Covid-19 Pandemic,Social Mitigation and Taxation: The Open Veins of Inequality in Latin America

The pandemic of Covid-19 has exposed the veins of inequality in Latin America. With a socioeconomic disaster looming, social emergency policies seemed inevitable. Yet while governments argue over the continuity of such policies and whether the fiscal rules in place should be respected, no sustainable response has come out. This essay problematises whether the pandemic could represent a critical juncture to forge ahead with political narratives that highlight tax exemptions and privileges enjoyed by the rich. We analyse the mitigation measures adopted by Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay and their repercussions on the debate surrounding progressive tax reforms to fund social schemes.     

Book reviews

William C. Green and Theodore Karasik (Eds.), Gorbachev and his Generals: The Reform of Soviet Military Doctrine (Westview Press, 1990, 239pp. ISBN 0–8133–7898–2)

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, On the Law of Nations (Harvard University Press, 1990)

Peter J. Stavrakis, Moscow and Greek Communism, 1944–1949. Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London. 1989. ISBN 0–8014–2125–X.

Scalpino, R.A., The Politics of Development: Perspectives on Twentieth‐Century Asia (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1989, pp.131)

Sean M. Lynn‐Jones, Steven E. Miller and Stephen van Evera (Eds.), Soviet Military Policy (MIT Press, 1989. £26.95 [cloth]; £13.50 [paperback]).     

The congressional foundations of agency performance

When Congress delegates a policy mandate to a regulatory agency, Congress acts as a principal, choosing the institutional arrangements, or the ‘rules of the game’ for agency decision making. Individuals in the agency, acting as agents, take the rules of the game as given and do the best they can within these institutional arrangements. In this paper we develop a simple model that relates the congressional choice of institutional arrangements to two underlying environmental factors — uncertainty and conflict. We suggest that uncertainty and conflict of interest lead Congress, in delegating, to prescribe a greater scope of permissable regulatory activity, a wider array of regulatory instruments, and more confining regulatory procedures. Increased scope and stronger instruments tend to broaden the overall discretionary authority of the agency, while more confining procedures tend to narrow it. We conjecture that with increased uncertainty or conflict the narrowing tendency more than offsets the broadening tendency, for a net decrease in the agency's overall discretionary authority. Lastly, we argue that the performance of a regulatory agency in fulfilling its mandate is determined in large measure by the foundations Congress constructs for the implementation of delegated authority.     

Ethical issues in international biomedical research: an overview

Human subjects research has been the focus of numerous controversies over the years. The dilemma lies between the potential harm to individuals who participate in research and the knowledge to be gained from the research study that might benefit society. When research is conducted in developing countries by researchers and sponsors from the United States and other industrialized countries, differences in history, culture, politics, wealth, and power between the countries give rise to unique challenges. In this Article, the author identifies several ethical issues to be considered when research is conducted in developing countries and provides the legal and ethical framework for their resolution.     

ADHD among incarcerated youth: An investigation on the congruency with ADHD prevalence and correlates among the general population

The limited literature on the topic speculates that the rate of ADHD would be higher among incarcerated youth than found in the general population. However, to our knowledge no such published figures exist for juveniles in the United States. This study investigates the likelihood of ADHD diagnosis among 453 incarcerated youth and compares and contrasts a variety of demographic, social, educational, psychological, and criminal characteristics to the general literature on ADHD. Both similarities and differences are reported. This project was supported by Grant #99-RT-VX-K020 awarded by the National Institute of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. An early version of the paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Science in Chicago, Illinois.