Drug Use During Pregnancy Policies in the United States From 1970 to 2016

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 441-459 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sue Thomas ◽  
Ryan Treffers ◽  
Nancy F. Berglas ◽  
Laurie Drabble ◽  
Sarah C. M. Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Drug Use ◽  
State Level ◽  
Original Data ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Policies ◽  
Alcohol Policy ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Drug Laws ◽  
Policy Domain ◽  
Policy Environments

As U.S. states legalize marijuana and as governmental attention is paid to the “opioid crisis,” state policies pertaining to drug use during pregnancy are increasingly important. Little is known about the scope of state policies targeting drug use during pregnancy, how they have evolved, and how they compare to alcohol use during pregnancy policies. Method: Our 46-year original data set of statutes and regulations in U.S. states covers the entirety of state-level legislation in this policy domain. Data were obtained through original legal research and from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism’s Alcohol Policy Information System. Policies were analyzed individually as well as by classification as punitive toward or supportive of women. Results: The number of states with drug use during pregnancy policies has increased from 1 in 1974 to 43 in 2016. Policies started as punitive. By the mid- to late 1980s, supportive policies emerged, and mixed policy environments dominated in the 2000s. Overall, drug/pregnancy policy environments have become less supportive over time. Comparisons of drug laws to alcohol laws show that the policy trajectories started in opposite directions, but by 2016, the results were the same: Punitive policies were more prevalent than supportive policies across states. Moreover, there is a great deal of overlap between drug use during pregnancy policies and alcohol/pregnancy policies. Conclusion: This study breaks new ground. More studies are needed that explore the effects of these policies on alcohol and other drug use by pregnant women and on birth outcomes.

scholarly journals Why Do States Intervene in the Elections of Others? The Role of Incumbent–Opposition Divisions

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes Bubeck ◽  
Kai Jäger ◽  
Nikolay Marinov ◽  
Federico Nanni
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Original Data ◽  
The United States ◽  
Polarization Measurement ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Democratic Process ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Policy Positions ◽  
Us Government ◽  
The Government

Abstract Why do states intervene in elections abroad? This article argues that outsiders intervene when the main domestic contenders for office adopt policy positions that differ from the point of view of the outside power. It refers to the split between the government's and opposition's positions as policy polarization. Polarization between domestic political forces, rather than the degree of unfriendliness of the government in office, attracts two types of interventions: process (for or against democracy) and candidate (for or against the government) interventions. The study uses a novel, original data set to track local contenders’ policy positions. It shows that the new policy polarization measurement outperforms a number of available alternatives when it comes to explaining process and candidate interventions. The authors use this measurement to explain the behavior of the United States as an intervener in elections from 1945 to 2012. The United States is more likely to support the opposition, and the democratic process abroad, if a pro-US opposition is facing an anti-US government. It is more likely to support the government, and undermine the democratic process abroad, if a pro-US government is facing an anti-US opposition. The article also presents the results for all interveners, confirming the results from the US case.

Subverting the Organizational Cartel: Explaining Cross-Party Leadership Selection in U.S. State Houses

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 475-483
Author(s):  
Matthew N. Green
Keyword(s):  
House Of Representatives ◽  
State Legislatures ◽  
State Level ◽  
Original Data ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Leadership Selection ◽  
Majority Party ◽  
Party Ideology ◽  
Level I ◽  
Selection Of

In the U.S. House of Representatives, the majority party constitutes an organizational cartel that monopolizes the selection of chamber leaders. But in state legislatures, that cartel power is sometimes circumvented by a bipartisan bloc that outvotes the leadership preferences of a majority of the majority party. Drawing from an original data set of instances of cross-party organizational coalitions at the state level, I use statistical analysis to test various hypotheses for when these coalitions are more likely to form. The analysis reveals that party ideology does not adequately explain the violation of these cartels; rather, violations depend on the costs associated with keeping the party unified and the benefits that come from selecting the chamber’s top leadership post. This finding underscores the potential vulnerability of organizational cartels and suggests that governing parties are strategic when deciding how fiercely to defend their cartel power.

scholarly journals Early Determinants of Work Disability in an International Perspective

Demography ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 57 (5) ◽  
pp. 1853-1879
Author(s):  
Axel Börsch-Supan ◽  
Tabea Bucher-Koenen ◽  
Felizia Hanemann
Keyword(s):  
Work Disability ◽  
Disability Insurance ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Policies ◽  
International Perspective ◽  
Data Set ◽  
International Variation ◽  
Gainful Employment ◽  
Objective Health ◽  
History Information

Abstract This study explores the interrelated roles of health and welfare state policies in the decision to take up disability insurance (DI) benefits due to work disability (WD), defined as the (partial) inability to engage in gainful employment as a result of physical or mental illness. We exploit the large international variation of health, self-reported WD, and the uptake of DI benefits in the United States and Europe using a harmonized data set with life history information assembled from SHARE, ELSA, and HRS. We find that the mismatch between WD and DI benefit receipt varies greatly across countries. Objective health explains a substantial share of the within-country variation in DI, but this is not the case for the variation across countries. Rather, most of the variation between countries and the mismatches are explained by differences in DI policies.

The Law and Labor Strife in the United States, 1881–1894

2000 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet Currie ◽  
Joseph Ferrie
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Legal Environment ◽  
Labor Disputes ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Unique Data ◽  
The Law

This article examines the effect of state-level legal innovations governing labor disputes in the late 1800s. This was a period of legal ferment in which worker organizations and employers actively lobbied state governments for changes in the rules governing labor disputes. Cross-state heterogeneity in the legal environment provides an unusual opportunity to investigate the effects of these laws. We use a unique data set with information on 12,965 strikes to show that most of these law changes had surprisingly little effect on strike incidence or outcomes. Important exceptions were maximum hours laws and the use of injunctions.

scholarly journals Alcohol policies and impaired driving in the United States: Effects of driving- vs. drinking-oriented policies

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-130
Author(s):  
Ziming Xuan ◽  
Jason G. Blanchette ◽  
Toben F. Nelson ◽  
Timothy C. Heeren ◽  
Thien H. Nguyen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
Alcohol Policy ◽  
Lower State ◽  
Higher Alcohol ◽  
Impaired Driving ◽  
Alcohol Policies ◽  
Scale Scores ◽  
Alcohol Impaired Driving

Xuan, Z., Blanchette, J., Nelson, T., Heeren, T., Nguyen, T., & Naimi, T. (2015). Alcohol policies and impaired driving in the United States: Effects of driving- vs. drinking-oriented policies. The International Journal Of Alcohol And Drug Research, 4(2), 119-130. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.7895/ijadr.v4i2.205Aims: To test the hypotheses that stronger policy environments are associated with less impaired driving and that driving-orientedand drinking-oriented policy subgroups are independently associated with impaired driving.Design: State-level data on 29 policies in 50 states from 2001-2009 were used as lagged exposures in generalized linearregression models to predict self-reported impaired driving.Setting: Fifty United States and Washington, D.C.Participants: A total of 1,292,245 adults (≥ 18 years old) biennially from 2002–2010.Measures: Alcohol Policy Scale scores representing the alcohol policy environment were created by summing policies weightedby their efficacy and degree of implementation by state-year. Past-30-day alcohol-impaired driving from 2002–2010 wasobtained from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys.Findings: Higher Alcohol Policy Scale scores are strongly associated with lower state-level prevalence and individual-level risk of impaired driving. After accounting for driving-oriented policies, drinking-oriented policies had a robust independent association with reduced likelihood of impaired driving. Reduced binge drinking mediates the relationship between drinking-oriented policies and impaired driving, and driving-oriented policies reduce the likelihood of impaired driving among binge drinkers.Conclusions: Efforts to reduce alcohol-impaired driving should focus on reducing excessive drinking in addition to preventing driving among those who are impaired.

scholarly journals Alcohol policies and impaired driving in the United States: Effects of driving- vs. drinking-oriented policies

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ziming Xuan ◽  
Jason G. Blanchette ◽  
Toben F. Nelson ◽  
Timothy C. Heeren ◽  
Thien H. Nguyen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
Alcohol Policy ◽  
Lower State ◽  
Higher Alcohol ◽  
Impaired Driving ◽  
Alcohol Policies ◽  
Scale Scores ◽  
Alcohol Impaired Driving

Xuan, Z., Blanchette, J., Nelson, T., Heeren, T., Nguyen, T., & Naimi, T. (2015). Alcohol policies and impaired driving in the United States: Effects of driving- vs. drinking-oriented policies. The International Journal Of Alcohol And Drug Research, 4(2), 119-130. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.7895/ijadr.v4i2.205Aims: To test the hypotheses that stronger policy environments are associated with less impaired driving and that driving-orientedand drinking-oriented policy subgroups are independently associated with impaired driving.Design: State-level data on 29 policies in 50 states from 2001-2009 were used as lagged exposures in generalized linearregression models to predict self-reported impaired driving.Setting: Fifty United States and Washington, D.C.Participants: A total of 1,292,245 adults (≥ 18 years old) biennially from 2002–2010.Measures: Alcohol Policy Scale scores representing the alcohol policy environment were created by summing policies weightedby their efficacy and degree of implementation by state-year. Past-30-day alcohol-impaired driving from 2002–2010 wasobtained from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys.Findings: Higher Alcohol Policy Scale scores are strongly associated with lower state-level prevalence and individual-level risk of impaired driving. After accounting for driving-oriented policies, drinking-oriented policies had a robust independent association with reduced likelihood of impaired driving. Reduced binge drinking mediates the relationship between drinking-oriented policies and impaired driving, and driving-oriented policies reduce the likelihood of impaired driving among binge drinkers.Conclusions: Efforts to reduce alcohol-impaired driving should focus on reducing excessive drinking in addition to preventing driving among those who are impaired.

Interests and Representation: Ethnic Advocacy on California School Boards

2009 ◽  
Vol 111 (3) ◽  
pp. 659-682
Author(s):  
Luis Ricardo Fraga ◽  
Roy Elis
Keyword(s):  
English Language Learners ◽  
Public Schools ◽  
School Districts ◽  
School Boards ◽  
English Language ◽  
Latino Students ◽  
Original Data ◽  
The United States ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Latino Teachers

Background/Context Researchers have found that school districts with greater representation of Latinos and African Americans on their school boards tend to also have higher percentages of Latino and African American administrators and teachers. This increased presence of coethnics in the educational bureaucracy was then found to predict more favorable educational outcomes for these students. Purpose We determine if these relationships hold for Latinos in California, which has the largest Latino population in the United States and where Latino students make up just under half of all students enrolled in public schools. Research Design Using an original data set of all California school districts in the 2004–2005 school year, we tested these relationships for Latinos in California using multiple regression. Conclusion Contrary to previous research, we found that Latino representation on California school boards was not greater in systems of single-member district election. We did, however, find that the greater presence of Latinos on school boards did increase the likelihood that Latinos would be hired as administrators, but only in Latino-majority districts. After appropriate controls, districts with more Latino administrators also tended to have more Latino teachers. Last, and again contrary to previous research, we found no systematic impact of having more Latino teachers and administrators on enhancing student outcomes for either all Latino students or for English language learners.

Between Families and Frankenstein

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin Heidt-Forsythe
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Narrative Analysis ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Original Data ◽  
The United States ◽  
Egg Donation ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Science And Policy ◽  
Policy Framing ◽  
The U.S

In this book, I undertake the first comprehensive theoretical and empirical analysis of the politics of the “wild west” of egg donation in the United States. If egg donation is so publicly recognizable and evokes such social interest, why does the U.S. system fail to regulate it? This book challenges conventional thinking around egg donation politics, exploring answers to how egg donation is defined, debated, and regulated in the United States, as well as exploring the logic of why the U.S. system of politics is organized the way it is around egg donation. Building upon theories of normative femininity in reproduction and scientific research, this book examines the relationships between subnational politics and policy in contemporary egg donation. I use three interdisciplinary areas of inquiry—policy framing, body politics and morality politics, and representation by gender and political party to answer long-standing questions about egg donation and politics in the fields of women’s and gender studies, political science and policy studies, and bioethics. Employing case studies, qualitative narrative analysis, and quantitative public-policy analyses of an original data set of over eight hundred state-level public policies around egg donation, this book clarifies the ways that gender, race, and class, as well as political institutions and actors, create systems of egg donation politics and regulation, particularly at the subnational level.

“Big” Treaties, Small Effects

2018 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanne Gowa ◽  
Raymond Hicks
Keyword(s):  
Economic History ◽  
Original Data ◽  
The United States ◽  
Significant Rise ◽  
Product Line ◽  
Most Favored Nation ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Bilateral Agreements ◽  
Trading Partners ◽  
Line Level

It seems obvious that agreements to cut tariffs will raise trade between their signatories. But recent studies show that some agreements widely considered to be landmarks in economic history had either a remarkably small impact on trade or none at all. Among those agreements are the Cobden-Chevalier Treaties and the long series of tariff accords concluded under the auspices of the GATT/WTO. Both sets of agreements cut import duties on many goods that applied to all trading partners entitled to most-favored-nation treatment, but neither increased aggregate trade between their members. This article examines the agreements concluded by the United States under the 1934 Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act (RTAA). The authors use an original data set that records changes in tariffs and US imports at the product-line level for each of the twenty-seven bilateral agreements. No comparable data exist either for the nineteenth-century trade network or for the postwar trade regime. The results show that the RTAA treaties failed to raise aggregate US imports from its treaty partners. They also show that these agreements did lead to a large and significant rise in US imports of specific products from specific countries. Because the same bargaining protocol that produced the RTAA agreements also governed the European treaty network and the GATT/WTO, the argument advanced in this article can also help to explain why neither treaty exerted a significant impact on aggregate trade between their signatories.

The Secret Success of Nonproliferation Sanctions

2014 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
pp. 913-944 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas L. Miller
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
Qualitative Analysis ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Selection Effect ◽  
Original Data ◽  
The United States ◽  
Selection Effects ◽  
Data Set ◽  
South Korean

AbstractBuilding on the rationalist literature on sanctions, this article argues that economic and political sanctions are a successful tool of nonproliferation policy, but that selection effects have rendered this success largely hidden. Since the late 1970s—when the United States made the threat of sanctions credible through congressional legislation and began regularly employing sanctions against proliferating states—sanctions have been ineffective in halting ongoing nuclear weapons programs, but they have succeeded in deterring states from starting nuclear weapons programs in the first place and have thus contributed to a decline in the rate of nuclear pursuit. The logic of the argument is simple: rational leaders assess the risk of sanctions before initiating a nuclear weapons program, which produces a selection effect whereby states highly vulnerable to sanctions are deterred from starting nuclear weapons programs in the first place, so long as the threat is credible. Vulnerability is a function of a state's level of economic and security dependence on the United States—states with greater dependence have more to lose from US sanctions and are more likely to be sensitive to US-sponsored norms. The end result of this selection effect is that since the late 1970s, only insulated, inward-looking regimes have pursued nuclear weapons and become the target of imposed sanctions, thus rendering the observed success rate of nonproliferation sanctions low. I find support for the argument based on statistical analysis of a global sample of countries from 1950 to 2000, an original data set of US nonproliferation sanctions episodes, and qualitative analysis of the South Korean and Taiwanese nuclear weapons programs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document