HOW JUDGES DECIDE WHETHER SOCIAL PARENTS HAVE PARENTAL RIGHTS: A FIVE‐FACTOR TYPOLOGY

Courts have issued conflicting rulings regarding the rights (e.g., custody, visitation) and responsibilities (e.g., child support) of non‐biological gay parents. This analysis establishes a typology of five factors that most commonly influence judges' decisions. These factors include: interpretation of parenting statutes, legislative intent, parental intent, legal documents establishing parenthood, and the child's best interests. Despite these common themes, there is still much discrepancy among court rulings. Based on this analysis, there are steps parents can take to protect their legal rights and living arrangements. Finally, policy suggestions are offered for courts and lawmakers. These legal actors can take steps (e.g., clarifying statutes) that would provide certainty for families in case of parental separation or the biological parent's death.     

Cracks in the Opposition: Immigration as a Wedge Issue for the Reagan Coalition

The absence of a core means that a majority coalition can never choose a policy that will keep it safe from minority appeals to its pivotal members. In two dimensions, strategic minorities will always be able to offer pivotal voters attractive policy concessions. We argue that this instability of multidimensional politics explains why minorities raise wedge issues and how wedge issues result in partisan realignment in legislative politics. Applying agenda‐constrained ideal point estimation techniques to immigration debates, we show that the Reagan coalition—pro‐business and social conservatives—has been vulnerable on the wedge issue of immigration and that parties have switched their positions on immigration over the last three decades. We use the uncovered set as the best‐fit theoretical solution concept in this legislative environment, to capture the limits of majority rule coalitional possibilities and policy change in the two‐dimensional absence of a core.     

China's corporate credit reporting system: A comparison with the United States and Germany

Corporate credit reporting (CCR), which aims at increasing trust in corporates, constitutes an intriguing, yet understudied set of regulatory institutions as it is both a regulatory object and subject at the same time. Differences in national CCR systems pose challenges for multinational companies and have increasingly become a subject of international conflicts on regulatory standards. In this context, the case of China deserves special attention since the country pursues both institutional divergence and convergence with international examples. Hence, the characterization of China's regulatory regime remains difficult. By comparing the institutional context of CCR in China to those in the United States and Germany, this paper sheds light on a specific aspect of China's complex regulatory regime. At the same time, it provides insights into the Chinese manifestation of CCR, which are important for the international business community.