Gender Differences in Political Knowledge: Distinguishing Characteristics-Based and Returns-Based Differences

This study assesses whether gender-based differences in political knowledge primarily result from differences in observable attributes or from differences in returns for otherwise equivalent characteristics. It applies a statistical decomposition methodology to data obtained from the 1992–2004 American National Election Studies. There is a consistent 10-point gender gap in measured political knowledge, of which approximately one-third is due to gender-based differences in the characteristics that predict political knowledge, with the remaining two-thirds due to male–female differences in the returns to these characteristics. The methodology identifies the relative contribution of the predictors of political knowledge to each portion of the gap, and then uses this information to elucidate the underlying sources of the political knowledge gender gap and its prognosis. Education is the characteristic that most clearly enlarges the gap, with men receiving significantly larger returns to political knowledge from education than women. Group membership reduces the gap as women obtain gains in political knowledge from belonging to organizations that do not accrue to men. However, these gains are not sufficient to significantly reduce the gap.

A New Measure of Policy Spending Priorities in the American States

In this paper, we develop and test a general measure of policyexpenditures in the American states. Our approach is to constructa spatial proximity model of yearly state program spending.The empirical analysis reveals that state spending patternsvary along a clear and readily-interpretable unidimensionalcontinuum which differentiates policies that provide particularizedbenefits to needy constituencies from policies that providebroader collective goods. Based upon standard evaluative criteria,the variable created from our model possesses some highly desirablecharacteristics. And, it compares favorably to other measuresof state policy activity. The net result is a yearly score foreach state which summarizes that state's spending across allmajor program areas. More generally, we believe that our variablecan be interpreted as valid and reliable representational measurementof state policy priorities. In this capacity, it could occupyan important position within models of state politics. Author's note: Many colleagues provided useful feedback on earlierversions of this paper. We particularly appreciate the excellentcomments and suggestions from Robert Erikson, Richard Fording,Kim Hill, David Lowery, Andrea McAtee, and George Rabinowitz.We would also like to thank Daniel Lewis and William Myers fortheir assistance with the data collection. The yearly statepolicy priority scores obtained from the unfolding analysis,along with the data used to create the scores, the SAS macroto carry out the unfolding procedure, and all other supplemental materialsare available on the authors’ web sites: http://polisci.msu.edu/jacobyand http://polisci.msu.edu/schneider. All these materials arealso available on the Political Analysis Web site.     

The Complications of Colocation: What the Federal Communication’s Rule Making May Mean for Your Community

Abstract

You did it. You successfully worked with a wireless service provider to find the ideal spot for its new wireless tower. The tower is positioned perfectly—in the heart of downtown, yet safe, hidden, completely undisruptive. The provider is happy. The community is content. It’s a win‐win. Fast forward a month. The provider is back with a new idea: To support the latest technology and to enhance its revenues, it will add not one, but four 20‐foot extensions for new antennas. The extensions would make the otherwise hidden facility visible. They would reach across and over the sidewalk and street, presenting safety risks. And the provider would also add four new equipment cabinets and an equipment shelter. Your answer is easy: Absolutely not. We can find a better solution. But this time the provider is not asking, it’s demanding. It says that because it is not proposing an initial facility but a colocation, you must approve its requests. Whether the provider is correct may turn on how the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) resolves a pending rule making. This article describes the proceeding, key issues it raises, and what the proceeding may mean to you and your community. As a planner, you can influence the proceeding by meeting with the FCC to discuss the proposed rules and by responding to industry claims that local requirements are delaying deployment.     

Intimate Partner Violence Control Scale: Development and Initial Testing

Although control has long been considered central to understanding intimate partner violence (IPV), there continues to be a notable lack of validated scales measuring control (e.g., Strauchler et al. Journal of Family Violence, 19(6), 339–354, 2004). The purpose of this study was to develop and empirically validate a brief assessment tool, the Intimate Partner Violence Control Scale (IPVCS), designed to measure control in the context of IPV. Data from a sample of male undergraduate and graduate students (n = 436) were used to examine the scale’s properties. After reviewing theoretical conceptualizations and measurement issues of control, psychometric properties of the IPVCS and results of exploratory hypotheses tests are presented. The availability of a brief and reliable measure of control offers a tool for professionals in the judicial system, for IPV victims’ advocates, and for human services workers in practice settings to adequately assess for control and fills a gap in this area of research and practice.