Legislation

About: Legislation is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 62664 publications have been published within this topic receiving 585188 citations. The topic is also known as: law & act.

Same-sex marriage legalization associated with reduced implicit and explicit antigay bias

Abstract: The current research tested whether the passing of government legislation, signaling the prevailing attitudes of the local majority, was associated with changes in citizens’ attitudes. Specifically, with ∼1 million responses over a 12-y window, we tested whether state-by-state same-sex marriage legislation was associated with decreases in antigay implicit and explicit bias. Results across five operationalizations consistently provide support for this possibility. Both implicit and explicit bias were decreasing before same-sex marriage legalization, but decreased at a sharper rate following legalization. Moderating this effect was whether states passed legislation locally. Although states passing legislation experienced a greater decrease in bias following legislation, states that never passed legislation demonstrated increased antigay bias following federal legalization. Our work highlights how government legislation can inform individuals’ attitudes, even when these attitudes may be deeply entrenched and socially and politically volatile.

The case for (promoting) marriage: The devil is in the details

Abstract: This article considers the quality of the evidence that marriage confers unique benefits, and that, as such, social policies should be enacted to encourage couples, particularly those with few economic resources, to get married and stay together. Public concern about the future of marriage in the United States, we show, is rooted in demographic changes that reflect not so much a turning away from marriage, but an increasing openness to postponing marriage, living together out of wedlock, or divorcing. We examine why people who are motivated to marry hold back from doing so when they see the warning signs of future problems, and what happens when they marry despite them. We argue that marriages are fashioned in the images of the partners and are shaped by the opportunities and constraints of the ecological settings in which they are situated. As such, the promotion of family health and stability will require an approach that attends to couples' psychological, social, and economic needs. Key Words: courtship, divorce, marriage, mate selection, social policy, welfare policy. One of the most contentious debates in the United States today centers on the concern that some social critics have that, as a society, we are turning away from the institution of marriage. Though American families have been in transition for as long as there have been American families (Coontz, 1992), the normative context for family formation has shifted over the last several decades in four important ways: (a) nonmarital cohabitation is being practiced more visibly and more widely across our social spectrum; (b) the proportion of births that occur outside marriage has increased dramatically; (c) people marry later in life; and (d) divorce has settled in at a high rate. These phenomena have broad implications for adult lifestyles, childbearing, and childrearing. Social scientists, legal scholars, family advocates, and pundits have examined the causes and consequences of the changing shape of American families. A growing consensus exists that being raised in a well-functioning two-parent family is generally good for children (Amato & Booth, 1997; McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994), and the declining proportion of two-parent married families is seen by some as a crisis in need of intervention (e.g., Popenoe, 1999). Some scholars have argued that the benefits of marriage over other lifestyles are manifold (see, e.g., Waite & Gallagher, 2000; Wilson, 2002), and policymakers have recently considered federal legislation to promote and protect the institution. This article sets forth our thoughts about these issues. Our goal is cautionary. Our concern is not that ideology has infused the public debate about the future of marriage, but rather that the dialogue has not been adequately tempered by social scientists applying their trade as steadfastly as they should. We begin by posing a series of questions, each of which we believe needs to be addressed thoughtfully, both by social scientists whose job description centers on gathering and critically evaluating relevant data, and by the general public, who digest our interpretations of the data, inevitably filtering them through their own value systems and testing them against their own experiences. We present evidence that should encourage people to move beyond the tacit assumption that their own experiences are widely shared and, instead, to be mindful of the diverse circumstances under which people delay marriage, dissolve marriage, or choose not to marry at all. Attention to these devilish details, we believe, is the key to the development of social policies that effectively promote family health and stability. IS MARRIAGE RIGHT FOR Us ALL AND ALWAYS? Let us consider some questions to which many of us offer differing answers. * Is the proposition that marriage is good for people grounded securely enough in research to justify promoting marriage over other adult lifestyles? …

Restructuring welfare for the unemployed: the Hartz legislation in Germany

Abstract: The 'Hartz legislation' of 2003/04, which restructured the benefit and administrative system for the long-term unemployed in Germany, is commonly ascribed to the recommendations made by the Hartz Commission and the political leadership of Chancellor Schroder. These aspects have been crucial politically in policy making, but are insufficient to fully explain this legislation. Here it is argued that the Hartz Commission was largely insignificant in Policy formulation instead learning prior to the Commission located in an expert forum by the Bertelsmann Foundation as well as a Ministry of Labour project group explains the direction and content of this reform. The case of the Hartz legislation, whereby the 'frozen welfare state' of Germany critically departed from its conservative path, provides strong support for the significance of learning in major social policy reforms.

Parental Choice and Educational Policy

Abstract: Individual rights and collective policy goals in education the statutory enactment of parental choice legislation the implementation and administration of the 1981 Act parents' responses to the 1981 Act rights of appeal over choice of school the impact of parental choice on shcool admissions assessing the significance of the 1981 Act.

Bending Science: How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health Research

Abstract: Biased reporting of science has been documented for industry-supported research on many hazardous substances, including the plasticizer bisphenol A, secondhand tobacco smoke, asbestos, and lead. Several books that have hit the stands recently (e.g., David Michaels’ Doubt Is Their Product) use case studies to document and discuss the effect this kind of bias has on public health and environmental protection. In Bending Science McGarity and Wagner discuss the methods and motivations that make this practice so pervasive. The book could be called “Idiot’s Guide to Bending Science” because its chapters neatly and logically provide a step-by-step plan for manipulating science to support a predetermined conclusion. Starting with who has an interest in the manipulation of science, the book describes how to distort science without getting caught, how to support “bent” science by attacking legitimate science and scientists, and finally how to use public relations firms and journalists to advertise and disseminate the “bent” science. In addition to “how,” the book tells us why manufacturers and other financially interested parties are motivated to manipulate science—namely, to weaken the regulation of their products and to defend themselves in litigation if harm comes from their products. A recent illustration of the impact of “bent science” on public health is evident in the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) draft assessment of bisphenol A issued this summer, declaring the chemical was safe as currently used. The FDA’s assessment relied on just two studies, which were funded by the American Chemistry Council (formerly the Chemical Manufacturers Association), Dow Chemical, Bayer, and other plastics manufacturers, and the agency ignored dozens of other studies done by independent scientists that reported evidence of harm. The FDA’s conclusions also conflict with two National Institutes of Health reviews and the actions of its counterpart in Canada. An example of the failure of our regulatory oversight mechanisms to provide a backstop was evident this summer when Congress was compelled to pass legislation to eliminate lead in children’s toys and to ban or temporarily suspend the use of six types of phthalates (components of plastics) in children’s products. Congress stepped in after regulatory agencies failed to take action, even though children had been widely exposed (one child died in March 2006 from lead-contaminated toys) and there was substantial scientific evidence that these chemicals were highly hazardous. Bending Science has a halting academic writing style that overly relies on secondary sources as resources. In addition, the authors argue that everyone bends science, even public health advocates; however, the few public health examples that the authors provide are relatively rare instances that do not support those sweeping conclusions. For example, a case study of plaintiffs’ lawyers artificially inflating silicosis cases fails to mention that this was a highly unusual instance for which the offending lawyers were issued sanctions for their transgressions. In fact, without trial lawyers much of the evidence that the authors rely on for this book, such as the tobacco industry documents, would have never been released for public scrutiny. This is a topic of great importance. Bending Science warns that when science becomes artificially manipulated to misrepresent the hazards of products, “serious adverse consequences for human health and the environment, as well as for the economic well-being of legitimate businesses,” may arise.