Pub Date : 2022-12-22DOI: 10.1017/S0898030622000367
Rosina Lozano
Abstract The year 1975 marked a watershed year for Spanish-surnamed people in the United States and their relationship with the federal government. In that year Congress extended the Voting Rights Act to include a “language minority” category, requiring federal election officials to translate election materials under certain conditions. By validating language rights for language minorities, Congress expanded federal voting protections far beyond African Americans. Advocates for Spanish speakers took up the cause before Congress, which created a new federally protected category based on the long history of discrimination in education and society they collected in testimonies. These language protections catered largely to Spanish speakers, though the category also included Alaska Natives, Native Americans, and Asian Americans. The process of gaining a separate language minority status is explored in this article, which explains how Congress chose to create a law that included Spanish speakers by name.
{"title":"Vote Aquí Hoy: The 1975 Extension of the Voting Rights Act and the Creation of Language Minorities","authors":"Rosina Lozano","doi":"10.1017/S0898030622000367","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898030622000367","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The year 1975 marked a watershed year for Spanish-surnamed people in the United States and their relationship with the federal government. In that year Congress extended the Voting Rights Act to include a “language minority” category, requiring federal election officials to translate election materials under certain conditions. By validating language rights for language minorities, Congress expanded federal voting protections far beyond African Americans. Advocates for Spanish speakers took up the cause before Congress, which created a new federally protected category based on the long history of discrimination in education and society they collected in testimonies. These language protections catered largely to Spanish speakers, though the category also included Alaska Natives, Native Americans, and Asian Americans. The process of gaining a separate language minority status is explored in this article, which explains how Congress chose to create a law that included Spanish speakers by name.","PeriodicalId":44803,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Policy History","volume":"35 1","pages":"68 - 90"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41751291","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-01DOI: 10.1017/s0898030622000203
Kathleen Sullivan
Abstract Nineteenth-century seamen were subject to exploitation by boardinghouse keepers who recouped seamen’s debt by pocketing their advance wages from a future voyage. New York’s 1866 Act for the Better Protection of Seamen, the U.S. Shipping Commissioners Act of 1872, and the 1884 Dingley Act all purported to respond to this practice of “crimping,” but each of these acts simply allowed for new arrangements that continued to exact money from seamen. Even when corruption or collusion operated and were publicly known, such practices were tolerated because they continued to provide a steady supply of maritime labor, which promoted maritime commerce. This article considers the misleading political development of this legislation in the context of the early years of spoils reform.
{"title":"Sailors, Crimps, and Commerce: Laws Protecting Seamen, 1866–1884","authors":"Kathleen Sullivan","doi":"10.1017/s0898030622000203","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0898030622000203","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Nineteenth-century seamen were subject to exploitation by boardinghouse keepers who recouped seamen’s debt by pocketing their advance wages from a future voyage. New York’s 1866 Act for the Better Protection of Seamen, the U.S. Shipping Commissioners Act of 1872, and the 1884 Dingley Act all purported to respond to this practice of “crimping,” but each of these acts simply allowed for new arrangements that continued to exact money from seamen. Even when corruption or collusion operated and were publicly known, such practices were tolerated because they continued to provide a steady supply of maritime labor, which promoted maritime commerce. This article considers the misleading political development of this legislation in the context of the early years of spoils reform.","PeriodicalId":44803,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Policy History","volume":"34 1","pages":"555 - 586"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42495226","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-01DOI: 10.1017/S0898030622000215
Barbara BRIDGMAN PERKINS
Abstract This article examines the financial industry’s critical role in retargeting U.S. health policy goals of improving peoples’ health in the 1960s to those of expanding institutional wealth in the 1970s. Government collaborated with finance to support not-for-profit hospitals’ use of debt to build services that augmented capital and operated like for-profit businesses. Certificate of Need, hospital rate review, and national health planning programs came to assess hospital performance in terms of capital formation, returns on investment, and bond ratings. The regulatory programs helped gentrify medicine by reinforcing selective investment in lucrative, high-tech services that market specialty procedures to affluent populations in place of disease control, primary care, and general acute care for all. Their actions laid the groundwork for the 1980s finance industry coup, which employed market ideology to dominate health policy at the expense of equality, effectiveness, and public health governance.
{"title":"How U.S. Health Policy Embraced Markets and Helped Wall Street Gentrify Medicine","authors":"Barbara BRIDGMAN PERKINS","doi":"10.1017/S0898030622000215","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898030622000215","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines the financial industry’s critical role in retargeting U.S. health policy goals of improving peoples’ health in the 1960s to those of expanding institutional wealth in the 1970s. Government collaborated with finance to support not-for-profit hospitals’ use of debt to build services that augmented capital and operated like for-profit businesses. Certificate of Need, hospital rate review, and national health planning programs came to assess hospital performance in terms of capital formation, returns on investment, and bond ratings. The regulatory programs helped gentrify medicine by reinforcing selective investment in lucrative, high-tech services that market specialty procedures to affluent populations in place of disease control, primary care, and general acute care for all. Their actions laid the groundwork for the 1980s finance industry coup, which employed market ideology to dominate health policy at the expense of equality, effectiveness, and public health governance.","PeriodicalId":44803,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Policy History","volume":"34 1","pages":"587 - 618"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47859588","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-01DOI: 10.1017/S0898030622000173
Brian Dolan, Steven Beitler
Abstract Not long after the 1966 enactment of Medicare and Medicaid, evidence emerged that unscrupulous physicians and health care organizations were gaming the system. Research over the past 50 years shows that around 10 percent of the federal government’s annual cost for these programs is attributed to fraudulent claims or abuses where hospitals and treatments have been overused for undue provider profit. This article examines early congressional attention to this problem and describes lawmakers’ attempts to find legislative solutions to it. It historicizes the dilemma of balancing the ideological limits of government regulation with cultural assumptions about professional self-regulation, focusing on a major 1972 law, the Professional Standards Review Organization (PSRO) Act. The law launched a 10-year career for PSROs, physician-staffed peer-review boards designed to identify and sanction efforts to overcharge Medicare. The article contextualizes multiple actors’ concerns over cost containment and the crisis of faith in medical authority that persisted following failures to control professional malfeasance.
{"title":"Legislating Medicare Fraud: The Politics of Self-Regulation and the Creation of Professional Standards Review Organizations","authors":"Brian Dolan, Steven Beitler","doi":"10.1017/S0898030622000173","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898030622000173","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Not long after the 1966 enactment of Medicare and Medicaid, evidence emerged that unscrupulous physicians and health care organizations were gaming the system. Research over the past 50 years shows that around 10 percent of the federal government’s annual cost for these programs is attributed to fraudulent claims or abuses where hospitals and treatments have been overused for undue provider profit. This article examines early congressional attention to this problem and describes lawmakers’ attempts to find legislative solutions to it. It historicizes the dilemma of balancing the ideological limits of government regulation with cultural assumptions about professional self-regulation, focusing on a major 1972 law, the Professional Standards Review Organization (PSRO) Act. The law launched a 10-year career for PSROs, physician-staffed peer-review boards designed to identify and sanction efforts to overcharge Medicare. The article contextualizes multiple actors’ concerns over cost containment and the crisis of faith in medical authority that persisted following failures to control professional malfeasance.","PeriodicalId":44803,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Policy History","volume":"34 1","pages":"475 - 504"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44450240","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-01DOI: 10.1017/S0898030622000197
Cecilie Bjerre
Abstract This article examines out-of-home placements in Denmark over a seven-decade period from 1905 to 1975. The Danish state delegated this responsibility to a, using the words of Kimberly J. Morgan and Ann Shola Orloff, “difficult-to-classify public-private hybrid,” the Children’s Welfare Boards (CWBs). These CWBs comprised private citizens selected by the municipality. The article shows how the CWBs acted as interpreters, mediators, and implementers of state policy at the street level while also functioning as the direct link between government and citizens. The findings reveal an inherent conflict between center and periphery in that the state’s nationwide regulations and bureaucratic practices, intended to apply to all citizens uniformly, were to be implemented by local units within municipalities that operated according to logics other than those of the state. The vase of variations in child out-placement practices shows the importance of examining local variations in studying the history of policy implementation.
{"title":"Making Policies: The History of the Danish Child Welfare System at the Local Level","authors":"Cecilie Bjerre","doi":"10.1017/S0898030622000197","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898030622000197","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines out-of-home placements in Denmark over a seven-decade period from 1905 to 1975. The Danish state delegated this responsibility to a, using the words of Kimberly J. Morgan and Ann Shola Orloff, “difficult-to-classify public-private hybrid,” the Children’s Welfare Boards (CWBs). These CWBs comprised private citizens selected by the municipality. The article shows how the CWBs acted as interpreters, mediators, and implementers of state policy at the street level while also functioning as the direct link between government and citizens. The findings reveal an inherent conflict between center and periphery in that the state’s nationwide regulations and bureaucratic practices, intended to apply to all citizens uniformly, were to be implemented by local units within municipalities that operated according to logics other than those of the state. The vase of variations in child out-placement practices shows the importance of examining local variations in studying the history of policy implementation.","PeriodicalId":44803,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Policy History","volume":"34 1","pages":"529 - 554"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43806592","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-01DOI: 10.1017/S0898030622000185
Ian Milden
Abstract This article examines the divide within the Republican Party between business interests and conservative evangelicals during the debate over the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Business interests were able to build compromises by raising their concerns over practical matters such as costs. Conservative evangelicals advocated for changes due to their moral and ideological positions on homosexuality and HIV. Conservative evangelicals did not receive their desired changes because they constructed their concerns with public safety themes. This led to conservative evangelicals and their opponents talking past each other instead of addressing their concerns. The dynamics shown from the opposition of conservative evangelicals in the ADA debate demonstrate that their influence in elections did not lead to dominance within the Republican Party in shaping policy.
{"title":"Examining the Opposition to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: “Nothing More than Bad Quality Hogwash”","authors":"Ian Milden","doi":"10.1017/S0898030622000185","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898030622000185","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines the divide within the Republican Party between business interests and conservative evangelicals during the debate over the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Business interests were able to build compromises by raising their concerns over practical matters such as costs. Conservative evangelicals advocated for changes due to their moral and ideological positions on homosexuality and HIV. Conservative evangelicals did not receive their desired changes because they constructed their concerns with public safety themes. This led to conservative evangelicals and their opponents talking past each other instead of addressing their concerns. The dynamics shown from the opposition of conservative evangelicals in the ADA debate demonstrate that their influence in elections did not lead to dominance within the Republican Party in shaping policy.","PeriodicalId":44803,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Policy History","volume":"34 1","pages":"505 - 528"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46793751","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-06DOI: 10.1017/S0898030622000100
Marsha E. Barrett
Abstract This article examines Rockefeller Republicanism and its status within the Republican Party by looking at the evolution of Nelson Rockefeller’s support for social welfare policy between 1958 and 1975. New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller regularly appears in histories of modern conservatism as the embodiment of the liberalism that conservatives rejected, but these works rarely account for the entirety of Rockefeller’s career. Rather than focus on Rockefeller’s challenges to the national Republican Party in 1960 and 1964, which results in an incomplete representation of Rockefeller Republicanism, this article reassesses moderate Republicanism’s perceived dominance and Rockefeller’s advocacy for liberal domestic policies and commitment to racial liberalism in New York. A full account of Rockefeller’s struggles to find common ground with conservative New York Republicans and adoption of conservative positions related to law enforcement and welfare reform thwarted one of the GOP’s best opportunities to assemble a multiracial and cross-class constituency.
{"title":"Defining Rockefeller Republicanism: Promise and Peril at the Edge of the Liberal Consensus, 1958–1975","authors":"Marsha E. Barrett","doi":"10.1017/S0898030622000100","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898030622000100","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines Rockefeller Republicanism and its status within the Republican Party by looking at the evolution of Nelson Rockefeller’s support for social welfare policy between 1958 and 1975. New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller regularly appears in histories of modern conservatism as the embodiment of the liberalism that conservatives rejected, but these works rarely account for the entirety of Rockefeller’s career. Rather than focus on Rockefeller’s challenges to the national Republican Party in 1960 and 1964, which results in an incomplete representation of Rockefeller Republicanism, this article reassesses moderate Republicanism’s perceived dominance and Rockefeller’s advocacy for liberal domestic policies and commitment to racial liberalism in New York. A full account of Rockefeller’s struggles to find common ground with conservative New York Republicans and adoption of conservative positions related to law enforcement and welfare reform thwarted one of the GOP’s best opportunities to assemble a multiracial and cross-class constituency.","PeriodicalId":44803,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Policy History","volume":"34 1","pages":"336 - 370"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42834204","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-06DOI: 10.1017/s0898030622000136
The original published version of the contributor list for vol. 34, no. 2 of the Journal of Policy History contained two errors.1 Daniel Moak was described as an assistant professor of African American Studies; the correct title for this author is assistant professor of Government. Additionally, the listings for both Daniel Moak and Sarah Cate omitted the affiliation of both authors with the Debs-Jones-Douglass Institute. The corrected biographies for both authors appear below:
{"title":"Contributors to vol. 34, no. 2 – ERRATUM","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/s0898030622000136","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0898030622000136","url":null,"abstract":"The original published version of the contributor list for vol. 34, no. 2 of the Journal of Policy History contained two errors.1 Daniel Moak was described as an assistant professor of African American Studies; the correct title for this author is assistant professor of Government. Additionally, the listings for both Daniel Moak and Sarah Cate omitted the affiliation of both authors with the Debs-Jones-Douglass Institute. The corrected biographies for both authors appear below:","PeriodicalId":44803,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Policy History","volume":"34 1","pages":"473 - 473"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46721445","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：