Market incentives to encourage household waste recycling: Paying for what you throw away

This article investigates the use of market incentives to encourage household waste recycling by pricing waste-disposal services according to the quantity of waste generated. We use a natural experiment from an upstate New York county to examine how quantity-based pricing of waste disposal affects reported household recycling behavior, when used by itself or in conjunction with curbside pickup of recyclables or mandatory recycling laws. Curbside pickup was found to have the greatest effect on reported recycling behavior, although higher waste-disposal prices might alter these conclusions. Other concerns about quantity-based pricing of solid waste—distributional effects, public acceptance, and adverse incentives—are also examined.     

Check bouncing and fiscal irresponsibility: Evidence of nonideological shirking by legislators

Kalt and Zupan have measured ideological shirking by legislators. Here we present evidence concerning nonideological shirking. We demonstrate that representatives with more overdrawn checks tend to be more fiscally irresponsible, with fiscal irresponsibility measured by National Taxpayer Union ratings and by representatives' voting behavior on the recent House balanced budget amendment vote.     

Why courts cannot deny ADA protection to plaintiffs who do not use available mitigating measures for their impairments

Congress intended the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") to provide strong standards for addressing and eliminating discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Many commentators have concluded, however, that the federal courts are undermining the goals of the ADA by too narrowly construing membership in the statute's protected class. One example of this trend is courts' hostile treatment of ADA plaintiffs who do not use medications or devices that might alleviate their impairments ("nonmitigating plaintiffs"). Numerous district and appellate decisions have held or suggested that nonmitigating plaintiffs are not protected by the ADA. In addition, some commentators have proposed that courts should evaluate the reasonableness of a plaintiff's decision not to use mitigating measures; they argues that it is unfair to burden an employer with the cost of accommodating a disability that continues to exist only because an employee unreasonably refuses to mitigate it. Contrary to the views of these courts and commentators, however, this Comment will show that nonmitigating plaintiffs are entitled to ADA protection from employment discrimination. It argues that the statute's language, history, and structure, as well as Supreme Court precedent, demonstrate that courts cannot deny ADA protection based on a plaintiff's nonuse of available mitigating measures. It also presents several considerations that weigh against any future congressional enactment that would tie ADA protection to the reasonableness of a plaintiff's decision not to mitigate an impairment.     

The Skinny on Body Dissatisfaction: A Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Girls and Boys

The present study tested whether theoretically derived risk factors predicted increases in body dissatisfaction and whether gender moderated these relations with data from a longitudinal study of 428 adolescent girls and boys because few prospective studies have examined these aims, despite evidence that body dissatisfaction increases risk for various psychiatric disturbances. Body dissatisfaction showed significant increases for girls and significant decreases for boys during early adolescence. For both genders, parental support deficits, negative affectivity, and self-reported dietary restraint showed significant relations to future increases in body dissatisfaction. Ideal body internalization and body mass index did not demonstrate significant relations to future increases in body dissatisfaction; peer support deficits showed a marginal relation to this outcome. Gender did not moderate these relations, despite adequate power to detect interactive effects.

How Voters Evaluate Economic Competence: A Comparison between Parties In and Out of Power

Accounts of general election outcomes increasingly talk about voters comparing parties in terms of their perceived competence to manage the economy and public services. This raises the question of how voters form evaluations of party competence. While it is assumed that voters form evaluations of the incumbent based on the signals provided by its current performance in office it is less clear how, in the absence of such a performance record, voters might evaluate the potential competence of the opposition. Using data from the British Election Panel Studies this article models the process by which voters form evaluations of parties' competence to manage the economy and compares results across incumbent and opposition parties. On the basis of evidence from general elections of 1992–2001 the article demonstrates that the process of evaluation formation does differ between parties in and out of power with retrospective evaluations of recent economic performance influencing evaluations of the former but not the latter. Nevertheless, the article also demonstrates that voters are capable of forming evaluations of the opposition which are more than a simple mirror image of their evaluations of the incumbent. In the absence of an up-to-date performance record these evaluations are based on long-term partisan and ideological predispositions and the cues provided by party leaders.