Quantitative cross-national studies of economic development: A comparison of the economics and sociology literatures

For more than two decades, economists and sociologists have pursued parallel cross-national quantitative investigations of the determinants of economic development. These investigations have proceeded in mutual ignorance despite the often large overlap in statistical methods and data employed. Apparently contradictory findings have resulted, especially regarding the impacts of international trade and foreign direct investment. We find that there are two factors that account for these inconsistent results. One key factor is the use of different variables to measure international trade and investment, the choice of which is in turn driven by underlying differences in theoretical motivations. A second important difference involves sociologists’ greater preoccupation with more complex multivariate models versus economists’ greater willingness to focus on individual variables in multivariate regressions while viewing others as “controls.” A major finding of our survey is that when thesame variables are used, the results of economists and sociologists tend to be consistent, rather than contradictory (as might have occurred, for example, because of the use of different samples of countries or time periods, or the use of other variables included in the regression equations). We also consider some studies whose purviews go beyond economic growth to consider factors such as income inequality, physical quality of life, demographic change, and basic needs provisioning. Angela Martin Crowly is at the Department of Sociology, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California 92717. James Rauch is at the department of Economics, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093. Susanna Seagrave is at the U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C. 20548. David A. Smith is at the Department of Sociology, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California 92717.     

Appraising Canada's 1979 Indian Health Policy: Informing co-development of distinctions-based Indigenous health legislation

Aiming to improve the health of First Nations in 1979, the federal government implemented the Indian Health Policy to strengthen community development and the relationship with First Nations peoples, and nurture a trilateral relationship in the healthcare landscape. The Indian Health Policy remains the foundation for First Nations health policy and program development today, even without ever having an implementation plan. We critically appraise the Indian Health Policy to identify gaps and evaluate its impact and progress on subsequent policy evaluations, developments, and recent events in light of the new distinctions-based Indigenous health legislation underway. Based on our findings, we provide recommendations to inform the federal government's efforts to co-develop distinctions-based Indigenous health legislation.     

Community violence victimization and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder: the moderating effects of coping and social support

This study tested the relationship of community violence (CV) victimization to severity of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and the roles of coping style and perceived social support in moderating that relationship. Three-hundred seventy-two men and women (age 18 to 22 years) self-reported on CV exposure, traumatic experiences, PTSD symptoms, perceived support from family and friends, and coping strategies. Results indicated that high CV victimization, high disengagement coping (i.e., avoidant styles), and low perceived social support from family and friends significantly predicted increased PTSD scores. Significant moderating effects indicated that the relationship between victimization and heightened PTSD severity was stronger at high levels of perceived friend support and disengagement. Thus, the protective function of friend support seemed to break down at increasing levels of victimization, whereas, as expected, avoidant styles of coping increased the risk for negative outcome. Findings are discussed in terms of event controllability, negative social reactions, and coping resources.