Race,economy and punishment: inequity and racial disparity in imprisonment, 1972–2002

Guided by the Rusche and Kirchheimer thesis, this study examines variation in incarceration rates across states. Time-series regression analysis is applied to 30?years of state-level data to examine how economic factors interact with aggregate measures of race/ethnicity in predicting rates of incarceration. The analysis indicates that income inequality, not unemployment, is the most salient predictor of incarceration rates. That is, state-level measures of income inequality exert a strong, positive effect on state-level incarceration rates, and this effect is particularly salient in the presence of higher percentages of African-Americans.     

Lobbying in the 21st century

This paper suggests that the nature of activism is changing to take account of the shifts in political and economic conditions. It further goes on to consider that as a result of these emerging trends we have witnessed a generational shift in how governments, businesses, interest groups and citizens will interact. It is possible to place the issues and questions that this new environment raises under a number of broad headings—Democracy and Dissent, Government and Parliament, Media, and Lobbying –each of which the paper deals with in turn. Copyright © 2003 Henry Stewart Publications.     

Was the Antitrust Action that Broke Up the Movie Studios Good for the Movies? Evidence from the Stock Market

The Paramount antitrust litigation was a series of eight actionsbrought by the Department of Justice (DOJ) beginning in 1938and ending in 1949 against the major motion picture studios.In the early cases the DOJ succeeded in changing industry contracts,but it took a decade of litigation to accomplish what the DOJwanted, which was to break up the studios and force them tosell their theater chains. We use stock market evidence to evaluatethe impact of events in the Paramount litigation on firm value.By the stock market's assessment, the Supreme Court decisionwas the major event. But the impact of this and other decisionson integrated and nonintegrated defendants, and on a nondefendant,does not support the view that the courts dismantled a successfulmonopoly; indeed, the contrary may be true.