This article studies the determinants of tax innovation in Spain’s Common Regime Autonomous Communities (ACs) over the period 1986–2018, across the different types of taxes included in their “own taxes.” Our central finding is that the introduction of taxes is motivated by politics: ACs governments introduce taxes when governed by left-wing parties or by a coalition government that included a regionalist party. Second, we find that parties in government follow a strategic calculus when introducing new taxes: an approaching election and a previously introduced tax decrease the chances of tax innovation. Third, we find that AC government also respond to functional pressures and introduce new taxes to shore-up their revenues when faced with a budget deficit. Two important negative results to come out of this analysis are that taxation innovation is not sensitive to geographical diffusion or to the availability of alternative source of revenue in the system of territorial financing.
{"title":"The Determinants of Taxation Innovation Policy in Spain’s Common Regime Autonomous Communities (1986–2018)","authors":"Mario Kölling, Simon Toubeau, Deborah Zak Godoy","doi":"10.1093/publius/pjad027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjad027","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article studies the determinants of tax innovation in Spain’s Common Regime Autonomous Communities (ACs) over the period 1986–2018, across the different types of taxes included in their “own taxes.” Our central finding is that the introduction of taxes is motivated by politics: ACs governments introduce taxes when governed by left-wing parties or by a coalition government that included a regionalist party. Second, we find that parties in government follow a strategic calculus when introducing new taxes: an approaching election and a previously introduced tax decrease the chances of tax innovation. Third, we find that AC government also respond to functional pressures and introduce new taxes to shore-up their revenues when faced with a budget deficit. Two important negative results to come out of this analysis are that taxation innovation is not sensitive to geographical diffusion or to the availability of alternative source of revenue in the system of territorial financing.","PeriodicalId":47224,"journal":{"name":"Publius-The Journal of Federalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2023-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49245086","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Educational Accountability and American Federalism: Moving beyond a Test-Based Approach, by John Portz","authors":"Kenneth K. Y. Wong","doi":"10.1093/publius/pjad029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjad029","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47224,"journal":{"name":"Publius-The Journal of Federalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2023-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42201997","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Following in Footsteps or Marching Alone? How Institutional Differences Influence Renewable Energy Policy, by Srinivas C. Parinandi","authors":"Joshua A. Basseches","doi":"10.1093/publius/pjad028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjad028","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47224,"journal":{"name":"Publius-The Journal of Federalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45677116","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
American federalism in 2022–2023 saw a continued escalation of the culture wars, with persistent battles fought between the heavily polarized political parties, different levels of government (including federal versus state governments and state versus local governments), and between states and private business. Policy conflicts have centered on a variety of issues related to reproductive rights, K-12 education, and gun policy, among others. This overview of American federalism during the last year proceeds by first considering major policy activity in Congress, much of which holds significant implications for federalism. Next, we discuss the 2022 midterm elections and the dynamics that largely prevented what many expected to be a “red wave”. We then move to discuss significant policy shifts in the areas of civil rights and liberties, environmental policy, and labor, with an emphasis on state policymaking and court decisions. A central theme has been the intensification of cultural disputes as a policymaking focus, particularly at the state level.
{"title":"The State of American Federalism 2022–2023: Escalating Culture Wars in the States","authors":"Rebecca Bromley-Trujillo, Paul Nolette","doi":"10.1093/publius/pjad026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjad026","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 American federalism in 2022–2023 saw a continued escalation of the culture wars, with persistent battles fought between the heavily polarized political parties, different levels of government (including federal versus state governments and state versus local governments), and between states and private business. Policy conflicts have centered on a variety of issues related to reproductive rights, K-12 education, and gun policy, among others. This overview of American federalism during the last year proceeds by first considering major policy activity in Congress, much of which holds significant implications for federalism. Next, we discuss the 2022 midterm elections and the dynamics that largely prevented what many expected to be a “red wave”. We then move to discuss significant policy shifts in the areas of civil rights and liberties, environmental policy, and labor, with an emphasis on state policymaking and court decisions. A central theme has been the intensification of cultural disputes as a policymaking focus, particularly at the state level.","PeriodicalId":47224,"journal":{"name":"Publius-The Journal of Federalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47573601","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Cities in Federal Constitutional Theory, Edited by Erika Arban.","authors":"Philipp Renninger","doi":"10.1093/publius/pjad025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjad025","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47224,"journal":{"name":"Publius-The Journal of Federalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46771703","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
State attorney general (AG) lawsuits have led to judicial limitations on federal agencies’ powers, including the Supreme Court’s formal adoption of the major questions doctrine in the West Virginia v. EPA case in 2022. These limitations empower states to further challenge federal agencies and shape national policy while correspondingly weakening agencies’ ability to defend such lawsuits and aggressively regulate important issues of the day. AG lawsuits against the Biden administration regularly asserted the major questions doctrine leading up to the West Virginia decision, setting the stage for the Court’s adoption of the doctrine, and states continue to rely on the doctrine in the aftermath of the opinion. The major questions doctrine has important implications for relationships between the federal government and the states and among the states, exposing patterns of cooperation and conflict. Such conflict and cooperation will likely be heavily influenced by ideology and policy outcomes, further exacerbating political partisanship and polarization.
{"title":"West Virginia v. EPA: Major Questions for the Future of the Administrative State and American Federalism","authors":"Elysa M Dishman","doi":"10.1093/publius/pjad024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjad024","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 State attorney general (AG) lawsuits have led to judicial limitations on federal agencies’ powers, including the Supreme Court’s formal adoption of the major questions doctrine in the West Virginia v. EPA case in 2022. These limitations empower states to further challenge federal agencies and shape national policy while correspondingly weakening agencies’ ability to defend such lawsuits and aggressively regulate important issues of the day. AG lawsuits against the Biden administration regularly asserted the major questions doctrine leading up to the West Virginia decision, setting the stage for the Court’s adoption of the doctrine, and states continue to rely on the doctrine in the aftermath of the opinion. The major questions doctrine has important implications for relationships between the federal government and the states and among the states, exposing patterns of cooperation and conflict. Such conflict and cooperation will likely be heavily influenced by ideology and policy outcomes, further exacerbating political partisanship and polarization.","PeriodicalId":47224,"journal":{"name":"Publius-The Journal of Federalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49459112","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
All countries implemented policies to mitigate the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and control fatalities from COVID-19. Although early actions were pivotal in reducing confirmed cases and deaths, the timing of the introduction of these policies differed from country to country. This article assesses and compares the behavior of various decentralized countries in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on the timing of implementation of containment measures and viewing timeliness of adoption as denoting a country’s level of responsiveness to a health crisis. Using international databases, this article finds that more decentralized countries delayed the start of containment measures. This article also finds that larger and more densely populated countries were more likely to delay implementation of these policies.
{"title":"The Timing of Implementation of COVID-19 Lockdown Policies: Does Decentralization Matter?","authors":"Vassilis Tselios","doi":"10.1093/publius/pjad021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjad021","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 All countries implemented policies to mitigate the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and control fatalities from COVID-19. Although early actions were pivotal in reducing confirmed cases and deaths, the timing of the introduction of these policies differed from country to country. This article assesses and compares the behavior of various decentralized countries in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on the timing of implementation of containment measures and viewing timeliness of adoption as denoting a country’s level of responsiveness to a health crisis. Using international databases, this article finds that more decentralized countries delayed the start of containment measures. This article also finds that larger and more densely populated countries were more likely to delay implementation of these policies.","PeriodicalId":47224,"journal":{"name":"Publius-The Journal of Federalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43343221","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Despite being popular with the public and preventing racial and economic inequality, states often preempt their local governments’ ability to adopt workers’ rights laws. We test several competing theories of preemption (ideology, political institutions, interest group involvement, demographics, and policy diffusion) using a time-series, cross-sectional approach. Using data on state legislative activity from 1993 to 2018, we find that increasing legislative conservatism, and more unified political control of the state government, regardless of party, are associated with a higher risk of preempting local workers’ rights laws, all else equal. Our focus on legislative ideology, a more precise measure than party control at the subnational level, as the nexus of preemption activity helps clarify prior contradictory results in the literature. For those looking to prevent or overturn workers’ rights preemptions, the most direct approach appears to be to change the ideology of state legislatures.
{"title":"Why States Preempt City Ordinances: The Case of Workers’ Rights Laws","authors":"Christopher B. Goodman, Megan E. Hatch","doi":"10.1093/publius/pjad023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjad023","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Despite being popular with the public and preventing racial and economic inequality, states often preempt their local governments’ ability to adopt workers’ rights laws. We test several competing theories of preemption (ideology, political institutions, interest group involvement, demographics, and policy diffusion) using a time-series, cross-sectional approach. Using data on state legislative activity from 1993 to 2018, we find that increasing legislative conservatism, and more unified political control of the state government, regardless of party, are associated with a higher risk of preempting local workers’ rights laws, all else equal. Our focus on legislative ideology, a more precise measure than party control at the subnational level, as the nexus of preemption activity helps clarify prior contradictory results in the literature. For those looking to prevent or overturn workers’ rights preemptions, the most direct approach appears to be to change the ideology of state legislatures.","PeriodicalId":47224,"journal":{"name":"Publius-The Journal of Federalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41713353","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Still a Hollow Hope: State Power and the Second Amendment, by Anthony D. Cooling.","authors":"Logan Strother","doi":"10.1093/publius/pjad022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjad022","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47224,"journal":{"name":"Publius-The Journal of Federalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43797798","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta has the potential to rework the long-standing division of authority among federal, state, and tribal governments. In issuing its decision in this June 2022 case, the majority departed from its previous decisions and congressional policy by enabling state governments to exercise criminal authority over non-Indians in Indian Country. This article examines the implications of Castro-Huerta for federal, tribal, and state governments on the ground in Indian Country as well as for scholarship and teaching on federal–tribal–state relations.
{"title":"Dividing Authority Three Ways: Federal–Tribal–State Relations after <i>Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta</i>","authors":"Kirsten Matoy Carlson","doi":"10.1093/publius/pjad020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjad020","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta has the potential to rework the long-standing division of authority among federal, state, and tribal governments. In issuing its decision in this June 2022 case, the majority departed from its previous decisions and congressional policy by enabling state governments to exercise criminal authority over non-Indians in Indian Country. This article examines the implications of Castro-Huerta for federal, tribal, and state governments on the ground in Indian Country as well as for scholarship and teaching on federal–tribal–state relations.","PeriodicalId":47224,"journal":{"name":"Publius-The Journal of Federalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136041505","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：