How stalled global reform is fueling regionalism: China’s engagement with the G20

In the Chinese view, the architecture of contemporary global governance – especially that of the Bretton Woods institutions – is flawed and in need of reform. Developing nations (like China), the argument runs, need to be given a role proportionate to their global economic influence. Since the Group of Twenty (G20) became a leaders’ summit in 2008, China has used the forum to push for such reform. But today, despite some supposed progress, reform has stalled. Recognising this fact, China is increasingly emphasising regional integration in its strategy for overcoming the middle-income trap. Global reform has not been abandoned, but – given its infeasibility – is no longer a short-term priority.     

Supply Chain Linkages and the Extended Carbon Coalition

Which firms oppose action to fight climate change? Networks of input sourcing and sales to downstream customers ought to propagate and reinforce opposition to decarbonization beyond direct emitters of CO₂. To test this claim, we build the largest data set of public political activity for and against climate action in the United States, revealing that the majority of corporate opposition to climate action comes from outside the highest‐emitting industries. We construct new measures of the carbon intensity of firms and show that policy exposure via carbon‐intensive inputs and sales to downstream emitters explains this large volume of opposition from non‐emitting industries. Sixty‐six percent of U.S. lobbying on climate policy has been conducted by an extended coalition of firms, associations, and other groups that have publicly opposed reducing carbon emissions. Public opposition to climate action by carbon‐connected industries is therefore broad‐based, highly organized, and matched with extensive lobbying.     

The equity effects of state school finance reforms: A methodological critique and new evidence

Since 1970, over half the states have reformed their school finance systems with improvement in equity of revenue and resource distributions as one of the stated goals. While numerous studies evaluating the equity effects of these often expensive reforms have been undertaken, there remains much disagreement about how to assess the reforms' impacts. In this article, we address the problems of measuring equity effects with an emphasis on the need for multiple definitions and an understanding of the value judgments inherent in all measures of equity. Next, three methodologies that have been used to assess the equity impacts of school finance reform are critiqued. Finally, in an effort to correct shortcomings of each, a fourth methodology is developed and new empirical evidence on the effects of reform based on that methodology are presented. The article concludes with observations about the importance of the choice of a methodology with which to evaluate complex policy changes that involve value judgments about what is fair, just, and equitable.The authors contributed equally to this article, but for reasons of equity, the names are not listed alphabetically. The research was supported by funds from the Ford Foundation. We would like to thank James Knickman, Richard Schramm and two anonymous referees for comments provided on an earlier draft of the article, Chris Hakusa for computer assistance, and Karen Gruhn for research and secretarial assistance.