The politics of family planning in the Maghrib

This article uses a comparative case study approach to relate policy outcomes in terms of family planning to the patterns of political forces observed in the 3 Maghrib states of Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia. It is suggested that official support for a strong family planning program may be linked to recognition of the problem of low labor absorption and to concrete steps taken to counter the problem. The article discusses different vantage points for approaching the political context of family planning and distinguishes between the use of family planning as an instrument of social policy and as an instrument of economic policy. Ideological reasons for opposition to or support of family planning are then outlined. The colonial experience of the 3 states is differentiated and a chronological account of their family planning programs is provided. The political systems and leadership of the 3 countries are separately discussed in greater detail, after which the influence of elite groups on family planning programs and activities in each country is assessed. Developments in the 3 countries since 1978 are then sketched. The author concludes that the relative importance of policies toward employment and women's status in connection with support for family planning has probably varied over time, with economics playing a greater role in the 1970s. The activities of non-regime political actors were found to be very significant in formulation of population policies in Algeria and Morocco but less so in Tunisia.     

Book reviews

Journal of Chinese Political Science -     

Modeling Judicial Federalism: Predictors of State Court Protections of Defendants' Rights Under State Constitutions, 1969-1989

Drawing on data collected by Barry Latzer and using a logisticregression model that employs pooled time-series, this articletests a variety of factors for their impact on state high courtdecisions to diverge from U.S. Supreme Court criminal proceduredoctrines from 1969 to 1989. Several factors predict the developmentof independent state doctrines protective of civil liberties,including popular-vote retention elections and longer termsof office for state court justices, high court reputations,state wealth, and regional distinctions (with western courtsmost likely to advance individual rights). This study representsonly a small step in understanding an area of judicial behaviorthat has been long ignored in the political science literature.     

Revisiting Shapiro: Welfare Magnets and State Residency Requirements in the 1990s

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity ReconciliationAct of 1996 (PRWORA) generated renewed interest in welfare racesto the bottom as states received greater discretion over eligibilitystandards for new residents. Despite U.S. Supreme Court decisionsfinding welfare-residency requirements unconstitutional andmounting empirical evidence that welfare benefits do not attractpoor migrants, state policymakers have enacted welfare-reformplans that treat newcomers differently as authorized in PRWORA.This article reviews the existing research on welfare migration,current state-residency requirements, and central constitutionalissues surrounding such requirements. With the likelihood thatcourts will have the final word on the current round of statewelfare-residency requirements, it is essential that empiricalresearch on welfare magnets examine the issues central to thecases currently moving through the judicial system.