A Strategic Approach to Regulating Unacceptable Forms of Work

Upgrading low‐waged and insecure work is central to contemporary labour and development initiatives, from the UN Sustainable Development Goals to the United Kingdom ‘Taylor Review’. The International Labour Organization's notion of unacceptable forms of work (UFW) is a crucial contribution. Yet the regulatory frameworks that can effectively address UFW are unclear. This article builds on a novel framework ‐ the Multidimensional Model of UFW. Drawing on theoretical literatures at the frontline of regulation scholarship, it proposes a strategic approach to UFW regulation that supports development, acknowledges the constrained resources of low‐income countries, and targets expansive and sustainable effects. Two key concepts are identified: points of leverage and institutional dynamism. Globally‐prominent regulatory frameworks are assessed as a starting point for mapping the strategic approach: the Mathadi Act of Maharashtra, India; Uruguayan domestic work legislation; minimum wages in the global North and South; and United Kingdom regulation of ‘zero‐hours contracts’.     

Updating OSHA standards based on national consensus standards. Direct final rule

In this direct final rule, the Agency is removing several references to consensus standards that have requirements that duplicate, or are comparable to, other OSHA rules; this action includes correcting a paragraph citation in one of these OSHA rules. The Agency also is removing a reference to American Welding Society standard A3.0-1969 ("Terms and Definitions") in its general-industry welding standards. This rulemaking is a continuation of OSHA's ongoing effort to update references to consensus and industry standards used throughout its rules.     

Just punishments: Guideline sentences and normative consensus

The federal sentencing guidelines prescribe ranges of sentences to be given to persons convicted of felonies in the federal criminal courts. The U.S. Sentencing Commission wrote the guidelines attempting to make sentences conform to community views of appropriate punishments, along with several other criteria. Employing data from a 1994 national sample of adult Americans, designed as a factorial survey, the degree of correspondence is shown between guidelines sentences and those desired by the American public. Although at the individual level only a modest degree of concordance was found, the central tendencies of public opinion (median sentences) were found to correspond quite closely to the guidelines sentences. The major points of disagreement centered around drug trafficking crimes: the guidelines prescribed very long sentences for those crimes and distinguished sharply among trafficking in heroin, powder cocaine, and crack, whereas median sentences desired by the public were much lower and did not distinguish sharply among trafficking in those drugs. We interpret the findings as indicating that the guidelines sentences conform reasonably closely to American normative consensus concerning the sentencing of federal felons.The research reported in this article was commissioned by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. The views expressed in this article are not necessarily endorsed by the Commission. Full expositions of the findings from the national survey used are given by Rossi and Berk (1995, 1997).     

Incorporating consensus and conflict into the legitimacy of law

Recent research on the legitimacy of law is dominated by the confirmed effect of procedural justice on views of legitimacy. The procedural justice research, however, neglects the substantive component of law and how that substance may conflict with value systems of the various subcultures that constitute a complex society. This paper reviews classic and contemporary theory, as well as supporting empirical criminological research, in order to argue that views of the legitimacy of a given law can also be affected by such conflicting value sets. Allotting subculture a central influence, a model is proposed that integrates a sociological conception of the legitimacy of law with the existing research from psychology on procedural justice.     

An end to a consensus on health care in the Federal Republic of Germany?

Over the past fifteen years the national government in the Federal Republic of Germany has animated the political debate about rising health care expenditures. However, it has only provided health policy leadership by shifting the burden of financing health and medical care to others. This paper presents three cases that illustrate the political and institutional constraints inherent in the German policy process that limit the proposal and implementation of appropriate policy solutions to rising health care costs. Cost controls have been inhibited because of the near-universal entitlement of national health insurance, the access all social groups have to advanced medical care, and policies targeted at providers rather than users of health services. The paper also underscores the past and future importance of regional policy coalitions in shaping national health policy.     

Equity,relative deprivation,and the value consensus paradox

This paper addresses the question of why respondents, when asked to specify an income they would be willing to accept as just, settle for an amount that, in most case, does not deviate strongly from what they actually receive. The phenomenon is illustrated by data from West Germany. It is argued that relative deprivation theory must be extended to incorporate processes of social hierarchy perception because inasmuch as this perception is contorted it creates illusory justice evaluations. Empirical evidence of misperceiving social distributions is given by social grading studies based on large German samples. The structural causes of the distributional misperceptions are discussed, one of these causes being the value consensus paradox, i.e., the paradox that, in a stratified society, value consensus will produce different social perceptions.     

Updating OSHA standards based on national consensus standards. final rule; confirmation of effective date

OSHA is confirming the effective date of its direct final rule that revises a number of standards for general industry that refer to national consensus standards. The direct final rule states that it would become effective on March 13, 2008 unless OSHA receives significant adverse comment on these revisions by January 14, 2008. OSHA received no adverse comments by that date and, therefore, is confirming that the rule will become effective on March 13, 2008.     

The insanity defense: effects of abolition unsupported by a moral consensus

The insanity defense reflects the moral judgment that some criminal defendants do not deserve criminal sanctions because of mental incapacity. This Note examines the alternative formulations, such as guilty but mentally ill and diminished responsibility, that some states have enacted in the face of growing controversy over the insanity defense. It observes that the alternatives, if used in lieu of the insanity defense, distort the criminal law and do not comport with the legal doctrine of responsibility, which eschews punishing mentally ill defendants. The Note concludes that the insanity defense should not be abolished unless the moral consensus changes regarding the criminal responsibility of mentally ill defendants.     

Do consensus conferences work? A process evaluation of the NIH Consensus Development Program

The purpose of this evaluation study is to identify problems and suggest modifications in the NIH Consensus Development Program. The current program consists of three-day conferences in which experts assess medical technologies for issues of efficacy, safety, conditions of use, and other related topics (e.g., costs and social impact). Eight consensus conferences held between 1980 and 1982 were studied in depth using a variety of methods; five of the conferences were investigated concurrently. In addition, archival material was examined for all but one of the 33 conferences held up to that time, and four planning meetings for future conferences were observed. The delay in publishing our findings provided an opportunity to examine the changes introduced by NIH; it also allowed us to avoid the criticism of numerous prior evaluations for finding fault with programs that are still developing. NIH adopted many of the recommendations in our evaluation report and has investigated others. Based on our evaluation and more recent evidence, however, we conclude that the major problem that was uncovered--selection bias, particularly with respect to the choice of questions and panelists--remains a significant threat to the credibility of the consensus process. More specifically, the results indicate that controversial issues cannot be properly addressed within the present conference format, although that was one of its major purposes. Recommendations for improving the consensus process are presented, as are their implications for a larger set of consensus activities that are currently being conducted.     

Review panel consensus and post-decision commercial performance: a study of early stage technologies

We examine the ability of review panels to predict commercial success when evaluating early-stage technologies from small business. Specifically we examined whether a screening process resulted in greater consensus among grant panel members, to what extent certain panel members “stuck” to their evaluations, and whether information sharing and panel consensus resulted in better predictions of commercial success. In general, we found that expert panel members tend to move toward consensus after discussion, with technical experts being the most “sticky”. While information sharing does not lead to better prediction, increasing consensus among panel members does indicate a slight improvement in prediction accuracy.     

Child health policy in the U.S.: the paradox of consensus

The U.S. spends more of its total GNP on health services than any other nation, yet it has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the industrialized world. Young American children are immunized at rates that are one-half those of Western Europe, Canada, and Israel. In the mid-1980s, a consensus among policymakers on the need for federal action to improve child health services resulted in the expansion of Medicaid eligibility for pregnant women and young children and the separation of Medicaid eligibility from eligibility for AFDC. The current phase of child health policymaking includes discussion of much broader proposals for changes in health care financing and innovation in health care delivery. This examination of child health policy begins by reviewing the politics of maternal and child health services from the early twentieth century to the Reagan administration, including the role of feminist movements, the development of pediatrics, and the expansion of federal involvement during the 1960s. Next, the politics of Medicaid expansion as a strategy for addressing child health issues are discussed. Current critiques of child health services in the U.S. are examined, along with proposals to restructure health care financing and delivery. Central to the politics of child health policy during the 1980s and into the 1990s is the way in which child health has been defined. Infant mortality and childhood illness are presented as preventable problems. Investment in young children is discussed as a prudent as well as a compassionate policy, one which will reduce future health care costs and enhance our position in the international economy. Unlike other "disadvantaged groups," children are universally viewed as innocent and deserving of societal support. Framing child health issues in these terms helped to produce consensus on the expansion of Medicaid eligibility. Yet the issues beyond the expansion of Medicaid eligibility involve the restructuring of health care financing and delivery, and, on these issues, conflict is far more likely than consensus.