The politics of family planning in the Maghrib

This article uses a comparative case study approach to relate policy outcomes in terms of family planning to the patterns of political forces observed in the 3 Maghrib states of Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia. It is suggested that official support for a strong family planning program may be linked to recognition of the problem of low labor absorption and to concrete steps taken to counter the problem. The article discusses different vantage points for approaching the political context of family planning and distinguishes between the use of family planning as an instrument of social policy and as an instrument of economic policy. Ideological reasons for opposition to or support of family planning are then outlined. The colonial experience of the 3 states is differentiated and a chronological account of their family planning programs is provided. The political systems and leadership of the 3 countries are separately discussed in greater detail, after which the influence of elite groups on family planning programs and activities in each country is assessed. Developments in the 3 countries since 1978 are then sketched. The author concludes that the relative importance of policies toward employment and women's status in connection with support for family planning has probably varied over time, with economics playing a greater role in the 1970s. The activities of non-regime political actors were found to be very significant in formulation of population policies in Algeria and Morocco but less so in Tunisia.     

Moral dilemmas and pedagogical challenges in teaching about genocide

Human Rights Review -     

Book reviews

Journal of Chinese Political Science -     

Revisiting Shapiro: Welfare Magnets and State Residency Requirements in the 1990s

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity ReconciliationAct of 1996 (PRWORA) generated renewed interest in welfare racesto the bottom as states received greater discretion over eligibilitystandards for new residents. Despite U.S. Supreme Court decisionsfinding welfare-residency requirements unconstitutional andmounting empirical evidence that welfare benefits do not attractpoor migrants, state policymakers have enacted welfare-reformplans that treat newcomers differently as authorized in PRWORA.This article reviews the existing research on welfare migration,current state-residency requirements, and central constitutionalissues surrounding such requirements. With the likelihood thatcourts will have the final word on the current round of statewelfare-residency requirements, it is essential that empiricalresearch on welfare magnets examine the issues central to thecases currently moving through the judicial system.     

The Federal Line Item Veto Experiment: After the Supreme Court Ruling,What's Next?

The federal line item veto has ceased to exist, thanks to the Supreme Court's June 1998 ruling invalidating the expansion of the president's rescission authority that was contained in the Line Item Veto Act. This article reviews the application of the Act during 1997, its effect on spending and the deficit, the judicial reaction to its use, and the prospects for the restoration of some version of the power. President Clinton was quite restrained in the use of his new power, with the exception of his cancellations in the Military Construction appropriation bill; these were ultimately restored by the Congress. Because of the president's restraint, the Line Item Veto Act had a miniscule affect on spending and the deficit; total cancellations represented less than .04 percent of FY98 discretionary budget authority. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the Act violated Article I, Section 7 because it created a Constituionally impermissable way for the president to change laws. There is no clear fallback position for supporters of the Act; alternatives are either difficult to enact, hard to administer, or too weak to be considered an effective substitute. Given the problems in enacting any alternative, it may be that the federal line item veto will end up only as a historical anomaly.     

Federal Budgeting After September 11th: A Whole New Ballgame,or Is It Déjà Vu All Over Again?

Federal budgeting has undergone some profound changes since the tragic events of September 11th, 2001. Large surpluses that existed prior to September 11th and were forecast to continue have been replaced by equally large and intractable deficits. The consensus around a macro‐level norm for federal budgeting has completely broken down. In other ways, the federal budget process has not changed at all. Despite the emphasis on defense and homeland security, domestic discretionary spending is still continuing unabated, as it has since the late 1980s. Further, the federal government continues to have chronic difficulty adopting its budget in a timely fashion.     

Understanding Local Service Delivery Arrangements: Are the ICMA ASD Data Reliable?

The authors utilize the two latest ICMA Profile of Local Government Service Delivery Choices surveys to investigate whether the service provision and delivery arrangement information reported in the surveys accurately represents reality and, if not, what factors contribute to generating incorrect or unreliable survey responses. Interviews with practitioners are used to better understand both the accuracy of the survey responses and improvements that could be made to the survey instrument. Results suggest that the ICMA ASD survey data are highly erratic, with more than 70 percent of the cases (N = 70) investigated containing some inaccuracies. A qualitative analysis shows that the majority of the errors appear to be caused by the lack of a clear definition of service provision or by the service titles being too vague or too broad, both of which likely lead to discretion in interpreting survey questions and thus inconsistent answers by individual respondents over time.