Gerrymandering Roll Calls in Congress, 1879–2000

We argue that the standard toolbox used in electoral studies to assess the bias and responsiveness of electoral systems can also be used to assess the bias and responsiveness of legislative systems. We consider which items in the toolbox are the most appropriate for use in the legislative setting, then apply them to estimate levels of bias in the U.S. House from 1879 to 2000. Our results indicate a systematic bias in favor of the majority party over this period, with the strongest bias arising during the period of "czar rule" (51st–60th Congresses, 1889–1910) and during the post-packing era (87th–106th Congresses, 1961–2000). This finding is consistent with the majority party possessing a significant advantage, either in "buying" vote options, in setting the agenda, or both.     

The Logic of Gamson's Law: Pre-election Coalitions and Portfolio Allocations

Gamson's Law—the proposition that coalition governments will distribute portfolios in proportion to each member party's contribution of seats to the coalition—has been one of the most prominent landmarks in coalitional studies since the 1970s. However, standard bargaining models of government formation argue that Gamson's Law should not hold, once one controls for relevant indicators of bargaining power. In this article, we extend these bargaining models by allowing parties to form pre-election pacts. We argue that campaign investments by pact signatories depend on how they anticipate portfolios will be distributed and, thus, signatories have an incentive to precommit to portfolio allocation rules. We show that pacts will sometimes agree to allocate portfolios partly or wholly in proportion to members' contributions of seats to the coalition; this increases each signatory's investment in the campaign, thereby conferring external benefits (in the form of a larger probability of an alliance majority) on other coalition members. Empirical tests support the model's predictions.     

Thinking 'globally' about peace in Northern Ireland

Though many in Britain and Northern Ireland remain highly sceptical about the longer term intentions of the Provisional IRA, it is clear that its ceasefire of August 1994 represented a major turning-point in Irish history. The nature of the IRA decision however remains shrouded in controversy – made all the more controversial of course by its resumption of military activities followed eighteen months later by the announcement of another ceasefire. This article seeks to throw light on the original IRA decision by exploring some of the international pressures which led the organization to take the decision it did in 1994. While in no way seeking to downplay the importance of 'internal' factors such as war weariness and the Anglo-Irish agreement, it is suggested here that the decision itself makes little sense unless it is situated within a wider global context. It is also implied that if analysts had been more sensitive to the influence of the 'global' upon the 'local' conflict in Northern Ireland, they may have been less surprised than they were by the IRA announcement.     

Application of Technology Transfer principles to managerial responsibilities

During the summer of 1985, LCDR Robert Cox completed a course entitled “Technology Transfer” at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California. The objectives of the course were to enhance the capability of course participants to take advantage of innovations, to move appropriate research and development results into use, and to gain insight into the Technology Transfer responsibilities of managers. LCDR Cox' paper was chosen from among several contributions as an example of the application of Technology Transfer principles to a manager's job.     

Recovery of human skeletal elements from a recent UK murder inquiry: preservational signatures.

Factors that control bone preservation are not fully understood but generally include those that reflect "natural" taphonomic or diagenetic processes and also those reflecting anthropogenic activity. The aim of this paper is to examine whether the survival of skeletal elements from a recent UK serial murder investigation (n = 12) and three archaeological cemetery sites from England (n = 112, 95, 182; Roman to early-medieval), share a similar recovery signature. Examination of this data demonstrates that even when clear evidence of traumatic and perimortem dismemberment exists within an assemblage, the distribution of missing elements can be almost identical to archaeological material buried in normal attrition cemeteries. Given that these preservational signatures are so similar, it is concluded that careful observation of bone surfaces is necessary to confidently interpret bone loss, particularly where dismemberment and/or element excision is suggested by the non-anatomical position of the skeleton within the grave. Where postmortem excision of bone is suspected, careful examination of contiguous bone surfaces, both macroscopic and microscopic, is suggested to detect fine cutmark lesions indicative of anthropogenic excision. Without this evidence other preservational factors must be considered both taphonomic and diagenetic.     

Public Procurement Directives in the European Union: A Study of Local Authority Purchasing

Prompted by the Single European Market initiative, virtually all public procurement, except for defence equipment, is now subject to European Union rules which prohibit discriminatory (buy national) purchasing policies. This paper examines the impact of recent procurement Directives on local authority tendering and contract award behaviour (compliance), and considers whether the legislation has been successful in opening-up such public procurement to international competition. Although local authorities are making extensive use of the Official Journal to advertise their requirements, there is evidence that purchasers do not always adhere to the new legislation and it is not obvious that adherence to the legislation is improving. Moreover, an analysis of local authority contract award data for 1993 revealed that almost all contracts were won by domestic firms. However, doubts about the ultimate ownership of such firms and the sourcing of components means that there remains considerable scope for further work.     

Implementation of the Routine Use Clause of the Privacy Act

Information privacy, the privacy of personally identifiable data held by organizations, gained access to the federal policy agenda in the sixties. The passage of several legislative acts resulted in protection for information privacy in specific environments and circumstances. In 1974, the Privacy Act was passed, providing citizens limited protection for data held by agencies of the federal government. While the Privacy Act is the cornerstone of protection for citizens with regard to government-held data, the law has been less effective than its designers hoped it would be. One major deject of the law is the routine use clause, which has been subjected to broad interpretation and distortion, to the benefit of executive branch agencies which handle personally identifiable data. This article examines the issue of information privacy, with focus on the misuse of the routine use clause and subsequent implications for citizen privacy.     

Improving Reputation BIT by BIT: Bilateral Investment Treaties and Foreign Accountability

The literature on foreign direct investment (FDI) has paid an increasing interest to international institutions such as bilateral investment treaties (BITs), but whether BITs help attract FDI is an unsettled question. Building on the existing literature, this article argues that BITs can change investors’ perceptions and the corresponding investment they make because signing BITs signals the involvement of another powerful country that is able to compel the host government to comply. This implies that the effect of BITs is not constant across signatory countries: BITs are more effective when they are signed with rich and influential countries. Using monadic and dyadic FDI data, this article finds that BITs signed with powerful countries (defined as the top six largest economies) lead to an increase in FDI inflows (both from these signatory countries and from other countries). BITs signed with other countries, despite in a larger quantity, have little influence on FDI inflows.