What do judges say on the protection of intelligence secrets?

This article discusses the role of the discourse of law in legitimizing the protection of intelligence secrets. It draws on examples from the United Kingdom and the United States to illustrate rhetorical regularities with respect to the need to protect intelligence officers, agents, sources and methods, the effectiveness of intelligence agencies, international intelligence relationships and the effects of a mosaic of disclosed information. It concludes that judges produce specialized knowledge on state secrecy that plays a part in shaping the understanding of state secrecy in society.     

What would delegates do? When and how the delegate paradox affects estimates of ideological congruence

The consensus that American politicians are more ideologically extreme than voters has been challenged by the observation that issue delegates – who adopt voters’ majority position on each issue – can be more extreme than the median voter. We show that this difference is conditional. Issue delegates are much more extreme than the median voter in left- and right-leaning constituencies, but not in evenly divided or ideologically pure constituencies. This means that these preference aggregation assumptions have a large effect on ideological comparisons between legislators and their party constituents, but little effect on comparisons between legislators and their general election constituents. We demonstrate this finding’s implications by replicating and extending two prominent studies. Although issue delegates representing full states are not much more extreme than the median voter, party issue delegates have moved to the extremes at nearly twice the rate of party median voters and are just as extreme as legislators.     

When do you follow the (national) leader? Party switching by subnational legislators in Japan

In 1993, after 38 years of single-party control, more than 20% of Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) House of Representatives members left the party to form new alternatives and create an anti-LDP coalition government. However, despite substantial popular support, the new parties attracted few subnational politicians. The effect of this lack of subnational party switching was substantial since the relatively small pool of subnational defectors meant that the new parties had difficulty forming the strong subnational bases of support that would help them to compete with the LDP in the future. In this paper, we consider why so few subnational politicians were willing to switch to these new party alternatives. Using case studies and conditional logit analysis of party affiliation pattern among prefectural assembly members in Japan, we find that party switching was most common among subnational politicians who had powerful patrons who had also left the LDP and had maintained especially good access to central government largesse. We also find that subnational politicians from urban areas, which depend less upon central government pork, were considerably less likely to switch parties, than their rural counterparts.     

What price the court of St. James? Political influences on ambassadorial postings of the United States of America

This paper explores the appointment of career diplomats and political appointees to ambassadorial positions. We present models of the strategic interaction of political donors and presidential candidates, which predicts that donations will match the quality of diplomatic posting granted by the candidate. We test this prediction and confirm it for four presidential terms representing two presidents and 764 diplomatic postings over the 2000 to 2013 period. This allows for the generation of a price list associated with a range of desirable diplomatic posts. This paper provides evidence in support of the proposition that ambassadorships, in locations that are deemed desirable such as Western Europe, are awarded as a form of patronage in return for campaign contributions.     

Comment on Donald A. Krueckeberg's “The Lessons of John Locke or Hernando de Soto: What if Your Dreams Come True?”

Abstract

Krueckeberg's critique of de Soto's paean to homeownership in Third World countries is well taken; his use of John Locke's rationale for private ownership provides support for the critique. But then Krueckeberg puts forward a proposal to extend homeowner‐ship benefits through a National Homestead Trust, with Individual Development Accounts or a tax like Social Security, to help renters accumulate a down payment. Abandoning a broader approach, Krueckeberg reverts to supporting homeownership as a central tenet of U.S. housing policy and wants to extend its real and perceived benefits to low‐income households. He recognizes the shortcomings of U.S. property law and tax policy that may leave low‐income owners with threats to shelter security.

To provide security for low‐income residents, fundamental changes are required. Attention should be paid to protection from evictions and from foreclosure; income/employment support; guarantee of services from utilities to schools; and, as needed, direct subsidies for housing.     

Comment on Bruce J. Katz and Margery Austin Turner's “Who should run the housing voucher program? A reform proposal”

Abstract

There is much evidence that the housing voucher program has successfully met its two main goals: housing low‐income families and expanding housing opportunity. Nonetheless, efforts to address the program's limitations could improve success. We agree with Basgal and Villarreal that, on the subject of housing mobility, the focus of Katz and Turner is misplaced.

In addition to proposing a solution that does not address the problem, Katz and Turner fail to consider three key points: First, there is no consensus or clear definition of what “mobility” means, how it is measured, and what standard we hope to achieve. Second, the role and impact of family choice in the locational outcomes of voucher holders is a major factor. And third, the considerable trade‐offs in outcomes that result from a greater emphasis on mobility should be examined.     

Comment on Bruce J. Katz and Margery Austin Turner's “Who should run the housing voucher program? A reform proposal”: Why public housing authorities remain the best solution for running the housing voucher program

Abstract

Katz and Turner propose that the Section 8 program be administered regionally at the metropolitan level by a single organization awarded the contract through a competitive bidding process. We disagree. Local public housing authorities have been successful in providing family housing choice and moving families from the worst neighborhoods through the Section 8 program. The factors that inhibit mixed‐income communities and family mobility, resulting in concentration of poverty, are beyond the control of these authorities and will be affected little by a change in administration. Moreover, the additional cost of these changes would decrease the number of families served and at the same time increase bureaucracy.

We welcome the discussion the proposal has caused. Misperceptions exist about the program, even among those close to it. True, effective program reform can be engendered only by an honest dialogue among housing advocates, administrators, and consumers, both tenants and owners.