Central governments often restrict municipalities’ ability to raise or reduce taxes, but, in many jurisdictions, municipalities can ask the central government’s permission to set aside these limitations. Using an Israeli dataset, we explore this prevalent, yet unexplored, mechanism we call Permission to Override (PtO). We find that in Israel, at least, the central government’s approval and rejection of these permission requests seem to be equitable and non-political. However, despite the central neutrality, municipalities with lower socio-economic status and fewer political connections tend not to submit requests. Municipalities are also reluctant to submit requests before elections and tend to submit them only afterwards. These socio-economic and political biases may create inequalities and hinder a successful use of the PtO mechanism. We discuss the limited use of this mechanism (requests amount to approximately 0.6 percent of the total property tax income) and its shortcomings and draw conclusions from the Israeli case study.
{"title":"The Political Economy of Local Governments’ Requests for Permission to Override Central Fiscal Limitations: Insights from Israel","authors":"Omer Kimhi, I. Beeri, Y. Reingewertz","doi":"10.1093/publius/pjac021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjac021","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Central governments often restrict municipalities’ ability to raise or reduce taxes, but, in many jurisdictions, municipalities can ask the central government’s permission to set aside these limitations. Using an Israeli dataset, we explore this prevalent, yet unexplored, mechanism we call Permission to Override (PtO). We find that in Israel, at least, the central government’s approval and rejection of these permission requests seem to be equitable and non-political. However, despite the central neutrality, municipalities with lower socio-economic status and fewer political connections tend not to submit requests. Municipalities are also reluctant to submit requests before elections and tend to submit them only afterwards. These socio-economic and political biases may create inequalities and hinder a successful use of the PtO mechanism. We discuss the limited use of this mechanism (requests amount to approximately 0.6 percent of the total property tax income) and its shortcomings and draw conclusions from the Israeli case study.","PeriodicalId":47224,"journal":{"name":"Publius-The Journal of Federalism","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47732967","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}
COVID-19 had a major impact on how some states administered the 2020 election and little effect on others. Using a new dataset, we identify the options states introduced to make voting safer, the measures they took to encourage voters to use these options, and the options' effects on voter turnout. We show that most states introduced few, if any, significant changes in voting policies. We identify relationships between the states' responses and preexisting election policies, party control of government, and other state characteristics. We also demonstrate the introduction of safe voting options had an effect on aggregate voter turnout. The results give insights into factors that influence election policymaking and the prospects for future election reforms.
{"title":"Correction to: The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Election Administration, Voting Options, and Turnout in the 2020 US Election","authors":"P. Herrnson, M. Hanmer, M. Weil, R. Orey","doi":"10.1093/publius/pjac012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjac012","url":null,"abstract":"COVID-19 had a major impact on how some states administered the 2020 election and little effect on others. Using a new dataset, we identify the options states introduced to make voting safer, the measures they took to encourage voters to use these options, and the options' effects on voter turnout. We show that most states introduced few, if any, significant changes in voting policies. We identify relationships between the states' responses and preexisting election policies, party control of government, and other state characteristics. We also demonstrate the introduction of safe voting options had an effect on aggregate voter turnout. The results give insights into factors that influence election policymaking and the prospects for future election reforms.","PeriodicalId":47224,"journal":{"name":"Publius-The Journal of Federalism","volume":"52 6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77782952","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":"Laboratories Against Democracy: How National Parties Transformed State Politics, by Jacob M. Grumbach","authors":"Timothy Callaghan","doi":"10.1093/publius/pjac027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjac027","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47224,"journal":{"name":"Publius-The Journal of Federalism","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46249300","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}
Contemporary American politics features intense political polarization and closely contested battles over the direction of public policy. Conservatives and liberals alike have used the many venues in the American federal system to try to gain an advantage. In this article, we suggest that a key feature of contemporary American federalism is the institutional advantage that conservatives have achieved due to recent shifts in the ideological conservatism of the federal judiciary and growing Republican dominance in state legislatures. We assess the consequences of these developments, focusing on efforts to weaken federal administrative agencies’ authority and discretion, challenge individual voting rights and institutional control over elections, expand conservative approaches to personal liberties in areas such as abortion, religious practice, and gun rights, and to preempt local policy authority. These developments have the effect of consolidating authority in the hands of Republican-controlled state governments and in some cases bringing about national-level policy changes via state initiatives, and with important implications for American society, politics, and federalism.
{"title":"The State of American Federalism 2021–2022: Federal Courts, State Legislatures, and the Conservative Turn in the Law","authors":"David M. Konisky, Paul Nolette","doi":"10.1093/publius/pjac022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjac022","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Contemporary American politics features intense political polarization and closely contested battles over the direction of public policy. Conservatives and liberals alike have used the many venues in the American federal system to try to gain an advantage. In this article, we suggest that a key feature of contemporary American federalism is the institutional advantage that conservatives have achieved due to recent shifts in the ideological conservatism of the federal judiciary and growing Republican dominance in state legislatures. We assess the consequences of these developments, focusing on efforts to weaken federal administrative agencies’ authority and discretion, challenge individual voting rights and institutional control over elections, expand conservative approaches to personal liberties in areas such as abortion, religious practice, and gun rights, and to preempt local policy authority. These developments have the effect of consolidating authority in the hands of Republican-controlled state governments and in some cases bringing about national-level policy changes via state initiatives, and with important implications for American society, politics, and federalism.","PeriodicalId":47224,"journal":{"name":"Publius-The Journal of Federalism","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41965551","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}
This article provides an overview of the new congressional and state legislative districts that were drawn around the country during the 2021–2022 redistricting cycle. We provide background on the redistricting landscape, most notably the changing federal role in both partisan and minority representation. We also discuss the process used to draw the new districts in each state. We then provide an empirical look at partisan fairness, competitiveness, and minority representation in the new plans. We find that both parties have enacted increasingly extreme partisan gerrymanders when they control the redistricting process. The combination of Republicans’ control of the redistricting process in far more states than Democrats and the inefficient concentration of Democrats in cities has enabled Republicans to largely maintain an advantage in the translation of votes to seats in both Congress and many state legislatures. As a result, the policymaking process in many states will continue to be skewed in a conservative direction. At the same time, nonpartisan commissions appear to offer a consistent means to produce less biased and more competitive maps than when parties drawn the lines. Finally, while Black and Latino representation has improved in some places, both groups of voters remain underrepresented. We conclude by discussing lessons for both scholars and advocates.
{"title":"Districts for a New Decade—Partisan Outcomes and Racial Representation in the 2021–22 Redistricting Cycle","authors":"C. Warshaw, Eric McGhee, Michal Migurski","doi":"10.1093/publius/pjac020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjac020","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article provides an overview of the new congressional and state legislative districts that were drawn around the country during the 2021–2022 redistricting cycle. We provide background on the redistricting landscape, most notably the changing federal role in both partisan and minority representation. We also discuss the process used to draw the new districts in each state. We then provide an empirical look at partisan fairness, competitiveness, and minority representation in the new plans. We find that both parties have enacted increasingly extreme partisan gerrymanders when they control the redistricting process. The combination of Republicans’ control of the redistricting process in far more states than Democrats and the inefficient concentration of Democrats in cities has enabled Republicans to largely maintain an advantage in the translation of votes to seats in both Congress and many state legislatures. As a result, the policymaking process in many states will continue to be skewed in a conservative direction. At the same time, nonpartisan commissions appear to offer a consistent means to produce less biased and more competitive maps than when parties drawn the lines. Finally, while Black and Latino representation has improved in some places, both groups of voters remain underrepresented. We conclude by discussing lessons for both scholars and advocates.","PeriodicalId":47224,"journal":{"name":"Publius-The Journal of Federalism","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44200899","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}
Recent scholarship on U.S. regulatory federalism has tended to focus on conflict between the states and state resistance to federal initiatives. Less attention has been given to federal–state cooperation and how it affects regulatory enforcement. In this article, we examine intergovernmental cooperation in multistate lawsuits filed by state attorneys general to ascertain trends in multistate regulatory enforcement through litigation over time. We pay particular attention to the increasing use of compliance monitoring by both state and federal regulators, including through monitors independent of the regulated industries. Relying upon a dataset of legal settlements, scoping interviews, and two case studies of recent multistate litigation, we find that federal–state cooperation in multistate lawsuits has become more institutionalized over time. This increased cooperation has created a two-way street in which state and federal regulators often combine resources and learn from each other through the process of compliance monitoring.
{"title":"Monitoring Corporate Compliance through Cooperative Federalism: Trends in Multistate Settlements by State Attorneys General","authors":"Colin Provost, Elysa M Dishman, Paul Nolette","doi":"10.1093/publius/pjac019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjac019","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Recent scholarship on U.S. regulatory federalism has tended to focus on conflict between the states and state resistance to federal initiatives. Less attention has been given to federal–state cooperation and how it affects regulatory enforcement. In this article, we examine intergovernmental cooperation in multistate lawsuits filed by state attorneys general to ascertain trends in multistate regulatory enforcement through litigation over time. We pay particular attention to the increasing use of compliance monitoring by both state and federal regulators, including through monitors independent of the regulated industries. Relying upon a dataset of legal settlements, scoping interviews, and two case studies of recent multistate litigation, we find that federal–state cooperation in multistate lawsuits has become more institutionalized over time. This increased cooperation has created a two-way street in which state and federal regulators often combine resources and learn from each other through the process of compliance monitoring.","PeriodicalId":47224,"journal":{"name":"Publius-The Journal of Federalism","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42281444","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}
There has been little study of the effects of federalism on the regulation and reform of family law (FL). This article addresses that gap by identifying variables that affect two aspects of FL: child marriage and abortion. The underlying research question is what conditions make it easier to reform discriminatory FL in one federation compared to another. FL involves multiple rules governing marriage, divorce, custody, adoption, and often inheritance and family property use. Many gender scholars also include reproductive self-determination, specifically abortion. FL rules also have multiple elements: e.g., marriage regulations govern age, “race,” sex, domicile, etc., that often differ across constituent units. The main variable examined is the extent of centralization, because the dominant pattern of regulation in these cases is centralized legislation and decentralized implementation. The other two variables explored are religion and international norms-building and their effects on FL regulation and reform.
{"title":"Regulating Family Law in Federations: The Impact of De/Centralization, Religion, and International Treaties on Abortion and Child Marriage Policies","authors":"Jill McCalla Vickers","doi":"10.1093/publius/pjac014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjac014","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 There has been little study of the effects of federalism on the regulation and reform of family law (FL). This article addresses that gap by identifying variables that affect two aspects of FL: child marriage and abortion. The underlying research question is what conditions make it easier to reform discriminatory FL in one federation compared to another. FL involves multiple rules governing marriage, divorce, custody, adoption, and often inheritance and family property use. Many gender scholars also include reproductive self-determination, specifically abortion. FL rules also have multiple elements: e.g., marriage regulations govern age, “race,” sex, domicile, etc., that often differ across constituent units. The main variable examined is the extent of centralization, because the dominant pattern of regulation in these cases is centralized legislation and decentralized implementation. The other two variables explored are religion and international norms-building and their effects on FL regulation and reform.","PeriodicalId":47224,"journal":{"name":"Publius-The Journal of Federalism","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49218261","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":"Routledge Handbook of Subnational Constitutions and Constitutionalism, edited by Patricia Popelier, Giacomo Delledonne, and Nicholas Aroney","authors":"Christophe Van der Beken","doi":"10.1093/publius/pjac003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjac003","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47224,"journal":{"name":"Publius-The Journal of Federalism","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44065966","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":"Federalism and Constitutional Law: The Italian Contribution to Comparative Regionalism, edited by Erika Arban Giuseppe Martinico, and Francesco Palermo. London and New York: Routledge, 2021. 232 pp., $47.95.","authors":"D. Vampa","doi":"10.1093/PUBLIUS/PJAB038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/PUBLIUS/PJAB038","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47224,"journal":{"name":"Publius-The Journal of Federalism","volume":"56 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2021-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74054478","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":"Dynamic Federalism: A New Theory for Cohesion and Regional Autonomy, by Patricia Popelier","authors":"Annamaria Gamper","doi":"10.1093/publius/pjab034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjab034","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47224,"journal":{"name":"Publius-The Journal of Federalism","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2021-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43183179","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：