THE MDRC WORK/WELFARE PROJECT: OBJECTIVES, STATUS, SIGNIFICANCE

In 1981, states, for the first time, were given an option to restructure the AFDC welfare program and require recipients to work in exchange for benefits. States have acted on this opportunity to introduce workfare or work requirements in a climate of polarized discussion and limited information. This paper summarizes the findings available from the pre-1981 demonstrations on the feasibility, impact, and cost-effectiveness of this approach. The authors conclude that these early demonstrations and evaluations provide very limited guidance to program administrators. The paper describes briefly a five-year social experiment currently under way in nine states to address the critical open policy questions through comprehensive process, impact, and benefit-cost studies.     

A Post-development Hoax? (Re)-examining the Past,Present and Future of Development Studies

Because of the absence of evidence to show for its utility, the notion of ‘development’ has been fraught with many debates over the years. This paper is concerned with re-examining the future of development studies, based on its past and present trajectories. The argument here is that development may be useful if its norms and practices become context-specific and are made to benefit its purported beneficiaries. The chronology spans the period after World War II to the present day, and thus covers theories that envision alternatives. While this chronology is overlapping, we hope to show that development studies has been marked by both continuities and discontinuities.     

Defending the ‘postwar petroleum order’: The US,Britain and the 1954 Saudi‐Onassis Tanker deal

During the early Cold War, Britain and the US fashioned a set of arrangements described collectively in this article as the ‘postwar petroleum order’, which appropriated Persian Gulf oil to fuel European reconstruction and defence. When Saudi Arabia organized a state oil‐tanker company with Aristotle Onassis in 1954, it challenged the terms of those arrangements. The affair provides a case study in contrasting British and American approaches towards oil diplomacy and Arab nationalism. Whereas London crusaded for an Anglo‐American campaign to abolish the Saudi‐Onassis company, Washington wanted the Arabian‐American Oil Company to accomplish the same objective by providing financial incentives to King Sa'ud's government.     

On Measuring Legislative Agenda‐Setting Power

We propose a typology for measuring agenda‐setting success and failure in a legislative context. Our typology goes beyond the most commonly used measure (“rolls”) and includes the full range of agenda‐setting outcomes—rolls (opposing a proposal that subsequently passes), as well as “blocks” (opposing a proposal that is subsequently defeated), “successes” (supporting a proposal that subsequently passes), and “disappointments” (supporting a proposal that is subsequently defeated)—and thus takes into account instances of both positive and negative agenda power. We discuss these measures, and the theoretical questions surrounding them, with the hope of providing some guidance to scholars of the U.S. House, as well as those analyzing agenda power in other legislatures. As a first step in this direction, we explore variation in agenda‐setting measures in 85 American state legislative chambers, the Mexican Chamber of Deputies, and the Canadian House of Commons.     

National Party Division and Divisive State Primaries in U.S. Presidential Elections, 1948–2012

In presidential nomination campaigns, individual state primaries and a national competition take place simultaneously. The relationship between divisive state primaries and general election outcomes is substantially different in presidential campaigns than in single-state campaigns. To capture the full impact of divisiveness in presidential campaigns, one must estimate both the impact of national party division (NPD) and the impact of divisive primaries in individual states. To do so, we develop a comprehensive model of state outcomes in presidential campaigns that incorporates both state-level and national-level controls. We also examine and compare several measures of NPD and several measures of divisive state primaries found in previous research. We find that both NPD and divisive state primaries have independent and significant influence on state-level general election outcomes, with the former having a greater and more widespread impact on the national results. The findings are not artifacts of statistical techniques, timeframes or operational definitions. The results are consistent—varying very little across a wide range of methods and specifications.     

Global policymakers and catastrophic risk

Policy Sciences - There is a rapidly developing literature on risks that threaten the whole of humanity, or a large part of it. Discussion is increasingly turning to how such risks can be governed....