Pub Date : 2019-10-10DOI: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-043026
Lynette J. Chua
Studies about authoritarianism build the foundation of legal mobilization scholarship and continue to advance this area of sociolegal research. The contributions of these studies become apparent when we view authoritarianism as a phenomenon found in all societies. Authoritarian regimes exist as nation states and as enclaves, such as subnational territories, institutions, and social spaces. Scholars who examine whether and how people use the law in diverse authoritarian settings bring out the malleable, situational, and plural nature of legal power. Law, in collaboration or complicity with other sources of power, can impede legal mobilization. Nevertheless, individuals and groups can use the law to challenge authoritarianism by carrying out formal, quasi-formal, or nonformal legal actions, an array of strategies and tactics that encompass more than courtroom litigation. Overall, the outcomes of legal mobilization under authoritarianism are mixed and paradoxical. Sometimes law can benefit disadvantaged populations living under authoritarianism. However, law is also criticized for being ineffective, even harmful. Examined in light of the notion that authoritarianism is all over, legal mobilization research offers keen reflections on the study of legal power.
{"title":"Legal Mobilization and Authoritarianism","authors":"Lynette J. Chua","doi":"10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-043026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-043026","url":null,"abstract":"Studies about authoritarianism build the foundation of legal mobilization scholarship and continue to advance this area of sociolegal research. The contributions of these studies become apparent when we view authoritarianism as a phenomenon found in all societies. Authoritarian regimes exist as nation states and as enclaves, such as subnational territories, institutions, and social spaces. Scholars who examine whether and how people use the law in diverse authoritarian settings bring out the malleable, situational, and plural nature of legal power. Law, in collaboration or complicity with other sources of power, can impede legal mobilization. Nevertheless, individuals and groups can use the law to challenge authoritarianism by carrying out formal, quasi-formal, or nonformal legal actions, an array of strategies and tactics that encompass more than courtroom litigation. Overall, the outcomes of legal mobilization under authoritarianism are mixed and paradoxical. Sometimes law can benefit disadvantaged populations living under authoritarianism. However, law is also criticized for being ineffective, even harmful. Examined in light of the notion that authoritarianism is all over, legal mobilization research offers keen reflections on the study of legal power.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2019-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-043026","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43342853","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}
Pub Date : 2019-10-10DOI: 10.1146/ANNUREV-LAWSOCSCI-101518-042834
M. Radelet, G. Cohen
Since 1972, the Supreme Court has experimented with regulation of the death penalty, seeking the illusive goals of consistency, reliability, and fairness. In this century, the court held that the Sixth Amendment prohibited judges from making findings necessary to impose a death sentence. Separately, the court held that the Eighth Amendment safeguarded evolving standards of decency as measured by national consensus. In this article, we discuss the role of judges in death determinations, identifying jurisdictions that initially (post 1972) allowed judge sentencing and naming the individuals who today remain under judge-imposed death sentences. The decisions guaranteeing a jury determination have so far been applied only to cases that have not undergone initial review in state courts. Key questions remain unresolved, including whether the evolving standards of decency permit the execution of more than 100 individuals who were condemned to death by judges without a jury's death verdict before implementation of the rules that now require unanimous jury votes.
{"title":"The Decline of the Judicial Override","authors":"M. Radelet, G. Cohen","doi":"10.1146/ANNUREV-LAWSOCSCI-101518-042834","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-LAWSOCSCI-101518-042834","url":null,"abstract":"Since 1972, the Supreme Court has experimented with regulation of the death penalty, seeking the illusive goals of consistency, reliability, and fairness. In this century, the court held that the Sixth Amendment prohibited judges from making findings necessary to impose a death sentence. Separately, the court held that the Eighth Amendment safeguarded evolving standards of decency as measured by national consensus. In this article, we discuss the role of judges in death determinations, identifying jurisdictions that initially (post 1972) allowed judge sentencing and naming the individuals who today remain under judge-imposed death sentences. The decisions guaranteeing a jury determination have so far been applied only to cases that have not undergone initial review in state courts. Key questions remain unresolved, including whether the evolving standards of decency permit the execution of more than 100 individuals who were condemned to death by judges without a jury's death verdict before implementation of the rules that now require unanimous jury votes.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2019-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1146/ANNUREV-LAWSOCSCI-101518-042834","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43015748","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}
Pub Date : 2019-10-10DOI: 10.1146/ANNUREV-LAWSOCSCI-101518-042717
Lynette J. Chua, D. M. Engel
Legal consciousness is a vibrant research field attracting growing numbers of scholars worldwide. Yet differing assumptions about aims and methods have generated vigorous debate, typically resulting from a failure to recognize that three different clusters of scholars—identified here as the Identity, Hegemony, and Mobilization schools—are pursuing different goals and deploying the concept of legal consciousness in different ways. Scholarship associated with these three schools demonstrates that legal consciousness is actually a flexible paradigm with multiple applications rather than a monolithic approach. Furthermore, a new generation of scholars has energized the field in recent years, focusing on marginalized peoples and non-Western settings. Through their findings, and as a result of broader trends across the social sciences, relational legal consciousness has taken on greater importance. Legal consciousness research should be imagined on a continuum ranging from individualistic conceptualizations of thought and action to interactive, co-constitutive approaches.
{"title":"Legal Consciousness Reconsidered","authors":"Lynette J. Chua, D. M. Engel","doi":"10.1146/ANNUREV-LAWSOCSCI-101518-042717","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-LAWSOCSCI-101518-042717","url":null,"abstract":"Legal consciousness is a vibrant research field attracting growing numbers of scholars worldwide. Yet differing assumptions about aims and methods have generated vigorous debate, typically resulting from a failure to recognize that three different clusters of scholars—identified here as the Identity, Hegemony, and Mobilization schools—are pursuing different goals and deploying the concept of legal consciousness in different ways. Scholarship associated with these three schools demonstrates that legal consciousness is actually a flexible paradigm with multiple applications rather than a monolithic approach. Furthermore, a new generation of scholars has energized the field in recent years, focusing on marginalized peoples and non-Western settings. Through their findings, and as a result of broader trends across the social sciences, relational legal consciousness has taken on greater importance. Legal consciousness research should be imagined on a continuum ranging from individualistic conceptualizations of thought and action to interactive, co-constitutive approaches.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2019-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1146/ANNUREV-LAWSOCSCI-101518-042717","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47412719","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}
Pub Date : 2019-10-10DOI: 10.1146/ANNUREV-LAWSOCSCI-101317-031308
M. Dauber, M. Warner
Despite a long history of reform efforts, college students remain vulnerable to sexual harassment and assault on campus. This article surveys that history from the 1970s to the present, including a flurry of enforcement activity under President Obama and a backlash and reversed course under Trump. Many of the systems—for example law, education, and public health—designed to ameliorate the epidemic of campus sexual assault have failed to do so. These failures have been particularly pronounced for victims who experience multiple intersecting inequalities. The resulting frustration with legal remedies through campus Title IX processes and the criminal and civil justice system has spurred a new interest in strategies to prevent sexual assault in the first place. Recent political developments, including the #MeToo movement, suggest a potential for democratic political accountability to make progress where legal reform efforts and campus prevention programming have thus far been unsuccessful.
{"title":"Legal and Political Responses to Campus Sexual Assault","authors":"M. Dauber, M. Warner","doi":"10.1146/ANNUREV-LAWSOCSCI-101317-031308","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-LAWSOCSCI-101317-031308","url":null,"abstract":"Despite a long history of reform efforts, college students remain vulnerable to sexual harassment and assault on campus. This article surveys that history from the 1970s to the present, including a flurry of enforcement activity under President Obama and a backlash and reversed course under Trump. Many of the systems—for example law, education, and public health—designed to ameliorate the epidemic of campus sexual assault have failed to do so. These failures have been particularly pronounced for victims who experience multiple intersecting inequalities. The resulting frustration with legal remedies through campus Title IX processes and the criminal and civil justice system has spurred a new interest in strategies to prevent sexual assault in the first place. Recent political developments, including the #MeToo movement, suggest a potential for democratic political accountability to make progress where legal reform efforts and campus prevention programming have thus far been unsuccessful.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2019-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1146/ANNUREV-LAWSOCSCI-101317-031308","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41911565","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}
Pub Date : 2019-10-10DOI: 10.1146/ANNUREV-LAWSOCSCI-101518-042602
Isabel Bilotta, Abby Corrington, Saaid A. Mendoza, Ivy Watson, E. King
This review describes the ways in which contemporary forms of prejudice and stereotypes, which are often subtle and unconscious, give rise to critical problems throughout the legal system. This summary highlights dominant themes and understudied issues at the intersection of legal and psychological research. Three areas of focus are considered: law enforcement (policing), legal decision making, and the legal profession. Recommendations for future research and practice are offered.
{"title":"How Subtle Bias Infects the Law","authors":"Isabel Bilotta, Abby Corrington, Saaid A. Mendoza, Ivy Watson, E. King","doi":"10.1146/ANNUREV-LAWSOCSCI-101518-042602","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-LAWSOCSCI-101518-042602","url":null,"abstract":"This review describes the ways in which contemporary forms of prejudice and stereotypes, which are often subtle and unconscious, give rise to critical problems throughout the legal system. This summary highlights dominant themes and understudied issues at the intersection of legal and psychological research. Three areas of focus are considered: law enforcement (policing), legal decision making, and the legal profession. Recommendations for future research and practice are offered.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2019-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1146/ANNUREV-LAWSOCSCI-101518-042602","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46344805","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}
Pub Date : 2019-10-10DOI: 10.1146/ANNUREV-LAWSOCSCI-101317-030909
R. Krieken
The German sociologist Norbert Elias developed a wide-ranging sociological analysis of the interconnections between processes of state formation, institutional dynamics, and individual subjectivity, or habitus, and the logic of their processes of transformation over time. His work has had significant impact on social scientific thought in a wide variety of fields, including the historical sociology of the self, violence, crime and punishment, organizations, emotions, sexuality, social control, and sport. His influence in legal scholarship, however, has concentrated in criminology, with only sporadic use of his ideas in relation to other topics in law and social science research. This review highlights the ways in which Elias can be read as a theorist of regulation by outlining ( a) the core elements of Elias's “process-figurational” sociology and his analysis of processes of civilization and decivilization; ( b) Elias's observations on law and state formation; ( c) a selection of the sociolegal research related to his sociological approach, in fields such as crime and punishment, evolving modes of regulation, and international relations; and ( d) the potential future directions in which Elias's process-figurational approach might move in sociolegal research and scholarship. These include the emotional dimensions of family law, human rights and humanitarianism, the intersections of legal evolution and broader processes of social change, legal pluralism and legal culture, tort law, constitutionalism, and the rule of law.
{"title":"Law and Civilization: Norbert Elias as a Regulation Theorist","authors":"R. Krieken","doi":"10.1146/ANNUREV-LAWSOCSCI-101317-030909","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-LAWSOCSCI-101317-030909","url":null,"abstract":"The German sociologist Norbert Elias developed a wide-ranging sociological analysis of the interconnections between processes of state formation, institutional dynamics, and individual subjectivity, or habitus, and the logic of their processes of transformation over time. His work has had significant impact on social scientific thought in a wide variety of fields, including the historical sociology of the self, violence, crime and punishment, organizations, emotions, sexuality, social control, and sport. His influence in legal scholarship, however, has concentrated in criminology, with only sporadic use of his ideas in relation to other topics in law and social science research. This review highlights the ways in which Elias can be read as a theorist of regulation by outlining ( a) the core elements of Elias's “process-figurational” sociology and his analysis of processes of civilization and decivilization; ( b) Elias's observations on law and state formation; ( c) a selection of the sociolegal research related to his sociological approach, in fields such as crime and punishment, evolving modes of regulation, and international relations; and ( d) the potential future directions in which Elias's process-figurational approach might move in sociolegal research and scholarship. These include the emotional dimensions of family law, human rights and humanitarianism, the intersections of legal evolution and broader processes of social change, legal pluralism and legal culture, tort law, constitutionalism, and the rule of law.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":"13 2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2019-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1146/ANNUREV-LAWSOCSCI-101317-030909","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"63965595","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}
Pub Date : 2019-10-10DOI: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-031123
Kevin L. Cope, C. Creamer, Mila Versteeg
A growing body of empirical studies has provided important insights into our understanding of the causes and effects of codified human rights. Yet empirical research has treated human rights treaties and constitutional rights as separate domains, even though the two regimes offer many of the same rights protections and can interact and reinforce each other. In this article, we review these two bodies of literature, focusing on two lines of inquiry: studies that ( a) treat rights commitments as the outcome to be explained and ( b) examine the consequences of these commitments for state behavior. Some broad insights emerge from these literatures. First, the literatures adopt different orientations to explaining why states commit themselves to legal rights. Second, the effect of both human rights treaties and constitutions is usually small and contingent on certain legal and political environments. This review concludes by synthesizing debates over the most effective methods for measuring rights performance and for gauging causal effects.
{"title":"Empirical Studies of Human Rights Law","authors":"Kevin L. Cope, C. Creamer, Mila Versteeg","doi":"10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-031123","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-031123","url":null,"abstract":"A growing body of empirical studies has provided important insights into our understanding of the causes and effects of codified human rights. Yet empirical research has treated human rights treaties and constitutional rights as separate domains, even though the two regimes offer many of the same rights protections and can interact and reinforce each other. In this article, we review these two bodies of literature, focusing on two lines of inquiry: studies that ( a) treat rights commitments as the outcome to be explained and ( b) examine the consequences of these commitments for state behavior. Some broad insights emerge from these literatures. First, the literatures adopt different orientations to explaining why states commit themselves to legal rights. Second, the effect of both human rights treaties and constitutions is usually small and contingent on certain legal and political environments. This review concludes by synthesizing debates over the most effective methods for measuring rights performance and for gauging causal effects.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2019-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-031123","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44370305","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}
Pub Date : 2019-10-10DOI: 10.1146/ANNUREV-LAWSOCSCI-101518-042927
B. Bugarič
Populism is Janus-faced. There is not a single form of populism but rather a variety of different forms, each with profoundly different political consequences. Despite the current hegemony of authoritarian populism, a much different sort of populism is also possible: democratic and antiestablishment populism, which combines elements of liberal and democratic convictions. When we examine the relationship between populism and constitutional democracy, populism should not be considered in isolation from its host ideology. Examples of democratic, liberal, socially inclusive forms of populism quite clearly show that authoritarianism and anti-pluralism are not necessarily the key elements of populism. However, the paucity of democratic populism also suggests that we have to look at factors other than ideology to understand why nativist and authoritarian populism currently dominates the political scene. Without understanding the political economy of the populist revolt, it is difficult to understand the true roots of populism and, consequently, to devise an appropriate democratic alternative to authoritarian populism. The ascendancy of right-wing nationalist populism today is a symptom of the failure of progressive politics.
{"title":"Could Populism Be Good for Constitutional Democracy?","authors":"B. Bugarič","doi":"10.1146/ANNUREV-LAWSOCSCI-101518-042927","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-LAWSOCSCI-101518-042927","url":null,"abstract":"Populism is Janus-faced. There is not a single form of populism but rather a variety of different forms, each with profoundly different political consequences. Despite the current hegemony of authoritarian populism, a much different sort of populism is also possible: democratic and antiestablishment populism, which combines elements of liberal and democratic convictions. When we examine the relationship between populism and constitutional democracy, populism should not be considered in isolation from its host ideology. Examples of democratic, liberal, socially inclusive forms of populism quite clearly show that authoritarianism and anti-pluralism are not necessarily the key elements of populism. However, the paucity of democratic populism also suggests that we have to look at factors other than ideology to understand why nativist and authoritarian populism currently dominates the political scene. Without understanding the political economy of the populist revolt, it is difficult to understand the true roots of populism and, consequently, to devise an appropriate democratic alternative to authoritarian populism. The ascendancy of right-wing nationalist populism today is a symptom of the failure of progressive politics.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2019-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1146/ANNUREV-LAWSOCSCI-101518-042927","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48700891","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}
Pub Date : 2019-10-10DOI: 10.1146/ANNUREV-LAWSOCSCI-101518-042753
Tom Ginsburg
Militant organizations and rebel groups are an enduring feature of political life in much of the world. As scholars pay greater attention to rebel governance strategies, the role of law and courts is coming to the fore. We observe a good deal of variation across rebel groups in terms of their legal infrastructure and its organizational differentiation. This article surveys the recent literature and develops a framework for understanding why rebel groups vary in their use of law and also explores the consequences of legal governance for subject populations, for rebels themselves, and for external actors.
{"title":"Rebel Use of Law and Courts","authors":"Tom Ginsburg","doi":"10.1146/ANNUREV-LAWSOCSCI-101518-042753","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-LAWSOCSCI-101518-042753","url":null,"abstract":"Militant organizations and rebel groups are an enduring feature of political life in much of the world. As scholars pay greater attention to rebel governance strategies, the role of law and courts is coming to the fore. We observe a good deal of variation across rebel groups in terms of their legal infrastructure and its organizational differentiation. This article surveys the recent literature and develops a framework for understanding why rebel groups vary in their use of law and also explores the consequences of legal governance for subject populations, for rebels themselves, and for external actors.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2019-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1146/ANNUREV-LAWSOCSCI-101518-042753","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46721353","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}
Pub Date : 2019-10-10DOI: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-042951
Ruben J. Garcia
The debates about right-to-work (RTW) laws have raged for decades. Conservatives have long argued that a freedom principle prohibits employees from being required to pay dues even when a union represents them. Unions and their allies counter that RTW laws are actually intended to minimize the bargaining and political power of labor unions. This article outlines the ideology and impact of RTW laws in the United States. As constitutional challenges to fair share fees continue and state legislatures gradually pass RTW laws, there are many studies on the impact of RTW laws on wages and unionization, but the impact on politics is more mixed. This article analyzes the data nationally but also points to some conditions in which RTW laws may not have the impact that either their proponents or detractors predict. Literature on the topic has considered the following questions: ( a) whether wages and working conditions in RTW states are lower than in non-RTW states, ( b) whether such laws have the intent and effect of weakening worker-friendly candidates politically, and ( c) whether legal interpretations of agency fees or fair share fees are correct. Drawing on the literature in each of these areas, I explore areas of future research and offer conclusions about the state of the literature, as well as the public perceptions of RTW.
{"title":"Right-to-Work Laws: Ideology and Impact","authors":"Ruben J. Garcia","doi":"10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-042951","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-042951","url":null,"abstract":"The debates about right-to-work (RTW) laws have raged for decades. Conservatives have long argued that a freedom principle prohibits employees from being required to pay dues even when a union represents them. Unions and their allies counter that RTW laws are actually intended to minimize the bargaining and political power of labor unions. This article outlines the ideology and impact of RTW laws in the United States. As constitutional challenges to fair share fees continue and state legislatures gradually pass RTW laws, there are many studies on the impact of RTW laws on wages and unionization, but the impact on politics is more mixed. This article analyzes the data nationally but also points to some conditions in which RTW laws may not have the impact that either their proponents or detractors predict. Literature on the topic has considered the following questions: ( a) whether wages and working conditions in RTW states are lower than in non-RTW states, ( b) whether such laws have the intent and effect of weakening worker-friendly candidates politically, and ( c) whether legal interpretations of agency fees or fair share fees are correct. Drawing on the literature in each of these areas, I explore areas of future research and offer conclusions about the state of the literature, as well as the public perceptions of RTW.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2019-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-042951","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42009581","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：