Politics Can Limit Policy Opportunism in Fiscal Institutions: Evidence from Official General Fund Revenue Forecasts in the American States

Governments make policy decisions in the same areas in quite different institutions. Some assign policymaking responsibility to institutions designed to be insulated from myopic partisan and electoral pressures and others do not. In this study, we claim that differences in political context and institutional design constrain the policy choices governments make. Testable propositions based on an analysis of varying electoral incentives and time horizons created by these different contexts are empirically tested using panel data on official general fund revenue forecasts in the American states, 1987 to 2008. The empirical evidence reveals that executive branch agencies and independent commissions produce more conservative forecasts than legislatures with one important exception. Executive branch revenue forecasts in states with gubernatorial term limits are indistinguishable from legislative branch forecasts. Further, we find that legislative branch forecasts are more conservative in the presence of divided partisan legislatures than unified party government. In turn, this implies that entrusting policymaking authority to either the executive branch or an independent commission may only be consequential when the political system itself fails to check legislative excesses or executive myopia.     

Book notes

Jeffrey Mourssaieff Masson and Susan McCarthy: When Elephants Weep: The Emotional Lives of Animals. New York: Doubleday, 1995.

Val Plumwood: Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. London: Routledge, 1993.

Karen J. Warren, ed.: Ecological Feminism. London: Routledge, 1994.

John Brinckerhoff Jackson: A Sense of Place, A Sense of Time. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994.

Wendy Harcourt, editor: Feminist Perspectives on Sustainable Development. New Jersey: Zed Books Limited and the Society for International Development, 1994.     

Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace

What factors influence the likelihood that a federal worker will receive unwanted sexual attention? Who is most likely to be accused of sexual harassment? What factors influence federal workers' perceptions of the effectiveness of agency sexual harassment training? Using the raw data file of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board's most recent survey on sexual harassment, the authors find that worker characteristics are the principal influence on the likelihood that a worker will receive unwanted sexual attention and whether an agency's sexual harassment training is perceived favorably. Contextual factors demonstrate lesser influence. Their conclusions lead the authors to believe that a reevaluation of training programs is in order. A one‐size‐fits‐all training approach may no longer be tenable, if it ever was.     

Critical incident reactions: A comparison of two studies ten years apart in the same police department

Conclusions The results of the 1993 survey can be interpreted as a validation of the findings of the 1983 study. Most of the common reactions to critical incidents that were documented in the earlier study were also reported in the later survey. It is certainly of interest to note that not only were most of the same reactions reported 10 years later, they were also reported in roughly the same frequency. This supports the idea that although what constitutes a critical incident varies from person to person, the reactions to critical incidents are fairly predictable. The number of surveys completed and returned in this study was over twice as great as the number returned in the 1983 study (a 49% return rate as compared to a 22% retum rate in 1983). This significant increase in the number of surveys returned suggests a greater awareness by officers regarding critical incidents. It may also suggest an increased willingness on the part of officers to identify reactions to critical incidents as predictable and “normal”. This shift in perception compared to perceptions in 1983 may be a result of the educational efforts of the Critical Incident Response Team members in Apprentice Police Officer Training, In-Service Training, and other informal training over the last 10 years. The core of that training has been to communicate the concept that reactions to critical incidents are normal, temporary, and treatable. It is hoped that training can continue to provide this “inoculation effect” which seems to reduce the possible negative, long-term impact of critical incidents on police officers who have been exposed to such situations.     

The Lansdowne “Peace Letter” of 1917 and the Prospect of Peace by Negotiation with Germany

In late November 1917, Lord Lansdowne, one of the most senior of British Unionist politicians, wrote a letter to the editor of the Daily Telegraph. The letter asked for the war aims of the Entente and the USA to be “coordinated” and suggested that a moderate revision of war aims might bring a negotiated peace nearer. The letter appeared to ally Lansdowne with the British Radicals, who had been close to President Wilson (until April 1917), and had argued for a negotiated peace to end the war since the autumn of 1916. The letter was ferociously denounced by the Northcliffe press, and by many of Lansdowne's Unionist colleagues. It was supposedly a “plea for surrender” and “a national misfortune”. Nevertheless, it touched off a series of new departures in the search for a negotiated settlement: House's visit to the inter Allied Conference in December, the Labour War Aims Memorandum, Lloyd George's Caxton Hall speech, Wilson's Fourteen Points Address, and the beginning of a public parley with the Central Powers in the replies of Hertling and Czernin in January 1918. The paper examines the possibilities for a negotiated peace during the winter of 1917–1918, that is, in the period between the publication of Lansdowne's famous letter and the sudden Versailles “Knockout Blow” Declaration of February 1918 which rejected out of hand any prospect of negotiation. The paper examines Wilson's ambiguous position in this debate, and in particular the evolution of moderate opinion inside Germany in reaction to these events. The paper suggests the unfortunate enfeeblement of moderate opinion in Germany in the face of the apparent triumph of “knockout blow” opinion in the Entente camp.     

Nonpoor children in head start: Explanations and implications

According to the Head Start Act (1998), children are income‐eligible for the program if their “families' incomes are below the poverty line.” There are a number of statutory exceptions to this general rule and, according to the Head Start Bureau, the result is that about 6 percent of the children in the program are not poor. But the major national surveys of Head Start families report that 30 percent or more of Head Start children are not “poor.” This paper confirms and explains the high proportion of nonpoor children in Head Start: at enrollment, at least 28 percent are not poor; at midyear, at least 32 percent are not poor; and by the end of the program year, at least 34 percent and perhaps more than 50 percent are not poor. Although the presence of some of these nonpoor children seems to be an appropriate or at least understandable aspect of running a national program with Head Start's current organizational structure, the presence of others seems much less warranted and raises substantial questions of horizontal equity. Moreover, taken together, the large number of nonpoor children suggests that the program is not well targeted to fulfill its mission of providing compensatory services to developmentally disadvantaged children—and reveals the essential ambiguity of Head Start's role in the wider world of early care and education. The income and program dynamics that have led to so many nonpoor children being in Head Start are also at work in many other programs, and, thus, our findings demonstrate the need to understand better how income eligibility is determined across various means‐tested programs.     

COMPARING ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND EUROPE

Among the many important changes wrought by Regulation 1/2003are the decentralization of responsibility for enforcing EUcompetition law from Brussels to Member States and the creationof the European Competition Network to encourage coordinationand information-sharing among the 26 competition authoritiesin the EU. This article contrasts Europe's new system of competitionenforcement under Regulation 1/2003 with that of the UnitedStates. I focus upon two of the more significant features ofthe U.S. system: the dual legislative and enforcement authorityof the States and the Federal Government, and private enforcement.The Commission is presently evaluating measures to facilitateprivate enforcement and is set to release a Green Paper on thattopic later this year. I highlight a few characteristics thathave made private enforcement such a significant component ofthe U.S. antitrust regime, in some ways and at some times providingtoo much incentive for plaintiffs, at the expense of neutralor procompetitive business activity.     

Toward a Critical Theory of Education*

I propose developing a critical theory of education for the new millennium articulating a metatheory for the philosophy of education and key themes of a democratic reconstruction of education. These include developing new literacies as a response to new technologies, a new critical pedagogy to meet the challenges of globalization and multiculturalism, and radical democratization to counter the trend toward the imposition of a neo-liberal business model on education. I argue that democratic reconstruction of education needs to build on and synthesize perspectives of classical philosophy of education, Deweyean radical pragmatism, Freirean critical pedagogy, poststructuralism, and various critical theories of gender, race, class and society.