From weakest-link to best-shot: The voluntary provision of public goods

It has traditionally been assumed that the socially available amount X of a public good is the simple sum of the separate amounts x _i produced by the i = 1, ..., I members of the community. But there are many other possibilities of practical importance. Among them are: (i) Weakest-link rule, where the socially available amount is the minimum of the quantities individually provided, and (ii) Best-shot rule, where the socially available amount is the maximum of the individual quantities. The former tends to arise in linear situations, where each individual has a veto on the total to be provided (e.g., if each is responsible for one link of a chain); the latter tends to arise when there is a single prize of overwhelming importance for the community, with any individual's effort having a chance of securing the prize. In comparison with the standard Summation formula of ordinary public-good theory, it is shown that underprovision of the public good tends to considerably moderated when the Weakest-link function is applicable, but aggravated when the Best-shot function is applicable. In time of disaster, where the survival of the community may depend upon each person's doing his duty, the conditions for applicability of the Weakest-link rule are approximated. This circumstance explains the historical observation that disaster conditions tend to elicit an extraordinary amount of unselfish behavior.     

Simple Bayesian Inference for Qualitative Political Research

In political science and related disciplines in the social andbehavioral sciences, there exists an unfortunate de facto dividebetween qualitative and quantitative empirical research. Sometimesthis divide is purely a function of training and disciplinarysocialization, but often it reflects a valid dispute over thephilosophical foundations of inquiry. I argue here that theBayesian approach to quantitative empirical modeling is an amenablestarting point for building a rapprochement between qualitativeand quantitative research, and I introduce as an example a straightforwardmodel that allows for the Bayesian estimation of the differencebetween means of very small samples with unknown and possiblyunequal variances. I then extend this approach to consider nonnormalvariates, informative priors, and a multivariate test of thedifference of means useful for the researcher who is interestedin determining whether two small samples are different on severaldimensions simultaneously.     

Weight force during prone restraint and respiratory function

Prone maximal restraint position (PMRP, also known as hogtie or hobble) is often used by law enforcement and prehospital personnel on violent combative individuals in the field setting. Weight force is often applied to the restrained individual's back and torso during the restraint process. We sought to determine the effect of 25 and 50 lbs weight force on respiratory function in human subject volunteers placed in the PMRP. We performed a randomized, cross-over, controlled trial on 10 subjects placed in 4 positions for 5 minutes each: sitting, PRMP, PRMP with 25 lbs weight force (PMRP+25), and PRMP with 50 lbs weight force placed on the back (PMRP+50). We measure pulse oximetry, end-tidal CO2 levels, and forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1). FVC and FEV1 were significantly lower in all restraint positions compared with sitting but not significantly different between restraint positions with and without weight force. Moreover, mean oxygen saturation levels were above 95% and mean end-tidal CO2 levels were below 45 mm Hg for all positions. We conclude that PMRP with and without 25 and 50 lbs of weight force resulted in a restrictive pulmonary function pattern but no evidence of hypoxia or hypoventilation.     

De-Europeanization by Default? Germany's EU Policy in Defense and Asylum

Since the end of the Cold War and unification, Germany's policy toward and within the European Union (EU) has undergone significant changes. Once a model "Europeanist," Germany has become increasingly reluctant to support the progressive implementation of key projects of European integration. Neither an instance of a planned strategic change nor a result of an inevitable adaptation to structural shifts at the systemic level, these changes in German foreign policy, incremental yet significant as they are, evade both deterministic and voluntaristic accounts of foreign policy change. Integrating insights from foreign policy analysis, integration theory, and social theory, the article develops an innovative framework for analysis that is applied to Germany's European asylum and refugee policy as well as its security and defense policy. The origins of both policy fields at the European level can be traced back to initiatives that were supported by or even originated in Germany. However, as the 1990s progressed Germany increasingly obstructed further institutionalization. While in the field of asylum and refugee policy the Amsterdam summit marks a clear turning point in Germany's position, the transformation of German policies on European security and defense proceeded rather as an incremental decrease in material support, aggravating substantive progress in the policy field more broadly. An unanticipated consequence of earlier initiatives, in both cases Germany has found it increasingly difficult to live up to the expectations it has helped to raise.     

From D.C. to Little Rock: Welfare Reform at Mid-term

Following an active period of state welfare reforms, passageof the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programin 1996 gave states great flexibility, set up block-grant financing,and imposed work-related mandates. Under TANF, states increasedtheir work expectations for recipients; improved work incentives;and provided more work supports, such as child care and transportationassistance. Caseloads have dropped sharply, and most formerrecipients are finding work. Caseload declines in most stateshave resulted in substantial funding being available for newand expanded services, including supports for working poor familiesand early-childhood and after-school programs. Most states havebeen slower to develop these programs, but the pace is increasingas policymakers become more secure about TANF's flexibilityand the magnitude of the caseload changes.