Cynicism and job satisfaction in policing: Muddying the waters

Since Niederhoffer’s (1969) pioneering work, police cynicism has been a staple in research on police officers and police work, various typologies of police officers and definitions of the police subculture or police personality rely to a greater or lesser degree on conceptions of cynicism and suspicion. More recent research has questioned both the validity of measures of cynicism and typologies of police officers. The present study examines the link between cynicism and job satisfaction which is implicit in the literature. Findings indicate not only that these two factors are correlated, but also that relationships reported between cynicism and other factors in policing are mirrored by correlations between those factors and a measure of job satisfaction. The question which arises is, to what degree are correlations reported in the literature spurious, resulting not from cynicism, as was thought, but from a more generic measure of job satisfaction?     

State Adoption of Model Insurance Codes: An Empirical Analysis

What are the patterns of adoption of NAIC model insurance actsamong the states, and what explains the differences in stateresponse? This article provides an empirical analysis of thesequestions. State responses are analyzed comprehensively andfunctionally; two core regulatory functions—financialregulation and consumer protection—receive specific attention.The article then examines three types of explanations suggestedby the literature on model-code adoption: broad socioeconomicforces, narrow interest-group pressures, and the nature of publicinstitutions (specifically the legislature and the state insurancedepartment). The interest-group model is the most powerful,but the results it produces challenge the traditional view ofthe politics of insurance regulation.     

Sex differences in earnings: An analysis of Malaysian wage data

The conventional human capital earnings function is applied to a rich set of Malaysian wage data in an attempt to determine the origins of sex differences in average earnings. Several findings are of interest, the first being that the relationships estimated from the earnings function are similar to those typically reported for non‐LDCs. Second, less than a third of the average monthly wage difference between the sexes of about 34 per cent appears to be the consequence of either females having lower (measured) productivity than males, or females receiving lower rates of return to human capital than males. The major part of the earnings difference is apparently a consequence of employment distributions: females are much more likely to be in the low‐paying occupations.