in on the correct answer: experimentation. Two experiments are performed and analyzed. The first tests the hypothesis that party identification is updated in response to the vote choice; the second tests the hypothesis that candidate evaluations influence party choices. The results of our experiments provide some additional support for the traditional conception of partisanship as the unmoved mover of American politics.     

The relationship between corporate governance characteristics and credit risk exposure in banks: implications for financial regulation

This article analyses board structures in listed Danish banks in the years prior to the financial crisis by exploring the relationship between corporate governance characteristics and credit risk exposure. The article presents a novel approach as it relies on a newly developed risk metric entitled the “Supervision Diamond” introduced by the Danish FSA, which “external” board directors must address. It contains five thresholds for measuring a bank’s exposure to credit risks i.e. the proportion of large customers, lending growth, the ratio of lending/deposits, liquidity buffer and the proportion of real estate loans. By employing quantitative governance variables the article finds that increased executive director remuneration is associated with increased credit risk posed by the bank’s borrowers. On the other hand, increasing the number of executive/“inside” directors is associated with a lower credit risk exposure. It is argued that more “inside” directors on the executive board constitutes a stronger “checks and balance” system. The article also documents that the probability of obtaining state capital from the Danish credit bailout package is negatively related to larger boards as well as higher executive director remuneration. The policy implication is that financial authorities should be increasingly aware of insufficient corporate governance characteristics in order to prevent excessive credit risk exposure. Moreover, the article provides important insights on which corporate governance variables have a significant impact on a bank’s credit risk exposure. This knowledge is valuable for financial authorities/policy makers considering future regulatory initiatives and how they should administer bank monitoring.     

What is the prevalence of abuse in the deaf/hard of hearing population?

It is thought that deaf or hard of hearing individuals are at greater risk of abuse than the hearing population. The purpose of this paper is to systematically examine and integrate existing literature to determine the prevalence rates of neglect, emotional, physical and sexual abuse and intimate partner violence (IPV). A set of inclusion and exclusion criteria was determined. Following this a comprehensive search of numerous databases was conducted. Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Eight studies reviewed the prevalence of sexual abuse, seven reviewed physical abuse, five reviewed emotional abuse, four reviewed neglect and six examined IPV. This exceeds 14 as numerous studies examined multiple types of abuse. Quality assessment indicated 12 studies were of ‘moderate’ quality and the remaining two were rated ‘good’ quality. Issues with similar samples, a tendency towards young, educated women within the IPV data, and small samples suggest caution is to be used when interpreting their results. The reliance on written measures and the absence of an interpreter or translation of materials in some studies further complicates the results. All types of abuse were found to be more prevalent within the deaf and hard of hearing population compared to the hearing population.     

Views on workplace culture and climate: through the lens of retention and Title IV-E participation

ABSTRACT

Retention of public child welfare (PCW) workers is the focus of much scholarly research. Examinations of the topic have ranged from assessments of workers’ background to job factors and attitudinal components about the workplace. Unlike most studies, the present study uses agency administrative data on retention. In it, 502 PCW workers responded to a point-in-time survey covering a wide range of topics including job satisfaction, commitment to child welfare, perceptions of culture and climate, Title IV-E status, and demographic variables. While Title IV-Es were more likely to leave the agency, several significant interactions between Title IV-E and retention status showed that Title IV-Es who left the agency had significantly lower supervisor satisfaction and influence than Title IV-Es who stayed; and lower efficacy scores than non-Title IV-Es who left. No such differences were found for non-Title IV-E stayers and leavers. Implications for these differences for county agencies and universities are discussed.