A researcher at the University of Kansas has made a vital study of how a population in perpetual motion impacts local tax bases and economies around the nation
More than any other populace on Earth, Americans are on the move. Because of factors such as employment, climate or retirement, 14 percent of the U.S. population bounces from place to place every year.
Now, one researcher at the University of Kansas has made a vital study of how a population in perpetual motion impacts local tax bases and economies around the nation.
Art Hall, executive director of the Center for Applied Economics at the KU School of Business, said he uncovered three key themes to American population shifts by looking at annual data collected by the Internal Revenue Service on county-to-county migration:
He found that
*Populations are relocating to coastal areas (with the major exception that inhabitants for the first time are taking flight from California's prohibitively priced seaboard)
*People are moving out from major metropolises to smaller cities
*The general migration trend in the U.S. now is eastward rather than westward
"California has been losing people for at least a decade," Hall said. "Two patterns of migration are under way in California. People are leaving the coast and moving to the Northern interior. When they leave, they tend to go places like Arizona and Nevada. So it's not a far move. And they also are going up north to Seattle and Portland. Part of the answer there is that it's just very expensive to live on the California coast."
Hall said that income levels on the California coastline have remained consistent, despite the population loss.
"Even though people are moving, income is still flowing to the California coast," said Hall. "Higher-income people are able to afford it and working people are not."
Hall said that his research uncovered a trend of "de-urbanization" across America.
"People are moving away from the major cities to smaller cities — cities of 1 million to 2 million — and away from cities of 4 million-plus," he said. "In a sense, the exurbs are what's happening. What you'll see is that folks are moving out of the city cores into the periphery. They're willing to move away from the big cities into the medium-sized metropolitan areas."
According to Hall, people are motivated to move by a combination of reasons. He said they are influenced in their decisions by factors like climate, jobs and tax rates. Also, he found that younger people are more inclined to move, along with Americans who have reached retirement age.
"Once you get families there's a lot more stability," said Hall. "That stability generates a disinclination to move, but they're willing to commute longer distances. But even then, there's a lot of dynamism around metro areas even if they're not moving across the country. In the big picture, it's the first time in U.S. history that the general migration pattern is eastward rather than westward."
But how does all of this movement of people challenge regional governments that depend on a stable base of taxpayers to fund schools, roads, police and other vital civic services?
"I don't necessarily buy the notion that if you're not growing, you're dying," Hall said. "But there is a question of value and what are you willing to embrace in terms of a balanced quality-of-life."
Hall said that many municipalities face stark policy choices in terms of the kinds of employers that they are willing to accommodate.
"Every community wants to be a healthy, nice place to live with good jobs," the KU researcher said. "But you can't overcome the dynamism of people. Policy as a tool can only go so far. Everyone is chasing the same people to move and the same businesses to create jobs. But having a balanced approach to defining good government services, to defining reasonable tax rates, to not being biased against the types of business that come to your community, that is one of the best perspectives in terms of trying to nurture community growth."
Conversely, Hall said that a new influx of people could put stress on a community's ability to provide services.
"If places are growing too fast, and it's not well thought through, that can put a strain on finances," he said. "However, generally speaking, from a community perspective, in-migration is a good thing."
The full report, "The County-to-County Migration of Taxpayers and their Incomes, 1995-2006."
Friday, September 25, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Teenage birth rates higher in more religious states
Rates of births to teenage mothers are strongly predicted by conservative religious beliefs, even after controlling for differences in income and rates of abortion. Researchers writing in BioMed Central's open access journal Reproductive Health have found a strong association between teenage birth rates and state-level measures of religiosity in the U.S.
Joseph Strayhorn, an adjunct faculty member with Drexel University and the University of Pittsburgh, and Jillian Strayhorn used data from the Pew Forum's US Religious Landscapes Survey and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to evaluate the state level effects of belief on teen birth rates. Joseph Strayhorn said, "The magnitude of the correlation between religiosity and teen birth rate astonished us. Teen birth is more highly correlated with some of the religiosity items on the Religious Landscapes Survey than some of those items are correlated with each other".
The religiosity of a state was determined by averaging the percents of respondents who agreed with the eight most conservative opinions possible in the Religious Landscapes Survey, such as 'There is only one way to interpret the teachings of my religion' or 'Scripture should be taken literally, word for word'. According to Strayhorn, "Our findings by themselves do not, of course, permit causal inferences. But, if we may speculate on the most probable explanation, we conjecture that religious communities in the US are more successful in discouraging the use of contraception among their teenagers than they are in discouraging sexual intercourse itself"
Joseph Strayhorn, an adjunct faculty member with Drexel University and the University of Pittsburgh, and Jillian Strayhorn used data from the Pew Forum's US Religious Landscapes Survey and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to evaluate the state level effects of belief on teen birth rates. Joseph Strayhorn said, "The magnitude of the correlation between religiosity and teen birth rate astonished us. Teen birth is more highly correlated with some of the religiosity items on the Religious Landscapes Survey than some of those items are correlated with each other".
The religiosity of a state was determined by averaging the percents of respondents who agreed with the eight most conservative opinions possible in the Religious Landscapes Survey, such as 'There is only one way to interpret the teachings of my religion' or 'Scripture should be taken literally, word for word'. According to Strayhorn, "Our findings by themselves do not, of course, permit causal inferences. But, if we may speculate on the most probable explanation, we conjecture that religious communities in the US are more successful in discouraging the use of contraception among their teenagers than they are in discouraging sexual intercourse itself"
Lack of health insurance now more lethal
5,000 excess deaths annually linked to lack of health insurance: Harvard study
A study published online today [Thursday] estimates nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance. That figure is about two and a half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002.
The new study, "Health Insurance and Mortality in U.S. Adults," appears in today's [Thursday's] online edition of the American Journal of Public Health.
The Harvard-based researchers found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993.
Lead author Dr. Andrew Wilper, who worked at Harvard Medical School when the study was done and who now teaches at the University of Washington Medical School, said, "The uninsured have a higher risk of death when compared to the privately insured, even after taking into account socioeconomics, health behaviors and baseline health. We doctors have many new ways to prevent deaths from hypertension, diabetes and heart disease – but only if patients can get into our offices and afford their medications."
The study, which analyzed data from national surveys carried out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), assessed death rates after taking education, income and many other factors including smoking, drinking and obesity into account. It estimated that lack of health insurance causes 44,789 excess deaths annually.
Previous estimates from the IOM and others had put that figure near 18,000. The methods used in the current study were similar to those employed by the IOM in 2002, which in turn were based on a pioneering 1993 study of health insurance and mortality.
Deaths associated with lack of health insurance now exceed those caused by many common killers such as kidney disease.
An increase in the number of uninsured and an eroding medical safety net for the disadvantaged likely explain the substantial increase in the number of deaths associated with lack of insurance. The uninsured are more likely to go without needed care.
Another factor contributing to the widening gap in the risk of death between those who have insurance and those who don't is the improved quality of care for those who can get it.
The research, carried out at the Cambridge Health Alliance and Harvard Medical School, analyzed U.S. adults under age 65 who participated in the annual National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) between 1986 and 1994. Respondents first answered detailed questions about their socioeconomic status and health and were then examined by physicians. The CDC tracked study participants to see who died by 2000.
The study found a 40 percent increased risk of death among the uninsured. As expected, death rates were also higher for males (37 percent increase), current or former smokers (102 percent and 42 percent increases), people who said that their health was fair or poor (126 percent increase), and those that examining physicians said were in fair or poor health (222 percent increase).
Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, study co-author, professor of medicine at Harvard and a primary care physician in Cambridge, Mass., noted: "Historically, every other developed nation has achieved universal health care through some form of nonprofit national health insurance. Our failure to do so means that all Americans pay higher health care costs, and 45,000 pay with their lives."
Dr. David Himmelstein, study co-author and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, remarked, "The Institute of Medicine, using older studies, estimated that one American dies every 30 minutes from lack of health insurance. Even this grim figure is an underestimate – now one dies every 12 minutes."
A study published online today [Thursday] estimates nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance. That figure is about two and a half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002.
The new study, "Health Insurance and Mortality in U.S. Adults," appears in today's [Thursday's] online edition of the American Journal of Public Health.
The Harvard-based researchers found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993.
Lead author Dr. Andrew Wilper, who worked at Harvard Medical School when the study was done and who now teaches at the University of Washington Medical School, said, "The uninsured have a higher risk of death when compared to the privately insured, even after taking into account socioeconomics, health behaviors and baseline health. We doctors have many new ways to prevent deaths from hypertension, diabetes and heart disease – but only if patients can get into our offices and afford their medications."
The study, which analyzed data from national surveys carried out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), assessed death rates after taking education, income and many other factors including smoking, drinking and obesity into account. It estimated that lack of health insurance causes 44,789 excess deaths annually.
Previous estimates from the IOM and others had put that figure near 18,000. The methods used in the current study were similar to those employed by the IOM in 2002, which in turn were based on a pioneering 1993 study of health insurance and mortality.
Deaths associated with lack of health insurance now exceed those caused by many common killers such as kidney disease.
An increase in the number of uninsured and an eroding medical safety net for the disadvantaged likely explain the substantial increase in the number of deaths associated with lack of insurance. The uninsured are more likely to go without needed care.
Another factor contributing to the widening gap in the risk of death between those who have insurance and those who don't is the improved quality of care for those who can get it.
The research, carried out at the Cambridge Health Alliance and Harvard Medical School, analyzed U.S. adults under age 65 who participated in the annual National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) between 1986 and 1994. Respondents first answered detailed questions about their socioeconomic status and health and were then examined by physicians. The CDC tracked study participants to see who died by 2000.
The study found a 40 percent increased risk of death among the uninsured. As expected, death rates were also higher for males (37 percent increase), current or former smokers (102 percent and 42 percent increases), people who said that their health was fair or poor (126 percent increase), and those that examining physicians said were in fair or poor health (222 percent increase).
Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, study co-author, professor of medicine at Harvard and a primary care physician in Cambridge, Mass., noted: "Historically, every other developed nation has achieved universal health care through some form of nonprofit national health insurance. Our failure to do so means that all Americans pay higher health care costs, and 45,000 pay with their lives."
Dr. David Himmelstein, study co-author and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, remarked, "The Institute of Medicine, using older studies, estimated that one American dies every 30 minutes from lack of health insurance. Even this grim figure is an underestimate – now one dies every 12 minutes."
Lessons for Obama: Bush Efforts to ‘Frame’ Iraq War
Wartime leaders have long sought to sway public opinion by “framing” bad news from the frontlines. They present inconvenient facts in an altered format in order to generate support for their policies. A new study from North Carolina State University shows that Bush administration attempts to “frame” casualties from the Iraq War bolstered support for the war effort among certain members of the U.S. public, but also produced a backlash that led to decreased tolerance for additional casualties and war spending among others.
“By 2006, supporters of the war in Iraq were making the argument that the casualties and financial costs of the war justified ‘staying the course’ so that these sacrifices ‘should not have been made in vain,’” says Dr. Bill Boettcher, an associate professor of political science at NC State and co-author of the study. “This argument, called an ‘investment frame’ because it presents the casualties as investments in the war that can be ‘made good’ through victory, was used to shore up public support for continuing the war. Investment frames attempt to turn the loss of ‘blood and treasure’ from a liability into an asset. We performed this study to see whether Bush’s strategy for influencing public opinion was effective at a time when attitudes about the Iraq War had hardened considerably.”
Boettcher and fellow researcher Dr. Michael Cobb, also an associate professor of political science at NC State, polled a nationally representative sample of more than 1,300 Americans in September 2006 to gauge overall support for the war effort. They asked a subset of the participants how many more casualties and how much more spending they were willing to tolerate. They asked the same question of a separate subset of participants, after presenting the following investment frame: “Some people say we need to stay and complete the mission in Iraq to honor the dead and make sure they did not die in vain.”
The researchers found that the investment frame only produced a positive response among those study participants who supported the initial decision to go to war in Iraq. These participants’ tolerance for additional casualties and war spending was significantly higher than the casualty and war spending tolerance of participants in a control group that were not exposed to the frame.
However, there was a backlash among people who did not support the initial decision to go to war. They were significantly less tolerant of further casualties and spending after receiving the investment frame when compared to the control group. “This shows that the investment frame is effective when preaching to the converted,” Boettcher says. “The downside is that, if other groups hear you preaching to the converted, it drives them away – making it a dubious tool for broadening public support.”
The authors note that this study has significant implications for Obama administration efforts to maintain public support for the war in Afghanistan. “As casualties mount in Afghanistan, Obama would be wise to avoid the questionable information strategies associated with the Bush administration and the Iraq War,” Cobb says.
“By 2006, supporters of the war in Iraq were making the argument that the casualties and financial costs of the war justified ‘staying the course’ so that these sacrifices ‘should not have been made in vain,’” says Dr. Bill Boettcher, an associate professor of political science at NC State and co-author of the study. “This argument, called an ‘investment frame’ because it presents the casualties as investments in the war that can be ‘made good’ through victory, was used to shore up public support for continuing the war. Investment frames attempt to turn the loss of ‘blood and treasure’ from a liability into an asset. We performed this study to see whether Bush’s strategy for influencing public opinion was effective at a time when attitudes about the Iraq War had hardened considerably.”
Boettcher and fellow researcher Dr. Michael Cobb, also an associate professor of political science at NC State, polled a nationally representative sample of more than 1,300 Americans in September 2006 to gauge overall support for the war effort. They asked a subset of the participants how many more casualties and how much more spending they were willing to tolerate. They asked the same question of a separate subset of participants, after presenting the following investment frame: “Some people say we need to stay and complete the mission in Iraq to honor the dead and make sure they did not die in vain.”
The researchers found that the investment frame only produced a positive response among those study participants who supported the initial decision to go to war in Iraq. These participants’ tolerance for additional casualties and war spending was significantly higher than the casualty and war spending tolerance of participants in a control group that were not exposed to the frame.
However, there was a backlash among people who did not support the initial decision to go to war. They were significantly less tolerant of further casualties and spending after receiving the investment frame when compared to the control group. “This shows that the investment frame is effective when preaching to the converted,” Boettcher says. “The downside is that, if other groups hear you preaching to the converted, it drives them away – making it a dubious tool for broadening public support.”
The authors note that this study has significant implications for Obama administration efforts to maintain public support for the war in Afghanistan. “As casualties mount in Afghanistan, Obama would be wise to avoid the questionable information strategies associated with the Bush administration and the Iraq War,” Cobb says.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Research: Behavior of Low-income Youth
New Research Explores the Sometimes Rough Road to Adulthood
Low-income African American youth engage in fewer risky behaviors than low-income white youth, a new Urban Institute analysis of federal data reveals. And, a companion analysis shows second-generation Latinos make a more successful transition into the labor market than black and third-generation Latino youth.
Adolescent blacks in low-income households (those below twice the federal poverty level) are less likely than low-income whites to use alcohol by age 13, sell drugs, destroy property, or run away. However, blacks are more likely to report having sex by age 16. The two groups have similar high school graduation rates, but blacks have lower median annual incomes after graduation.
Between ages 18 and 24, 56 percent of second-generation Latinos are consistently connected to school or jobs. That's higher than for third-generation Latinos (44 percent) and blacks (42 percent) but lower than for whites (65 percent). Yet, second-generation Latinos are as likely to hold regular jobs or to be in school as white youth with similar personal, family, and neighborhood characteristics. At age 23, consistently connected Latinos have annual earnings on par with whites, blacks, and third-generation Latinos, though the long-term outlook for second-generation Latinos is unclear since they are more likely than whites to end their education with a high school diploma.
This research on young blacks and Latinos is part of a collection (http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=411948) of eight brief studies on vulnerable youth, risky behavior, and the transition to adulthood. The other briefs examine school and work participation for young men and women, youth from troubled neighborhoods, youth from low-income families, and those suffering from depression/anxiety. Data came from a U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics survey that followed a sample of adolescents from 1997 into young adulthood in 2005.
Analyzing school and work participation, the Urban Institute researchers found four patterns:
- 60 percent are employed or enrolled in school almost continuously between ages 18 and 24. These consistently connected youth engage in considerably fewer risky behaviors than other youth.
- 15 percent have relatively low levels of connection to school or work at age 18, but by age 24, approximately 90 percent of them are studying or employed. Overall, this group has relatively low earnings, possibly because they have less education and job tenure.
- 15 percent are students or job holders at age 18 but become disconnected by age 24. Some milestone event, such as the birth of a child or incarceration, may cause these youth to leave their jobs or school.
- 10 percent are persistently disconnected from school or employment, have substantially higher dropout rates, engage in more risky behaviors, and have higher crime rates than consistently connected youth.
Other Findings
- Youth from low-income families engage in more risky behaviors than those from middle-income and high-income families. They are more likely to have sex before age 16, join a gang, attack someone, steal something worth more than $50, and run away from home. However, they are not more likely to use alcohol and marijuana, sell drugs, or destroy property. Young women from low-income families are more likely to be a parent by age 18.
- Youth from low-income families with a full-time working adult exhibit about the same number of risky behaviors as youth from low-income homes with no full-time working adult.
- Youth from distressed neighborhoods (census tracts in which 30 percent or more of the households are at or below the federal poverty level) do not engage in more risky behaviors than youth from non-distressed neighborhoods, but they are far more likely to have had sex by age 13 and, for young women, to be a parent by age 18.
- Young men take part in more risky behaviors during adolescence than young women. They are more likely to use alcohol at an early age and to engage in criminal activities. Young men are also more likely than females to stop their education with a high school diploma. Still, young men consistently earn more than young women between the ages of 18 and 23.
- Youth with depression/anxiety engage in more risky behaviors than those experiencing less or no depression/anxiety. They are more likely to use marijuana and have sex by age 16; use other drugs, get into a fight, steal, and run away from home by age 18; and drop out of high school and, in the case of women, have a child at age 18.
"Youth transitioning to adulthood are in many ways a hidden population," says Jennifer Macomber, the research project's co-leader. "Most service systems focus on children through age 18, but many youth, particularly those who do not enjoy support from their families or the structure of higher education, may not get the help they need to sustain stable employment and schooling."
Read the Research
The eight research briefs are
- "Low-Income African American Youth": http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411949_african_american_youth.pdf
- "Second-Generation Latinos Connecting to School and Work": http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411948_second_generation_latinos.pdf
- "Multiple Pathways Connecting to School and Work": http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411948_multiple_pathways.pdf
- "Youth from Distressed Neighborhoods": http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411948_distressed_neighborhoods.pdf
- "Youth from Low-Income Families": http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411948_low_income_familes.pdf
- "Young Men and Young Women": http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411948_young_men_and_women.pdf
- "Youth with Depression/Anxiety": http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411948_depression_anxiety.pdf
- "Youth from Low-Income Working Families": http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411949_youth_from_LIWF.pdf
Low-income African American youth engage in fewer risky behaviors than low-income white youth, a new Urban Institute analysis of federal data reveals. And, a companion analysis shows second-generation Latinos make a more successful transition into the labor market than black and third-generation Latino youth.
Adolescent blacks in low-income households (those below twice the federal poverty level) are less likely than low-income whites to use alcohol by age 13, sell drugs, destroy property, or run away. However, blacks are more likely to report having sex by age 16. The two groups have similar high school graduation rates, but blacks have lower median annual incomes after graduation.
Between ages 18 and 24, 56 percent of second-generation Latinos are consistently connected to school or jobs. That's higher than for third-generation Latinos (44 percent) and blacks (42 percent) but lower than for whites (65 percent). Yet, second-generation Latinos are as likely to hold regular jobs or to be in school as white youth with similar personal, family, and neighborhood characteristics. At age 23, consistently connected Latinos have annual earnings on par with whites, blacks, and third-generation Latinos, though the long-term outlook for second-generation Latinos is unclear since they are more likely than whites to end their education with a high school diploma.
This research on young blacks and Latinos is part of a collection (http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=411948) of eight brief studies on vulnerable youth, risky behavior, and the transition to adulthood. The other briefs examine school and work participation for young men and women, youth from troubled neighborhoods, youth from low-income families, and those suffering from depression/anxiety. Data came from a U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics survey that followed a sample of adolescents from 1997 into young adulthood in 2005.
Analyzing school and work participation, the Urban Institute researchers found four patterns:
- 60 percent are employed or enrolled in school almost continuously between ages 18 and 24. These consistently connected youth engage in considerably fewer risky behaviors than other youth.
- 15 percent have relatively low levels of connection to school or work at age 18, but by age 24, approximately 90 percent of them are studying or employed. Overall, this group has relatively low earnings, possibly because they have less education and job tenure.
- 15 percent are students or job holders at age 18 but become disconnected by age 24. Some milestone event, such as the birth of a child or incarceration, may cause these youth to leave their jobs or school.
- 10 percent are persistently disconnected from school or employment, have substantially higher dropout rates, engage in more risky behaviors, and have higher crime rates than consistently connected youth.
Other Findings
- Youth from low-income families engage in more risky behaviors than those from middle-income and high-income families. They are more likely to have sex before age 16, join a gang, attack someone, steal something worth more than $50, and run away from home. However, they are not more likely to use alcohol and marijuana, sell drugs, or destroy property. Young women from low-income families are more likely to be a parent by age 18.
- Youth from low-income families with a full-time working adult exhibit about the same number of risky behaviors as youth from low-income homes with no full-time working adult.
- Youth from distressed neighborhoods (census tracts in which 30 percent or more of the households are at or below the federal poverty level) do not engage in more risky behaviors than youth from non-distressed neighborhoods, but they are far more likely to have had sex by age 13 and, for young women, to be a parent by age 18.
- Young men take part in more risky behaviors during adolescence than young women. They are more likely to use alcohol at an early age and to engage in criminal activities. Young men are also more likely than females to stop their education with a high school diploma. Still, young men consistently earn more than young women between the ages of 18 and 23.
- Youth with depression/anxiety engage in more risky behaviors than those experiencing less or no depression/anxiety. They are more likely to use marijuana and have sex by age 16; use other drugs, get into a fight, steal, and run away from home by age 18; and drop out of high school and, in the case of women, have a child at age 18.
"Youth transitioning to adulthood are in many ways a hidden population," says Jennifer Macomber, the research project's co-leader. "Most service systems focus on children through age 18, but many youth, particularly those who do not enjoy support from their families or the structure of higher education, may not get the help they need to sustain stable employment and schooling."
Read the Research
The eight research briefs are
- "Low-Income African American Youth": http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411949_african_american_youth.pdf
- "Second-Generation Latinos Connecting to School and Work": http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411948_second_generation_latinos.pdf
- "Multiple Pathways Connecting to School and Work": http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411948_multiple_pathways.pdf
- "Youth from Distressed Neighborhoods": http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411948_distressed_neighborhoods.pdf
- "Youth from Low-Income Families": http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411948_low_income_familes.pdf
- "Young Men and Young Women": http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411948_young_men_and_women.pdf
- "Youth with Depression/Anxiety": http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411948_depression_anxiety.pdf
- "Youth from Low-Income Working Families": http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411949_youth_from_LIWF.pdf
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Obama's Appointees: Some Strong, Some Not
A Vanderbilt University political scientist's study of President Obama's appointments during his first six months in office finds some agencies are receiving significantly more qualified presidential appointees than others.
"In general, the president has selected appointees with credentials that reflect strong job competence for agencies dealing with issues high on his priority list," David Lewis, professor of political science, said. "The traits that we are talking about include previous agency experience, work in previous administrations and higher education levels. On the other hand, a review of the qualifications of appointees in some other agencies is more troubling."
Lewis and Gabriel Horton, a junior in Vanderbilt's College of Arts and Science, used publicly available resources, including the Federal Yellow Book, to collect data on all Obama appointments during the administration's first six months. They found that appointees working in agencies that are not responsible for key Obama administration priorities tend to have less impressive credentials for government work. "They are more likely to have worked on the campaign or in another political job prior to their appointment," Lewis said.
He emphasized that presidents make appointments based not only on an individual's ability to drive the administration's agenda. "Government jobs are an important source of political capital for the president," Lewis said. "The shrewd distribution of federal jobs helps presidents accomplish their electoral and political goals." However, Michael Brown, the former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and David Safavian, the government's former chief procurement officer, are examples of how presidential appointees can create enormous problems for an administration.
During George W. Bush's presidency, Brown resigned after being widely criticized for his handling of the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina. Safavian was convicted of lying to investigators about his dealings with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
A second trend that Lewis identified is the president's placement of politically connected but less qualified candidates in agencies that are generally liberal in their orientation. These include the Education and Housing and Urban Development departments.
Lewis found that the persons appointed by Obama to agencies with more moderate or conservative reputations tend to have previous government experience and higher education levels. These agencies include the departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Justice.
"One theory for this pattern is that potential Democratic patronage appointees prefer jobs in agencies that will advance their career prospects within the party or the constellation of groups around the party," Lewis said. "For Democrats, these would be jobs in areas such as labor, the environment and housing. This coincides with the president's interests since a president needs many of the best qualified appointees to run agencies that do not share his or her views."
Lewis said there are important exceptions to this general trend. Almost one half of the major Obama donors and bundlers who have received presidential appointments have been named ambassadors of various countries, including the United Kingdom and Japan, both considered major players on the world stage.
While most political observers focus on the approximately 500 Senate-confirmed presidential appointments, Lewis said it is important not to overlook lower positions. "They often have direct influence over program management and can be the source of tawdry scandals," he said.
Two examples are Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson, appointees to the Senior Executive Service by former President George W. Bush. Goodling, former deputy director of public affairs for the Department of Justice, and Sampson, former chief of staff to then-U.S. Attorney Alberto Gonzales, left their positions after becoming embroiled in the political controversy surrounding the firings of several U.S. attorneys.
"Previous political science research demonstrates that federal programs run by appointees perform systematically worse than programs administered by career professionals, partly because of a disparity in background training and experience," Lewis said. That is an important reason, Lewis noted, for focusing on the quality of the appointees as opposed to the speed of the president's decisions.
Lewis is the author of "The Politics of Presidential Appointments: Political Control and Bureaucratic Performance," which will receive the prestigious Richard E. Neustadt Award at an upcoming meeting of the American Political Science Association. The annual award is for the best book on the U.S. presidency published during the previous year.
"In general, the president has selected appointees with credentials that reflect strong job competence for agencies dealing with issues high on his priority list," David Lewis, professor of political science, said. "The traits that we are talking about include previous agency experience, work in previous administrations and higher education levels. On the other hand, a review of the qualifications of appointees in some other agencies is more troubling."
Lewis and Gabriel Horton, a junior in Vanderbilt's College of Arts and Science, used publicly available resources, including the Federal Yellow Book, to collect data on all Obama appointments during the administration's first six months. They found that appointees working in agencies that are not responsible for key Obama administration priorities tend to have less impressive credentials for government work. "They are more likely to have worked on the campaign or in another political job prior to their appointment," Lewis said.
He emphasized that presidents make appointments based not only on an individual's ability to drive the administration's agenda. "Government jobs are an important source of political capital for the president," Lewis said. "The shrewd distribution of federal jobs helps presidents accomplish their electoral and political goals." However, Michael Brown, the former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and David Safavian, the government's former chief procurement officer, are examples of how presidential appointees can create enormous problems for an administration.
During George W. Bush's presidency, Brown resigned after being widely criticized for his handling of the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina. Safavian was convicted of lying to investigators about his dealings with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
A second trend that Lewis identified is the president's placement of politically connected but less qualified candidates in agencies that are generally liberal in their orientation. These include the Education and Housing and Urban Development departments.
Lewis found that the persons appointed by Obama to agencies with more moderate or conservative reputations tend to have previous government experience and higher education levels. These agencies include the departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Justice.
"One theory for this pattern is that potential Democratic patronage appointees prefer jobs in agencies that will advance their career prospects within the party or the constellation of groups around the party," Lewis said. "For Democrats, these would be jobs in areas such as labor, the environment and housing. This coincides with the president's interests since a president needs many of the best qualified appointees to run agencies that do not share his or her views."
Lewis said there are important exceptions to this general trend. Almost one half of the major Obama donors and bundlers who have received presidential appointments have been named ambassadors of various countries, including the United Kingdom and Japan, both considered major players on the world stage.
While most political observers focus on the approximately 500 Senate-confirmed presidential appointments, Lewis said it is important not to overlook lower positions. "They often have direct influence over program management and can be the source of tawdry scandals," he said.
Two examples are Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson, appointees to the Senior Executive Service by former President George W. Bush. Goodling, former deputy director of public affairs for the Department of Justice, and Sampson, former chief of staff to then-U.S. Attorney Alberto Gonzales, left their positions after becoming embroiled in the political controversy surrounding the firings of several U.S. attorneys.
"Previous political science research demonstrates that federal programs run by appointees perform systematically worse than programs administered by career professionals, partly because of a disparity in background training and experience," Lewis said. That is an important reason, Lewis noted, for focusing on the quality of the appointees as opposed to the speed of the president's decisions.
Lewis is the author of "The Politics of Presidential Appointments: Political Control and Bureaucratic Performance," which will receive the prestigious Richard E. Neustadt Award at an upcoming meeting of the American Political Science Association. The annual award is for the best book on the U.S. presidency published during the previous year.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Climate Heartburn
by Jeffrey Laurenti a senior fellow and director of foreign policy programs at The Century Foundation, a public policy research institution
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton charmed Indians this past week, telling them that she is hooked on the subcontinent's famously spicy cuisine. But even if she did "eat way too much of the food," as she told a town hall meeting in New Delhi, that would not explain the heartburn that scorched her delegation during her visit.
Rather, that feeling of acid reflux was triggered by Indian's environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, who very publicly confronted her on what is arguably President Obama's highest global priority, a rigorous climate change agreement. India cannot and will not "take any legally binding emissions reductions" as part of a worldwide effort to halt global warming, he declared.
To cheers from India's ever prickly nationalist press, Ramesh added, "There is simply no case for the pressure that we, who have been among the lowest emitters per capita, face to actually reduce emissions."
Certainly Mrs. Clinton did not need Ramesh's rant to spoil what was supposed to be the upbeat headlines about a visit celebrating America's new love affair with India. But perhaps the center-left government of Manmohan Singh did need a contrived confrontation on climate change to fend off critics in India who accuse him of caving in to the West.
The spark for their latest fiery charges arose from the seemingly commitment-free declarations that issued from the conjoined summit meetings earlier this month of "major economies" and the Group of 8 leading industrialized countries in L'Aquila, Italy. The summits' Italian hosts drew on their own legendary resources of food and wine to create an atmosphere inspiring agreement rather than acido, and the summiteers duly agreed on a goal of holding down the increase in global temperature to under two degrees (Centigrade) by 2050.
This was rightly seen as a great leap forward. First and foremost, the G-8 countries themselves at last agreed on a target. The Bush era of denial was past; no longer were Washington conservative aggressively blocking any G-8 acknowledgment of the threat of global warming. Equally importantly, leaders of the major economies rapidly emerging from the poverty of the developing world -- China, India, Brazil, Indonesia -- signed onto the global goal as well.
To be sure, these leaders made headlines insisting that developing countries were assuming no obligations to cap their own emissions. Repeating their familiar (and quite justified) refrain, Brazil's president Ignacio "Lula" DaSilva observed, "A country that started its industrialization process 150 years ago has more responsibility than one starting yesterday; the United States has more responsibility than China, and Europe more than South America or Africa."
Even the chairman of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has been sounding the tocsin on global climate change for the world's near-unanimous and increasingly desperate scientific community, weighed in, telling the Indian newspaper The Hindu that "there is no case for pressure on India till those who were supposed to have taken action" -- the Americans and Europeans -- "show their commitment to actually doing so."
This did not spare Singh's government scorching attacks from his right-wing critics for sacrificing India's national interest in unimpeded industrialization on an altar of Western environmentalism. They pretend not to know that global warming will devastate developing countries like India -- and not just the coastal and island states doomed to submersion. They are savaging Singh simply for acknowledging the problem is urgent. Their hysteria leaves no room for a subtle strategy of just enough to box the West into doing the heavy lifting.
Their ideological compadres in Washington had already done their dirty work watering down what was supposed to be the Congress's landmark reversal of Bush-era denial, the Waxman-Markey bill that squeaked through the House of Representatives on the eve of the L'Aquila summit. Scientists despair that, as passed, it will scarcely take us back to the emissions levels of 1990, much less make the one-third reductions from those levels by 2020 they say are essential to forestall an inexorable rise in temperatures. It is, they say, like sending the Polish cavalry out to turn back the Nazi Panzers. And they fear the Senate is poised to take away even the cavalry's sabers.
Indeed, it was the G-8's failure to commit themselves to sharp reductions by 2020 that plunged scientists and environmental advocates into their post-L'Aquila depression, not the developing countries' disavowal of responsibility for solving global warming. Canada's government -- the last redoubt of Bush-style conservatism in the G-8 -- even dismissed the 2050 temperature goal as merely "aspirational." If the West will not act, how can they hope to bring the big emerging economies on board?
And parsing environment minister Ramesh's words carefully, one can in fact detect a path to a North-South agreement -- assuming the North is ready to act resolutely. He was adamant that India could not, would not, "actually reduce emissions." He did not rule out limits on emissions growth, which is a far more reasonable ask from the industrialized world to traditionally impoverished countries. Presumably those caps on growth could be adjusted to Western countries' actual delivery (as opposed to promises) of "clean" energy technologies.
Secretary Clinton pointed to precisely such markers despite being blind-sided by Ramesh's "clear line" in the sand (as the Indian press put it). The United States "will not do anything that will limit India's economic progress," she said. "But we also believe that there is a way to eradicate poverty and develop sustainably that will lower significantly the carbon footprint of the energy that is produced and consumed to fuel that growth."
Ramesh's reply to Clinton raised a related concern, one that should sober up his nationalist opposition too. Pointing to a provision added to the Waxman-Markey bill on the House floor for U.S. tariffs against countries that do not limit their emissions, he said, "we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours."
This is precisely the enforcement hammer that will be needed to prompt countries to opt into the global warming treaty due to emerge from Copenhagen negotiations: trade penalties on countries that would circumvent a tough emissions regime. This bracing prospect that Western countries would agree to impose such penalties in a G-8-style pact if there is not broader North-South deal should encourage agreement on a global, inclusive pact that will prove more digestible for all.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton charmed Indians this past week, telling them that she is hooked on the subcontinent's famously spicy cuisine. But even if she did "eat way too much of the food," as she told a town hall meeting in New Delhi, that would not explain the heartburn that scorched her delegation during her visit.
Rather, that feeling of acid reflux was triggered by Indian's environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, who very publicly confronted her on what is arguably President Obama's highest global priority, a rigorous climate change agreement. India cannot and will not "take any legally binding emissions reductions" as part of a worldwide effort to halt global warming, he declared.
To cheers from India's ever prickly nationalist press, Ramesh added, "There is simply no case for the pressure that we, who have been among the lowest emitters per capita, face to actually reduce emissions."
Certainly Mrs. Clinton did not need Ramesh's rant to spoil what was supposed to be the upbeat headlines about a visit celebrating America's new love affair with India. But perhaps the center-left government of Manmohan Singh did need a contrived confrontation on climate change to fend off critics in India who accuse him of caving in to the West.
The spark for their latest fiery charges arose from the seemingly commitment-free declarations that issued from the conjoined summit meetings earlier this month of "major economies" and the Group of 8 leading industrialized countries in L'Aquila, Italy. The summits' Italian hosts drew on their own legendary resources of food and wine to create an atmosphere inspiring agreement rather than acido, and the summiteers duly agreed on a goal of holding down the increase in global temperature to under two degrees (Centigrade) by 2050.
This was rightly seen as a great leap forward. First and foremost, the G-8 countries themselves at last agreed on a target. The Bush era of denial was past; no longer were Washington conservative aggressively blocking any G-8 acknowledgment of the threat of global warming. Equally importantly, leaders of the major economies rapidly emerging from the poverty of the developing world -- China, India, Brazil, Indonesia -- signed onto the global goal as well.
To be sure, these leaders made headlines insisting that developing countries were assuming no obligations to cap their own emissions. Repeating their familiar (and quite justified) refrain, Brazil's president Ignacio "Lula" DaSilva observed, "A country that started its industrialization process 150 years ago has more responsibility than one starting yesterday; the United States has more responsibility than China, and Europe more than South America or Africa."
Even the chairman of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has been sounding the tocsin on global climate change for the world's near-unanimous and increasingly desperate scientific community, weighed in, telling the Indian newspaper The Hindu that "there is no case for pressure on India till those who were supposed to have taken action" -- the Americans and Europeans -- "show their commitment to actually doing so."
This did not spare Singh's government scorching attacks from his right-wing critics for sacrificing India's national interest in unimpeded industrialization on an altar of Western environmentalism. They pretend not to know that global warming will devastate developing countries like India -- and not just the coastal and island states doomed to submersion. They are savaging Singh simply for acknowledging the problem is urgent. Their hysteria leaves no room for a subtle strategy of just enough to box the West into doing the heavy lifting.
Their ideological compadres in Washington had already done their dirty work watering down what was supposed to be the Congress's landmark reversal of Bush-era denial, the Waxman-Markey bill that squeaked through the House of Representatives on the eve of the L'Aquila summit. Scientists despair that, as passed, it will scarcely take us back to the emissions levels of 1990, much less make the one-third reductions from those levels by 2020 they say are essential to forestall an inexorable rise in temperatures. It is, they say, like sending the Polish cavalry out to turn back the Nazi Panzers. And they fear the Senate is poised to take away even the cavalry's sabers.
Indeed, it was the G-8's failure to commit themselves to sharp reductions by 2020 that plunged scientists and environmental advocates into their post-L'Aquila depression, not the developing countries' disavowal of responsibility for solving global warming. Canada's government -- the last redoubt of Bush-style conservatism in the G-8 -- even dismissed the 2050 temperature goal as merely "aspirational." If the West will not act, how can they hope to bring the big emerging economies on board?
And parsing environment minister Ramesh's words carefully, one can in fact detect a path to a North-South agreement -- assuming the North is ready to act resolutely. He was adamant that India could not, would not, "actually reduce emissions." He did not rule out limits on emissions growth, which is a far more reasonable ask from the industrialized world to traditionally impoverished countries. Presumably those caps on growth could be adjusted to Western countries' actual delivery (as opposed to promises) of "clean" energy technologies.
Secretary Clinton pointed to precisely such markers despite being blind-sided by Ramesh's "clear line" in the sand (as the Indian press put it). The United States "will not do anything that will limit India's economic progress," she said. "But we also believe that there is a way to eradicate poverty and develop sustainably that will lower significantly the carbon footprint of the energy that is produced and consumed to fuel that growth."
Ramesh's reply to Clinton raised a related concern, one that should sober up his nationalist opposition too. Pointing to a provision added to the Waxman-Markey bill on the House floor for U.S. tariffs against countries that do not limit their emissions, he said, "we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours."
This is precisely the enforcement hammer that will be needed to prompt countries to opt into the global warming treaty due to emerge from Copenhagen negotiations: trade penalties on countries that would circumvent a tough emissions regime. This bracing prospect that Western countries would agree to impose such penalties in a G-8-style pact if there is not broader North-South deal should encourage agreement on a global, inclusive pact that will prove more digestible for all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
