Institutional Recalibration and Judicial Delimitation

Throughout American history, a peculiar and recurrent disjunction has often arisen between the substance of transformative reforms and the decidedly less‐radical governing arrangements that arise in the aftermath of reform. To account for this disjunction, this article puts forth a theory of postreform “recalibration.” Political processes of recalibration are the means by which vague, indeterminate principles of reform are given operational meaning and translated into new governing arrangements. This article illuminates recalibration processes by examining two case‐studies: African American rights in the post‐Reconstruction era of the 1870s and 1880s, and labor rights in the post–New Deal era of the late 1930s. Finally, the article also highlights the crucial role of the Supreme Court in recalibration processes and sets forth a theory of judicial behavior as driven by an institutional interest in stability.     

Does the amount of participation matter? Public comments,agency responses and the time to finalize a regulation

The notice and comment rulemaking process is a fundamental part of how agencies write regulations. While this process is starting to receive more empirical attention, the question of how the number of comments that an agency receives affects its decision-making process has received little examination. This paper uses Boolean analysis to examine nine rules from two agencies at the Department of Health and Human Services and evaluates the impact of a high volume of comments on agency changes to proposed rules and the time an agency takes to finalize a proposed rule. These nine cases suggest that agencies are most likely to change their proposals when they receive a high volume of comments on highly complex rules that are not very politically salient. Highly complex rules are also likely to take a long time to finalize when there are many public comments however it is often other factors that cause a long delay between proposed and final rules.

Britain and Europe: An Awkward Partner or an Awkward State?

This article builds on the recent exchange between Jim Buller and Stephen George on the subject of British 'awkwardness' in relation to the European Union. While it engages with both authors, the article also seeks to bring the state back into the analysis. It makes a connection between the structure and organisation of the state and the behaviour of domestic political actors.     

Abortion Policy and Super-optimum Solutions

Super-optimum solutions to public policy problems are ones that enable conservatives, liberals, and other major viewpoints all to come out ahead of their best initial expectations simultaneously. Thinking in terms of multiple goals and alternatives facilitates the development of mutually beneficial packages, possibly with the aid of spreadsheet-based software that enables one to better deal with the multiplicity of goals and alternatives. This article describes how super-optimum solutions might be applied to abortion policy and deals with auxiliary policies concerning birth control and adoptions. It also addresses related policies that focus on the Chinese population problem. Chinese abortion policy involves a battle between women who do want to stay pregnant and a society that would like to facilitate pregnancy termination. American abortion policy involves a battle between women who do not want to stay pregnant and a society that is reluctant to facilitate abortions.