The Welfare State as Rational Choice: Social Democracy in a Post-Socialist World

In this article* it is argued that rational choice analysis can help explain social democratic welfare states (SDWS). It explores the common ground between the methodological individualism of rational choice political economy and the "U-shaped curve" central to neocorporatist analysis, the idea of a curvilinear relationship between the level of corporatism in institutional arrangements and societal welfare. Central to the SDWS, it is suggested, is the reduction of information costs due to the configuration of institutional arragements in three key arenas of social action in the SDWS: the informational-cultural; the organizational-economic; and the governmental-political. These arrangements frame the choices under which rational individuals act to maintain the SDWS and the outcomes it produces. Concrete examples demonstrating the usefulness of the approach are offered in terms of explaining differences in policy choices (and therefore outcomes) between the Scandinavian countries and more laissez-faire systems such as the US. The conclusion looks at the prospects for the SDWS, asking just how the institutional arrangements central to the SDWS are being challenged by recent developments.     

EARTHQUAKE PREDICTION AND THE GOVERNMENTAL PROCESS

As technology increases to predict earthquakes, government must be prepared to expand upon it, legitimate the prediction, and design a program towards effective utilization. The parties involved in this process, in addition to all levels of government, include the scientific community and the media. Unfortunately, the prediction-warning effort in the United States lags behinathat of other countries, most notably Japan. Lacking is a national policy commitment spurred by the party most vulnerable to a catastrophic earthquake event (e.g., the state of California).     

Formed by thalidomide: mass torts as a false cure for toxic exposure

Professor Bernstein considers a theme of Judge Weinstein's judicial and academic writings--that tort law works imperfectly to effect justice in mass disaster cases--through the vehicle of thalidomide, the paradigmatic toxic substance. Thirty-five years ago, thalidomide poisoned thousands of children, inflicting limb-reduction birth defects. Professor Bernstein argues that the drug has also had a malforming effect on mass tort law. Courts and scholars have used the precedent of thalidomide to build stringent legal standards of proof and causation, without enough attention to the functions and consistency of these standards. Thalidomide has also prompted commentators to celebrate American drug regulation and the American liability system; Professor Bernstein argues that these paeans are exaggerated. She concludes that the United States must confront its thalidomide history, as other nations in the world have done, and build social institutions--strong regulation and social insurance--to guard against toxic disasters of the future.