Politically valued resources and preferred outcomes: Does the political context matter?

Previous research has concluded that ownership of economic resources that are politically valued leads to preferential outcomes during interactions with government officials. However, how the political context, and specifically the roles of the government actors involved, influences the relationship between political valued resources (PVRs) and desired outcomes has to date been relatively unexplored. In our paper, we argue that in interactions with elected legislators, PVRs are much more likely to lead to preferential outcomes. Conversely, due to the lack of power these resources have with bureaucrats in charge of regulatory enforcement, PVRs are less likely to lead to preferential outcomes. We provide some support for our arguments by looking for shifting patterns of effects in outcome variables that typically fall under the jurisdiction of each political role type. We find that large firms, export firms, and technology firms largely report having favorable influence over laws and regulations due to lobbying and increased foreign ownership, while also spending more days in inspections and more managerial time dealing with regulations.     

The Politics of Obstruction: Republican Holds in the U.S. Senate

A defining feature of the modern US Senate is obstruction. Almost all pieces of legislation considered in the Senate are affected either directly or indirectly by obstruction. Obstruction takes many forms in the modern Senate, but one of the most prevalent, yet least studied, is the hold. Using a newly created dataset on Republican Senate holds, we cast light on this important practice. Our results suggest that a variety of factors including timing, party status, and a senator's voting record are related to both the prevalence of holds and the success of legislation subject to holds in the Senate.     

Yesterday's war; tomorrow's technology: peer commentary on ‘Ethical,legal, social and policy issues in the use of genomic technologies by the US military’

A recent article by Maxwell J. Mehlman and Tracy Yeheng Li, in the Journal of Law and the Biosciences, sought to examine the ethical, legal, social, and policy issues associated with the use of genetic screening and germ-line therapies (‘genomic technologies’) by the US Military. In this commentary, we will elaborate several related matters: the relationship between genetic and non-genetic screening methods, the history of selection processes and force strength, and the consequences and ethics of, as Mehlman and Li suggest, engineering enhanced soldiers. We contend, first, that the strengths of genomic testing as a method of determining enrollment in the armed forces has limited appeal, given the state of current selection methods in the US armed forces. Second, that the vagaries of genetic selection, much like other forms of selection that do not bear causally or reliably on soldier performance (such as race, gender, and sexuality), pose a systematic threat to force strength by limiting the (valuable) diversity of combat units. Third, that the idea of enhancing warfighters through germ-line interventions poses serious ethical issues in terms of the control and ownership of ‘enhancements’ when members separate from service.     

Gender and Jail Work: Correctional Policy Implications of Perceptual Diversity in the Work Force

Although women now represent a significant proportion of many (if not most) jail staffs, the degree to which their perceptions of corrections work differs from males' remains largely unexplored. In this paper, we compare female and male jail staff perceptions regarding the stress associated with work in jails, the job satisfaction to be derived from jail work, the job environment experienced in jails and the level of commitment to jail facilities across five jail settings. Our findings show important gender-based similarities and differences that need to be understood to maximize the benefits of the work force diversity that women bring to the corrections profession.