The effects of adult and peer social initiations on the social behavior of withdrawn and aggressive maltreated preschool children

The effects of programmed peer- and adult-mediated play initiations were compared for socially dysfunctional, maltreated preschool children. An N = 1, alternating treatments design was used to compare these strategies. Two withdrawn nonmaltreated (control), two withdrawn maltreated, and three aggressive maltreated children served as subjects. Dyadic play sessions were videotaped and rated at the completion of the study by naive raters according to an 18-category observation system. Overall, the control children showed no difference in levels of interaction between peer and adult conditions. The withdrawn maltreated children showed a clear preference for interaction with the peer over the adult. The aggressive maltreated children showed a clear preference for interaction with the peer over the adult. The aggressive maltreated children showed a clear preference for interaction with the adult. They also demonstrated a decrease of positive behavior and increase in negative behavior in response to the programmed initiations. Implications of these differential responses were discussed.     

The Rule of Law or the Rule of Politics? Harmonizing the Internal and External Views of Supreme Court Decision Making

Law professors and political scientists generally subscribe to opposed theories of Supreme Court decision making. Law professors, to a great degree, adhere to an internal view: Supreme Court justices decide cases according to legal rules, principles, and precedents. Political scientists follow an external view: justices decide cases according to their political ideologies or preferences. This article develops an interpretive-structural theory that harmonizes these seemingly opposed views. This interpretive-structural theory not only explains why the internal and external views often are both effective but also why, sometimes, one approach might be more effective than the other. The article concludes by comparing the interpretive-structural theory with the "new institutionalism" that is emerging in political science.     

Contestability, queues, and governmental entry deterrence

This paper demonstrates that a perverse kind of entry deterrence can result when government subsidized production is combined with non-price rationing in the form of queuing. Even though queuing leads to a total cost to the consumer (not including the tax cost) that is higher than the cost of an unsubsidized private supplier, and even though the government's money price is rigid, the market is not contestable. The key to the result is that the waiting cost portion of the consumer's acquisition cost declines immediately upon entry and losses would be forced upon the entrant. Privatization would negate the entry deterrence, thus leading to entry, increased output at lower full prices, lower average production costs, decreased waiting costs, increased profits, and increased consumer surplus.     

An Interpretation of Max Weber's Theory of Law: Metaphysics, Economics, and the Iron Cage of Constitutional Law

Among legal scholars, Anthony T. Kronman and David M. Trubek have provided the leading interpretations of Weber's theory of law. Kronman and Trubek agree on two important points: Weber's theory is fundamentally contradictory, and Weber's theory relates primarily to private law subjects such as contracts. This article contests both of these points. Building on a foundation of Weber's neo-Kantian metaphysics and his sociological categories of economic action, this article shows that Weber's theory of law is not fundamentally inconsistent; rather it explores the inconsistencies that are inherent within Western society itself, including its legal systems. Furthermore, Weber's insights can be applied to modern constitutional jurisprudence. Weberian theory reveals that modern constitutional law is riddled with irreconcilable tensions between process and substance—between formal and substantive rationality. In the context of racial discrimination cases involving equal protection and the Fifteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court's acceptance of John Hart Ely's theory of representation-reinforcement demonstrates the Court's resolute pursuit of formal rationality, which insures that the substantive values and needs of minorities will remain unsatisfied.