Regulating Lobbyists: A Comparative Analysis of the United States, Canada, Germany and the European Union

Lobbying is central to the democratic process. Yet, only four political systems have lobbying regulations: the United States, Canada, Germany and the EU (most particularly, the European Parliament). Despite the many works offering individual country analysis of lobbying legislation, a twofold void exists in the literature. Firstly, no study has offered a comparative analysis classifying the laws in these four political systems, which would improve understanding of the different regulatory environments. Secondly, few studies have analysed the views of key agents—politicians, lobbyists and regulators—and how these compare and contrast across regulatory environments.
We firstly utilise an index measuring how strong the regulations are in each of the systems, and develop a classification scheme for the different 'ideal' types of regulatory environment. Secondly, we measure the opinions of political actors, interest groups and regulators in all four systems (through questionnaires and elite interviews) and see what correlations, if any, exist between the different ideal types of system and their opinions. The conclusion highlights our findings, and the lessons that can be used by policy-makers in systems without lobbying legislation.     

Sentencing

While there is nearly unanimous agreement among social scientists that the defendant's prior record is important in explaining the sentence imposed on the defendant, there is little agreement on the "best" or most appropriate measure of prior record to use in examining sentence disparity. This study provides an assessment of the utility of 11 commonly used measures of prior record. We find that the various measures are not interrelated highly and thus necessarily are not interchangeable. We also find that the measures of prior record affect sentence severity differently and that the relationships between these measures and sentence severity varies for black and white defendants.     

SELF-CONTROL IN A CRIMINAL SAMPLE: AN EXAMINATION OF CONSTRUCT VALIDITY*

Favorable evidence on the validity of the Grasmick et al. (1993) self-control scale has been reported in studies using general population samples. However, the scale has never been tested among persons extensively involved in crime. We assessed the construct validity of this scale, slightly revised, in a heterogeneous sample of drug-using criminal offenders. Factor analyses identified five subscales, mostly congruent with existing formulations of the self-control construct. Also, recent crimes of force and fraud were more frequent among people scoring lower on self-control. However, the five-factor solution was not tenable among women, and the scale was no more closely related to crime than were three subscales representing more specific constructs already established in criminology.     

Asking the Right Questions: Utilizing a Judicial Checklist to Track the Educational Success of Youth in Foster Care

Asking about the educational objectives for children in foster care has not been a priority in most juvenile and family courts. Research has shown that compared to the general school population, children in foster care have lower grade point averages, change schools more frequently, earn fewer credits toward graduation, and are more likely to be placed in special education programs. In response, Casey Family Programs, in collaboration with the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges' Permanency Planning for Children Department, developed a Judicial Checklist with key educational questions to be asked from the bench. The Checklist has become a useful tool for juvenile and family court judges when assessing the effectiveness of current educational placements of the children who come before their courts, tracking their performance, and in making a positive future impact on their educational outcomes.