Attitudes Toward “Fracking”: Perceived and Actual Geographic Proximity

Prior surveys have sought to gauge American public opinion toward shale gas development. Research on environmental hazards has produced conflicting findings related to the role of proximity in predicting attitudes. This study analyzes how perceived and actual proximity to active shale gas development in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas predicts individual preferences for moratoria. We implement a conditionally parametric probit, which accounts for geographic variation in coefficient values. Our results suggest that attitudes toward the potential benefits and risks associated with shale gas development play a larger and more consistent role in predicting preference for moratoria than proximity or other sociodemographic factors. Our methodology allows for inferences related to the extent of geographic variation in coefficient values. Our results indicate that the role of proximity in predicting preference for moratoria differs based on whether a respondent resides in an urban or rural area or within a shale play.     

Financing the United Nations: Explaining variation in how donors provide funding to the UN

When donors contemplate providing financial support to United Nations institutions they encounter a menu of funding options. Some UN institutions require mandatory dues, but most rely substantially on voluntary contributions, which donors can choose to earmark for specific purposes. How donors provide resources has widespread effects on the authority of UN governing bodies, donor control over UN programs, and the efficiency of UN operations. What explains how donors choose to fund UN programs and agencies? We advance a theory that emphasizes member state preferences over the affordability and policy substance of IO activity. Using data from two novel experiments and a case study of U.S. funding practices toward the United Nations (1945–1980s), we provide mixed-method evidence showing that a state is more likely to provide voluntary contributions when its preferences over the affordability and policy of IO activity differ from those of the governing coalition and more likely to provide mandatory contributions when its preferences are consistent with those of the governing coalition. Further, we demonstrate that preferences over policy substance are particularly important in explaining recent trends in donor earmarking.     

Reframing the role of Australian mayors: an update and rejoinder to Grant,Dollery and Kortt (2016)

Recent moves for local government reform in several states of Australia have focused in part on a perceived need for more effective civic leadership, and in particular the role of mayors. Proposed legislation in New South Wales and Victoria would expand the responsibilities of mayors in several areas, such as community engagement, partnerships with key stakeholders, strategic planning and providing guidance to the chief executive officer. In 2012 the Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government (ACELG) published a discussion paper that canvassed these issues as well as the way in which mayors are elected. That paper elicited a strongly adverse critique by Grant, Dollery and Kortt, now published as an article in this issue of Local Government Studies. Regrettably their critique failed to offer a constructive contribution to the debate sought by ACELG, and the article contains a number of significant errors and misleading statements that demand a response.     

Rationalizing pay inequity: women engineers,pervasive patriarchy and the neoliberal chimera

This article argues that neoliberalism with its pervasive patriarchy and co-option of feminism, renders women tacitly complicit in gendered pay inequalities. We show that in New Zealand, one of the world’s most neoliberal nations, women who might precisely be best equipped to argue for equal pay – engineers – do not do so because neoliberalism makes many feel responsible for, and accepting of, their lower salaries. In interviews and focus groups, many women engineers talk of deserving less pay than men because of their ‘choices’, their ‘personality’ and their lack of ‘responsibility’. In a disempowering environment, some women show agency by disavowing gender as a reason for the pay gap. Such narratives of individualized shortcomings reduce hope of collective action that might uncover and dismantle the systemic causes of pay inequity, which are not due to a woman’s choice or personality but rather what we frame as the neoliberal chimera.     

SCIENTIFIC‐BUREAUCRATIC MEDICINE AND UK HEALTH POLICY1

One prominent method for controlling health costs is to find measures for the management of demand. Various options exist for this; and many of them have been tried during the fifty years of the UK's National Health Service. Current policy now focuses on what may be called “scientific‐bureaucratic medicine.” This policy is based on the assumptions that valid medical knowledge is derived from accumulated research evidence and that such knowledge should be implemented through clinical guidelines which are enforced to some extent. This UK development has parallels with the US Agency for Health Care Policy and Research whose experience, therefore, raises some policy issues for the UK.