Residential Mobility and Delinquency Revisited: Causation or Selection?

Objectives

To assess the role of selection in the observed association between residential mobility and delinquency among adolescents.

Methods

This study draws on a sample of adolescents from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health). We first examine whether adjusting regression models for several well-established determinants of moving attenuates the association between mobility and delinquency. We then employ propensity score methods to estimate the effect of residential mobility on delinquency among a sub-sample of movers and non-movers who had similar likelihoods of moving.

Results

The association between mobility and delinquency is significant and positive in regression models, although it is somewhat attenuated by additional control variables that are rarely considered in prior work. However, the distribution of mobility determinants differs substantially across movers and non-movers, potentially biasing these estimates. After covariate balance is achieved using a propensity score approach, we observe no differences in delinquency between groups.

Conclusions

Results suggest that certain adolescents are more likely to move than others, explaining the observed association between mobility and delinquency. Future research should therefore be mindful of selection when trying to account for differential outcomes between mobile and non-mobile adolescents.     

In Diversity We Trust: The Positive Effect of Ethnic Diversity on Outgroup Trust

Most studies on ethnic diversity and social trust rely on the standard measure of generalized trust. This study complements existing work on this topic by examining the effect of diversity on trust toward outgroups. This innovation is motivated by two closely connected arguments: At first, most existent studies are conducted in the framework of intergroup contact and conflict theory. These theories directly allude to trust toward outgroups. Second, recent empirical studies show that the standard measure of generalized trust is much less generalized than theoretically assumed. Instead it is blurred by a great deal of particularized trust. Explicit outgroup trust therefore seems to be better suited to empirically testing the extent to which growing ethnic diversity influences trust toward people different from oneself. The cross-national analysis yields a positive relationship between diversity and outgroup trust, which is an interesting finding given the current debate dominated by conflict theoretical reasoning.     

Testing a rational choice model of “desistance:” Decomposing changing expectations and changing utilities

We argue that a rational choice framework can be used to explain declines in offending from adolescence to young adulthood in two ways. First, subjective expectations of offending can be age graded such that perceptions of rewards decrease and perceptions of risks and costs increase. Second, the marginal (dis)utility of crime may be age graded (e.g., preferences for risks, costs, and rewards). We examine changes in offending from adolescence to young adulthood among a subset of individuals from the Pathways to Desistance Study (N = 585) and employ a nonlinear decomposition model to partition differences in offending attributable to changing subjective expectations (X) and changing marginal utilities (β). The results indicate that both have direct and independent effects on changes in offending over time. The results of a detailed decomposition on the subjective expectations also indicate that differences exist across the type of incentives. That is, the effect of changing expectations is attributed mainly to changes in perceived rewards (both social and intrinsic). Changing expectations of social costs and risk of arrest from offending have weak effects on changes in criminal behavior, which suggests that they must be accompanied by increases in the weight placed on these expectations to promote appreciable declines in offending.     

The Globalization of Pharmaceutical Regulation

Drugs have long been among the most extensively regulated of all consumer products. Not only do all governments closely supervise virtually every aspect of their development, testing, production and marketing, but many also regulate their pricing and distribution. The pharmaceutical industry is highly globalized, with over half the sales of the fifty largest drug companies made outside their home country (Tarabusi and Vivkery 1993). However, until recently, drug regulation was virtually synonymous with national sovereignty. Firms were required to conduct separate tests, submit separate applications, and meet distinctive criteria to enter each national market.
Because drugs are so extensively regulated and have such significant health and safety impacts, drug policy coordination has proven extremely difficult. Nonetheless over the last decade, national regulatory agencies have begun to cooperate more closely with one another. The European Union has established a centralized drug approval system, the United States Food and Drug Administration has become more willing to cooperate with its foreign counterparts, and the United States, the EU and Japan have made substantial progress in harmonizing drug approval requirements under the auspices of a new international body, the International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for the Registration of Pharmaceutical Products (ICH). This article describes and assesses the implications of the increase in international coordination of national drug approval policies. It argues that the undermining of national regulatory sovereignty has improved both the effectiveness and efficiency of government regulation.     

The rise of China and the changing face of East Asia

In this exerpt from a presentation of the same title, Vogel examines some key changes that have occurred in China and in the United States that have an impact on US-China relations and then offers comments about responses that might be appropriate for Japan to consider.     

More than ten years after: The long-term stability of informed death penalty opinions

This panel study examined the stability of informed death penalty opinions more than ten years after students participated in a semester long death penalty class. Results for two “abstract” opinion measures indicated that support of the death penalty significantly diminished after exposure to the death penalty class, yet rebounded to initial pretest levels two to three years later. After more than ten years, the data revealed small increases in support of the death penalty from the first follow-up period. Personal involvement measures did not change significantly across the four points in time. The relative importance of four of the eleven reasons for death penalty support or opposition changed significantly over time. Those changes varied across measures. Some increased in importance over time, while others decreased in importance. Finally, race was a significant factor in every opinion measure, as well as in nine of the eleven reasons for death penalty support or opposition.     

Rights for the nazis,communists and ku klux klan: An empirical analysis of student perceptions

This article presents an empirical study which examines the willingness of students on a Southern campus to extend First Amendment rights to members of the Communist Workers Party, the American Nazi Party, and the Ku Klux Klan. The rights under study include the freedom of the press, freedom of speach, freedom to assemble and march, and freedom to run for public office. The rights were first examined as abstract principles available to everyone, and then as rights available to groups whose philosophies the students might oppose. A variety of situations were examined on a 68-item questionnaire.     

The Last Word in Court—A Hidden Disadvantage for the Defense

In the legal systems of most western countries, defense attorneys present their sentencing recommendation after the prosecution has presented its sentencing demands. This procedural sequence for criminal cases is intended to balance the impact of both parties on the judge's final decision. Especially the positioning of the defense's plea at the end of the trial follows the fundamental legal principle “in dubio pro reo.” Research on judgmental anchoring, however, suggests that the standard procedural sequence may in fact work against this principle. Consistent with this implication, the present studies demonstrate that the defense's sentencing recommendation is anchored on, and consequently assimilated toward, the preceding recommendation by the prosecution. This influence prevents the defense attorney from effectively counterbalancing the prosecutor's demand. Instead, the biased defense attorney's recommendation partially mediates the impact of the prosecutor's demand on the judge's decision. These findings suggest that the standard procedural sequence in court may place the defense at a distinct disadvantage.