The Kerala Regime and Regional Disparities in Health Infrastructure Versus Outcomes

Conventional wisdom holds that although at the time of Kerala state formation in 1956 the northern region (Malabar) lagged behind the southern region (Travancore-Cochin) in development indicators, inter-regional disparities reduced considerably in ensuing decades. The reduction in regional disparities is typically attributed to modern Kerala's welfare policy regime, which emphasized greater growth of infrastructure facilities in Malabar. This study presents evidence for health that suggests that while disparities in outcomes reduced over time, disparities in key infrastructural inputs did not reduce. These differing trends for infrastructure and outcomes are consistentwith a diminishing returns argument that may have little to do directly with the Kerala regime. Rather, the potency of the Kerala regime lays in its ability to increase development inputs throughout the state (albeit without favoring the lagging region) and consolidate the conditions for “public action” to effectively demand and utilize these inputs.     

Development of the Social Issues Advocacy Scale-2 (SIAS-2)

The 21-item Social Issues Advocacy Scale (SIAS; Nilsson, Marszalek et al. in Educ Psychol Meas 71(1):258–275, 2011) was developed as a concise measure of social justice advocacy for people in the helping and health professions. Recent scholarship has indicated a need for a broader measure. The present study seeks to continue development of the SIAS into an expanded version, the SIAS-2. A sample of 284 helping and health professionals and college students in related fields was administered 117 items, which was reduced to 78 items for the final instrument through item analysis and exploratory factor analysis. Eight factors emerged explaining 61.5% of the item variance. Corresponding subscales ranged in reliability from .88 to .94. Additional validity evidence is discussed.     

Secret weapon: the "new" Medicare as a route to health security

Over the past twenty years, Medicare has been transformed from a single-payer insurer into a hybrid of complementary public and private insurance arrangements. Despite creating ongoing controversy, these changes have resulted in an ironic and largely overlooked strategic potential: Medicare's evolving hybrid form makes it the most promising vehicle for overcoming the historical obstacles to universal health insurance in the United States. To make this surprising case, we first explore the distinctive political dynamics of programs that, like today's Medicare, are hybrids of public and private arrangements. We then consider how these political dynamics might circumvent past barriers to universal health insurance. Finally, we discuss the strengths and weaknesses of alternative pathways through which Medicare could be expanded to promote health security.     

Components of Legal Concepts: Quality of Law,Evaluative Judgement,and Metaphorical Framing of Article 8 ECHR

This paper looks at the use of metaphor and its effect on the interpretation of the ‘quality of law’ in Art. 8 cases of the European Court of Human Rights. It demonstrates the Court's reproduction of specific metaphorical frames ‐ a finding consistent with the use of metaphor in judgment experiments in cognitive linguistics. The Court employs metaphors conceptually coherent with those used in their cited precedent, in their representation of the successful pleadings within their judgments and insists (implicitly) on different metaphors in dissent. This paper argues that the use of congruent metaphors may be indicative of metaphor as a contributing factor in how judges reason. In the least, it is a significantly understudied phenomenon and this paper provides evidence for the salience of its approach for understanding judicial reasoning.     

Effects of Human Electro‐Muscular Incapacitation (HEMI) Devices on Cardiovascular Changes in Anesthetized Swine as Measured by Transesophageal Echocardiography (TEE)

The abundance of, and reliance upon, human electro‐muscular incapacitation (HEMI) devices, especially in law enforcement, has generated scrutiny and examination of these technologies. The purpose of this study was to examine cardiovascular effects resulting from typical (5 sec) and longer activation (20 sec) HEMI applications studying myocardial function and peripheral vascular system using a combination of invasive cardiovascular catheters and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). Six healthy swine (Sus scrofa) 3–5 months in age and weighing between 60 and 86 kg were anesthetized and exposed to the TASER Model X26 waveform while transesophageal echocardiography was performed. Stroke volume was shown to statistically decrease during HEMI application indicating an increase in systemic vascular resistance, but HEMI application did not result in myocardial dysfunction (“cardiac stunning”).     

A revised model of unilateral accidents

This paper suggests and justifies a revised formulation of the unilateral accident model based on relaxing two assumptions of the standard model: the precaution function and the harm function. The revised model is, therefore, more general and corresponds better to various situations. A resulting trait of the generalized model is its account for the interaction between the injurer’s care and activity levels, which was implicitly assumed away so far. The revised model is examined using a few standard issues in tort and the analysis brings new results and insights for the unilateral accident case. For example, the view that, under a negligence regime, due care can be defined regardless of the optimal level of activity holds under very restrictive assumptions. In general, due care must be defined simultaneously with the optimal activity level. In addition, the common view suggests that underestimation of the level of actual damages under strict liability would induce injurers to take insufficient care and to engage excessively in a risky activity (and vice versa, for overestimation). This paper shows that underestimation of actual damages may counter-intuitively lead to insufficient activity or excessive care levels. Similarly, the results of underestimating harm under a negligence regime prove to be different than commonly thought. In addition, the revised model questions the intuitive similarity between the underestimation of harm and the judgment-proof problem, and provides some new results for the latter problem.     

Markets and Corporate Conflict: A Substitution-Cost Approach to Business Litigation

This paper examines the phenomenon of conflict escalaton in business relations. A theory of when conflict between firms will proceed from informal relationship-preserving norms to more formal and destructive end games involving litigation is developed and tested. The central theoretical claim is that substitution costs serve as an impediment against the escalation of conflict. Data on market concentration and dollar flows between aggregate markets in the economy are used to develop measures of substitution costs. Measures of substitution costs and trade figures are also used to describe power advantages in markets. The theory is tested through a series of regression models. The main findings are that (1) when substitution costs are high, parties are less likely to escalate conflict and (2) asymmetric market relations result in less conflict escalation than symmetric ones. Empirical analysis indicates that substitution costs are related in predictable and meaningful ways to conflict escalation and business litigation.     

Fighting Discrimination with Discrimination: Public Universities and the Rights of Dissenting Students

This article discusses recent legal conflicts between state universities and conservative religious students in the United States, focusing on Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. In recent years, several universities have denied recognition to religious student organizations that discriminate on the basis of religion or sexual orientation. I argue that scholars on both sides of the issue have failed to recognize the full scope of the privilege that the universities demand. If the courts accept the universities' demands, then the courts dangerously expand the government's authority to suppress dissenters. No proponent of civil liberties should welcome this change.