scholarly journals What industries received COVID-19 closure orders? A cross-state comparison in the US

F1000Research ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 772
Author(s):  
Philip Jacobs ◽  
Arvi P. Ohinmaa

The United States federal government developed a COVID-19 blueprint for states to follow; it included the issuance by state/local governments of “stay at home” orders coupled with lists of essential services. Suppliers of these services would be exempt from closure so their workers could fulfill their essential functions. The blueprint was embraced by the states in a variety of ways.  In this paper, we identify how business closure rules were enacted across the states for each of 15 types of services. The outcome measures were: “open” “open with restrictions” and “closure”. For six business types, most states permitted businesses to open.  In four types, businesses were mainly closed. In three, they were allowed to open with restrictions.  In the rest, there was a mixture of outcomes.  In sum, the federal blueprint resulted in a regulatory patchwork as it spread throughout the country.

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-28
Author(s):  
Johannes Saurer ◽  
Jonas Monast

Abstract The Federal Republic of Germany and the United States (US) have adopted different models for energy federalism. Germany allocates more authority to the federal government and the US relies on a decentralized cooperative federalism model that preserves key roles for state actors. This article explores and compares the relevance of federal legal structures for renewable energy expansion in both countries. It sets out the constitutional, statutory, and factual foundations in both Germany and the US, and explores the legal and empirical dimensions of renewable energy expansion at the federal and state levels. The article concludes by drawing several comparative lessons about the significance of federal structures for energy transition processes.


2005 ◽  
Vol 6 (10) ◽  
pp. 1283-1295 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur B. Gunlicks

In both the United States and Germany constitutional lawyers, politicians, and the attentive public speak of “dual federalism.” In the United States this means that the federal government and the states have separate political and administrative responsibilities and their own sources of revenues. In Germany, in contrast, dual federalism means that the federal government, i.e., the executive and legislative branches, are responsible for most legislation, and that the Länder (states; singular, Land) generally administer the laws (in large part through their local governments) on their own responsibility. In both federal systems “dual federalism” has been undermined if not replaced by “cooperative federalism,” generally associated with the New Deal era in the United States and the Finance Reform of 1969 in Germany. In the meantime “intergovernmental relations” has more or less replaced the concept of “cooperative federalism” in the United States, while Politikverflechtung (political/policy interconnection and coordination) is perhaps the more commonly used term in Germany today. In both cases the new terms reflect an interrelationship among federal, regional, and local levels that goes beyond mere cooperation.


Subject Asylum-seekers and Canada. Significance After an uptick in asylum claims in recent months, including via the United States, asylum policy is likely to feature more heavily in Canadian state and federal politics. Impacts New migrant flows to Canada will likely be triggered as the US government reduces its grants of Temporary Protected Status. Quebec’s government will face off against the Ottawa federal government over responsibility for new migrant arrivals. Ottawa and Washington will likely eventually update the Safe Third Country Agreement, but this could require bargaining. Canada may invest more in border policing and associated technologies.


Author(s):  
N. P. Gribin

Under the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Department Reorganization Act of 1986, the President of the United States must submit to Congress each year a report on the national security strategy. This report under the name of “National Security Strategy” is intended to be a comprehensive statement anticipating the worldwide interests, goals and objectives that are deemed crucial to the national security of the United States. The new “National Security Strategy” (December 2017) lays out the strategic vision of the Presidential Administration under Donald Trump about ways and means by which the US seeks to deal with internal and external threats. The authors of the Strategy set themselves the main task of proving that American security is based on the realization that American principles are: “a lasting force for good in the World.”  The authors of the Strategy prioritize the protection of the American way of life and American interests all over the world. In that aspect, they see the main danger from the hostile states and non-states actors who are “trying to acquire different types of weapons”. In addition, the administration is demonstrating concerns about the activity of international terrorist organizations (jihadist), transnational criminal organizations, drug cartels and cybercrime. Different from previous similar documents, Trump’s Strategy makes an evident accent on economic security as an important part of national security. The task in that area is “to rebuild economic strength at home and preserve a fair and reciprocal international system.” In a rather confronting manner, the Strategy assesses the role of China and Russia in the international affairs. It underlines that between the main sets of challengers – “the revisionist powers of China and Russia and the rogue states of Iran and North Korea”, the United States will seek areas of cooperation with competitors but will do so from a position of strength. The Strategy pays great attention to restoring military capability of the US. It is stressed that military strength remains a vital component of the competition for influence. In a certain sense, the authors of the Strategy demonstrate a new approach to the role of diplomacy, and especially in regards to the tools of economic diplomacy, intended to protect the US “from abuse by illicit actors”. Pillar four of the Strategy outlines considerations for expanding US influence on a global scale and for supporting friendly partners. As stated in the Strategy, American assistance to developing countries should help promote national interests and vice versa. The US will use all means, including sanctions, to “isolate states and leaders that pose a threat to the American interests.” The Strategy pays much attention to the regional aspect of national security, and, from these positions, the situation in various parts of the world (the Indo-Pacific region, Europe, the Middle East, etc.) is assessed. The authors emphasize that changes in the balance of power at the world level can cause global consequences and threaten American interests and US security. On the contrary, “stability reduces the threats that Americans face at home.”


2020 ◽  
Vol 50 (6-7) ◽  
pp. 584-589 ◽  
Author(s):  
James W. Douglas ◽  
Ringa Raudla

The COVID-19 crisis is placing a tremendous fiscal squeeze on state and local governments in the United States. We argue that the federal government should increase its deficit to fill in the fiscal gap. In the absence of sufficient federal assistance, we recommend that states suspend their balanced budget rules and norms and run deficits in their operating budgets to maintain services and meet additional obligations due to the pandemic. A comparison with Eurozone countries shows that states have more than enough debt capacity to run short-term deficits to respond to the crisis.


2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 343-355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsay Livingston

This article examines the racial dynamics and performative nature of US gun culture by analyzing the 2014 standoff between Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management. The standoff followed discernible scripts of white masculine privilege and drew on scenarios of conquest in the US American West, as Bundy’s supporters gathered at his ranch and brandished their weapons in open defiance of the federal government. The act of brandishing their guns was a ‘performance of belonging’, a public, theatrical gesture that marks the bearer as a full participant in civic life and all its attendant rights and privileges. This belonging, however, is predicated on histories of white supremacist laws and settler colonialist violence. By reading gun culture in the United States through the lens of performance, this article traces the profound discrepancies between legal and practical gun rights and illuminates one of the most intractable debates at the center of US American life.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document