What kind of ‘generalized’ systems of preferences?

Relations between Developed and Developing Countries are constantly being subjected to new and increasingly challenging situations, but there is a generally held belief that Developing Countries should be treated differently. However, both the nature and the extent of this differential treatment are sensitive issues. Against this background, this article examines Generalized Systems of Preferences as unilateral instruments for development cooperation, and considers the problems caused by the discretionary nature with which they have traditionally been implemented. JEL Classification K33 · F13 · F18 · F02 · J80 This article expands on the author’s research included in the papers presented to the XX Session of the Spanish Association of Professors of International Law and International Relations, Jaen, September 2003, and to the Conference on North and South Dimensions on Trade and Environment, Amsterdam, November 2004, organised within the framework of the concerted action on trade and environment (CAT & E), financed by the EU-UNER, contract no. EV K2-CT-2002-20017. This field of study forms part of the author’s contribution to the Project ‘La incidencia de la globalización en los procedimientos de creación y aplicación de Derecho Internacional’, financed by the Spanish Ministry for Science and Technology, SPGC, project number BJU2003-04240.     

Public Approval ofU.S. State Legislatures

The determinants of public approval for state legislatures have not received much attention, but one important finding is that more professionalized legislatures experience lower levels of public support. We argue that this result is an artifact of limited data and problematic model specifications. Analyzing a large national survey sample, we demonstrate that the negative relationship holds primarily for conservatives and to a lesser extent for moderates but not liberals. Additionally, we find that legislative approval in states with term limits and ballot initiatives is no different than in states without these institutions.     

IMMIGRATION AND CRIME IN AN ERA OF TRANSFORMATION: A LONGITUDINAL ANALYSIS OF HOMICIDES IN SAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOODS, 1980–2000*

Emerging research associated with the “immigration revitalization” perspective suggests that immigration has been labeled inaccurately as a cause of crime in contemporary society. In fact, crime seems to be unexpectedly low in many communities that exhibit high levels of the following classic indicators of social disorganization: residential instability, ethnic heterogeneity, and immigration. But virtually all research conducted to date has been cross-sectional in nature and therefore unable to demonstrate how the relationship between immigration and crime might covary over time. This limitation is significant, especially because current versions of social disorganization theory posit a dynamic relationship between structural factors and crime that unfolds over time. The current study addresses this issue by exploring the effects of immigration on neighborhood-level homicide trends in the city of San Diego, California, using a combination of racially/ethnically disaggregated homicide victim data and community structural indicators collected for three decennial census periods. Consistent with the revitalization thesis, results show that the increased size of the foreign-born population reduces lethal violence over time. Specifically, we find that neighborhoods with a larger share of immigrants have fewer total, non-Latino White, and Latino homicide victims. More broadly, our findings suggest that social disorganization in heavily immigrant cities might be largely a function of economic deprivation rather than forms of “neighborhood” or “system” stability.