ReportWire

Tag: Government/Law

  • Pandemic-era Medicaid benefits expire, expert explains economic impact

    Pandemic-era Medicaid benefits expire, expert explains economic impact

    [ad_1]

    Medicaid benefits were expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic to cover low-income patients without a need for them to prove their eligibility or to reapply. At the end of March, those benefit expansions expired, and states have begun reviewing the Medicaid rolls to remove those who do not qualify, a process that could create new hardships for millions of Americans.

    The mass disenrollment also has potential to affect the U.S. economy in ways that reverberate beyond any given household’s loss of affordable access to medical care. Virginia Tech economics professor Jadrian Wooten explained what effects this change to Medicaid could bring about on both an individual and national level.

    Q: What would be the most direct effects for the U.S. of the rollout of Medicaid disenrollment?

    “The group most immediately impacted by the Medicaid disenrollment will be those who lose their coverage but still require expensive medical care. Unfortunately, some individuals may be unintentionally disenrolled from Medicaid, despite still being eligible, due to errors in the enrollment process or not receiving renewal notices.”

    Q: Is there any way that the disenrollment of those on Medicaid can have economic effects on those who are not insured through Medicaid?

    “The people who are removed may find themselves without access to affordable healthcare services, which can lead to untreated illnesses and financial strain for those who need medical care. This could also result in increased emergency room visits and hospitalizations, which are more costly and less effective than preventative care, crowd out other people who need attention as well, and drive up medical costs for everyone.”

     Q: What could be the economic reverberations beyond healthcare?

    “The loss of Medicaid coverage can have effects that extend beyond just health and wellness. For instance, if people lose their coverage and can’t get the medical care they need, they may become less productive at work or miss work because of illness. This could cause a decrease in their earnings, which in turn could affect the economy in various ways. For example, it could reduce spending in local businesses and communities, especially in areas with a high percentage of Medicaid recipients.”

    Q: How many could be affected by this process?

    “The Department of Health and Human Services estimates that up to 15 million people may be disenrolled from Medicaid, including roughly 6.8 million individuals who will likely still be eligible for coverage. Getting reenrolled in Medicaid can be a time-consuming process that may disrupt families’ and individuals’ work obligations. It’s crucial to keep in mind that more than half of Medicaid beneficiaries are children. While it is the responsibility of their parents or caretakers to enroll their children in the program, cutting off their parents (whether intentional or not) can significantly affect these children as well.”

    About Wooten
    Jadrian Wooten is collegiate associate professor at Virginia Tech within the Department of Economics. He is the author of the book Parks and Recreation and Economics and of the newsletter Monday Morning Economists. Read more about him here.

    Medicaid benefits were expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic to cover low-income patients without a need for them to prove their eligibility or to reapply. At the end of March, those benefit expansions expired, and states have begun reviewing the Medicaid rolls to remove those who do not qualify, a process that could create new hardships for millions of Americans.

    The mass disenrollment also has potential to affect the U.S. economy in ways that reverberate beyond any given household’s loss of affordable access to medical care. Virginia Tech economics professor Jadrian Wooten explained what effects this change to Medicaid could bring about on both an individual and national level.

    Q: What would be the most direct effects for the U.S. of the rollout of Medicaid disenrollment?

    “The group most immediately impacted by the Medicaid disenrollment will be those who lose their coverage but still require expensive medical care. Unfortunately, some individuals may be unintentionally disenrolled from Medicaid, despite still being eligible, due to errors in the enrollment process or not receiving renewal notices.”

    Q: Is there any way that the disenrollment of those on Medicaid can have economic effects on those who are not insured through Medicaid?

    “The people who are removed may find themselves without access to affordable healthcare services, which can lead to untreated illnesses and financial strain for those who need medical care. This could also result in increased emergency room visits and hospitalizations, which are more costly and less effective than preventative care, crowd out other people who need attention as well, and drive up medical costs for everyone.”

     Q: What could be the economic reverberations beyond healthcare?

    “The loss of Medicaid coverage can have effects that extend beyond just health and wellness. For instance, if people lose their coverage and can’t get the medical care they need, they may become less productive at work or miss work because of illness. This could cause a decrease in their earnings, which in turn could affect the economy in various ways. For example, it could reduce spending in local businesses and communities, especially in areas with a high percentage of Medicaid recipients.”

    Q: How many could be affected by this process?

    “The Department of Health and Human Services estimates that up to 15 million people may be disenrolled from Medicaid, including roughly 6.8 million individuals who will likely still be eligible for coverage. Getting reenrolled in Medicaid can be a time-consuming process that may disrupt families’ and individuals’ work obligations. It’s crucial to keep in mind that more than half of Medicaid beneficiaries are children. While it is the responsibility of their parents or caretakers to enroll their children in the program, cutting off their parents (whether intentional or not) can significantly affect these children as well.”

    About Wooten
    Jadrian Wooten is collegiate associate professor at Virginia Tech within the Department of Economics. He is the author of the book Parks and Recreation and Economics and of the newsletter Monday Morning Economists. Read more about him here.

    [ad_2]

    Virginia Tech

    Source link

  • Fox News settlement will do little to change perceived credibility of coverage, expert says

    Fox News settlement will do little to change perceived credibility of coverage, expert says

    [ad_1]

    The most anticipated media trial in recent years ended with a $787.5 million settlement, and while it had the opportunity to set the tone for future defamation litigation, Virginia Tech media expert Megan Duncan says the outcome will have little impact on the perceived credibility of Fox News.  

    “Few people are willing to reassess their perceptions of the credibility of Fox News — whether they side with the news organization or believe it was in the wrong — because politically active people associate partisan news brands with their political identity,” Duncan says. She explains that most partisans in the U.S. had long ago made up their minds about whether Fox News was a credible news source.  

    Dominion had been seeking $1.6 billion in damages. The company argued that its business had been hurt by 2020 election conspiracy theories advanced on Fox shows even though hosts, producers, and executives at the network knew they were false.

    “The size of this settlement and rulings by the judge before jury selection that Fox News had published falsehoods about Dominion Voting Systems will remain in the headlines ,” Duncan says. “That scrutiny, coupled with the public pre-trial evidence has the potential to move the needle of perceived credibility for the small portion of people who were ambivalent and hadn’t made up their minds about the claims.”

    Duncan points out that Fox News is the most-watched cable news network. Even still, it reaches only about 18 percent of the U.S. in the average month, according to Pew Research Center. Far more people — about half — are watching their local television news, which enjoys high levels of news trust. “Tuning into credible, ethical news increases local engagement and participation in democracy and audiences should hold the news they watch to high standards of verification and accuracy,” Duncan explains.

    To people who already thought Fox News  was acting unethically, Duncan says this settlement is more in evidence. To loyal Fox News audiences, she says they might reason this was just a quicker resolution to bogus claims. “Past research finds that corrections and fact-checks on incorrect information only moves opinions a little and that the false information can “echo” across time.” That means while an audience member knows the original information was found to be false, that person still takes into account the false information in future decision making. “To the extent that this settlement can be seen as a correction, I imagine the original claims made by Fox News will linger in the audience’s memory for years to come,” Duncan says.

    About Duncan

    Megan Duncan is an assistant professor in the School of Communication at Virginia Tech. Her research focuses on how partisans judge the credibility of and engage with the news. Using survey-embedded experiments, surveys, and other quantitative methods, she’s interested in knowing more about audiences, their perceptions of the news, how they form opinions, and how to use this knowledge to make democracy stronger.  

    [ad_2]

    Virginia Tech

    Source link

  • PGS Global Ed Series #4: Citizens Preferences in Divided Societies

    PGS Global Ed Series #4: Citizens Preferences in Divided Societies

    [ad_1]

    Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University is pleased to invite all to join the PGS Global Ed Series #4: Citizens Preferences in Divided Societies.  The talk will be held on Tuesday, 4 April 2023 at 4:30 PM Bangkok time (GMT+7) at PGS Main Classroom (M08) on M Floor, Building 3, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.  The PGS Global Ed Series #4 will be presented by Dr. Laura Sudulich, a lecturer in Public Policy from our partner university – University of Essex, UK.

    The intended audiences for this talk are:

    • Students
    • Chulalongkorn University Students (Undergraduate and Postgraduate)
    • General public

    Free admission.

    Registration is required in advance at https://forms.gle/TEaxhDSgcUCL8nQv7

     

     

                     

    [ad_2]

    Chulalongkorn University

    Source link

  • Judicial reform and protests in the Middle East; expert available to discuss political implications

    Judicial reform and protests in the Middle East; expert available to discuss political implications

    [ad_1]

    Labor strikes and protests by Israeli military officers have decried moves by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin (“Bibi”) Netanyahu to overhaul the judiciary system, potentially reducing the power of the country’s Supreme Court. After firing a defense minister who opposed the overhaul last week, Netanyahu agreed to delay the judicial review for now. While calls for judiciary reform have been long standing, critics say the Prime Minister aims to protect himself from the outcome of his corruption trial.

    Ariel Ahram, chair of Virginia Tech’s government and international affairs program, offers his perspective on what the controversy means for the country and the Middle East.

    Q: Are the calls for reforming the power of the judiciary in Israel something new?

    “There have been discussions for decades about reforming the judiciary in Israel.  Israel does not have a written constitution like the United States, so the status of the supreme court was always up for question.  In the last twenty years, the Israeli Supreme Court has taken on a more assertive role, following the example of the U.S.  It has tried to position itself as the final arbiter on issues like civil liberties and individual rights.  Secular Israelis and Israeli Arabs have often look to the court to defend their status (although often with disappointment).  But critics say that the court is overreaching.  An unelected judicial body shouldn’t stop measures that are approved by the elected parliament.”

    Q: What has prompted this current push for judicial reform in Israel?

    “Netanyahu has a personal interest in weakening the court because he is under investigation for corruption and does not want the Supreme Court to disqualify him from office.  There are other members in his coalition who are similarly under indictment or even have even been convicted for corruption and so could be disqualified.  But many others in Israel, especially conservative and Jewish ethnonationalist groups, want to weaken or bypass the court because it stands in the way of their efforts to enforce their interpretation of Jewish law and encode Jewish supremacy in Israeli law.”

    Q: What’s the significance of the national protests against judiciary reform?

    “The labor protests are part of wider rebellion in Israeli society.  Even more important than the labor disruptions, hundreds of Israeli Army, Air Force, and Navy officers are refusing to serve in reserve duty.  These protests have really exposed deep divides among Israel’s Jewish majority.  Israeli Arabs — perhaps 20% of the population — are largely on the sidelines so far.”

    Q: Should the reforms go through, what will that mean for the Middle East?

    “It’s unclear.  Netanyahu is Israel’s longest serving prime minister, so he has a lot of experience in Middle Eastern politics.  While always on the right, Netanyahu usually been pragmatic.  He has blocked some of the more aggressive measures favored by his coalition partners.  Now, however, Netanyahu has very little leeway.  He needs the coalition to survive.  Netanyahu could thus take more aggressive postures toward the Palestinian territories, including annexation of lands and possible forced deportation of the Arab population, in order to maintain his coalition.”    

    About Ariel Ahram
    Ariel Ahram is professor and chair of the government and international affairs program at the Virginia Tech School of Public and International Affairs located in the Washington, D.C., metro area.  He is the author of War and Conflict in the Middle East and North Africa (Polity, 2020) that explores the causes and consequences of wars and conflicts in this troubled region, including in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Israel/Palestine, and Lebanon. More on his background here.


    Schedule an interview
    To schedule an interview, contact .

    [ad_2]

    Virginia Tech

    Source link

  • New Braintrust Seeks to Launch Era of North American Regional Competitiveness

    New Braintrust Seeks to Launch Era of North American Regional Competitiveness

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — Given the U.S.-China trade conflict and concerns over trade disruptions caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, regionalizing supply chains is at the center of the discussion in North America. Now, a new working group spearheaded by the University of California San Diego is using this opportunity to propose policy recommendations for the relocation of global production chains in North America where it’s economically advantageous.

    The working group is a partnership between Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies (USMEX) at UC San Diego’s School of Global Policy and Strategy, the George W. Bush Institute, Canada’s Future Borders Coalition and the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations.

    “U.S. and China decoupling has prompted renewed interest in integrated North American trade and investment as well as considerations of a broader economic community that could include Central American nations,” said Caroline Freund, dean of the School of Global Policy and Strategy and working group member. “Our group is poised to propose policy approaches to ensure that the current opportunities strengthen North American economic integration, boosting the productivity, prosperity and competitiveness of the U.S., Mexico, Canada and neighboring countries.”

    The group hopes U.S. economic leadership can launch a new era of North American competitiveness. They cite President Joe Biden’s two signature legislative accomplishments, the CHIPS and Science Act (CHIPS Act) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which are aimed at strengthening the U.S. industrial base, particularly regarding the manufacturing of semiconductors, electric vehicles and products related to clean energy and the decarbonization of the U.S. economy.

    The consensus in Washington, D.C., that China represents a strategic rival to the U.S. also calls for exploration of stronger supply chains in North America, according to Rafael Fernández de Castro, director of the Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies and member of the group’s steering committee.

    “These regional opportunities are rare events in a century — North America cannot waste this opportunity,” Fernández de Castro said. “Our working group is developing a road map so that nearshoring becomes a reality for the region.”

    The timing is bolstered by North American alliances. Both Canada and Mexico have proved their worth as essential partners for U.S. supply chains because of their geographical location as neighboring countries, reliability as partners, complementary economic strengths and the framework provided by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

    Although Central America has a narrower industrial base, it also presents cost and access advantages that make it a strong potential link in North American supply chains.  

    Members of the working group have backgrounds in government, academia, non-governmental organizations and private sector. They include the former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada Anne McLellan, former Undersecretary of Foreign Trade in Mexico Juan Carlos Baker, as well individuals from the Mexican firm Deacero and Harvard Kennedy School.

    “We have assembled a fantastic brain trust led by three women with very distinguished careers in public service and think tanks in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico to chair the working group: Louise Blais of the Business Council in Canada, Luz María de la Mora of the Atlantic Council and Shannon K. O’Neil of the Council on Foreign Relations,” said Cecilia Farfán-Méndez, head of research at the Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies and steering committee member. “Under their leadership, we are convinced the group will produce clear, implementable recommendations for the benefit of the North American region.”

    The working group will meet virtually during 2023 and will issue a series of policy recommendations in early 2024 — a key year for North America, since both Mexico and the U.S. will hold presidential elections.

    For information on the working group, go to this website.

    [ad_2]

    University of California San Diego

    Source link

  • East and West Germans show preference for different government systems 30 years on

    East and West Germans show preference for different government systems 30 years on

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — Even after 27 years of reunification, East Germans are still more likely to be pro-state support than their Western counterparts, a new study published in the De Gruyter journal German Economic Review finds. Of the sample studied, 48% of respondents from the East said it was the government’s duty to support the family compared to 35% from the West. 

    The study led by Prof. Nicola Fuchs-Schündeln of Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany builds on her earlier work which evaluated results from the German Socio-Economic Panel, a regular survey of around 15,000 households. The survey has been running in the federal states that made up West Germany since 1984 and in those of the former East Germany since 1990.

    In 1997 and 2002, respondents were asked who they thought should provide financial protection for groups such as families, the elderly, the sick and disabled, and so on, using a scale from one (only the state) to five (only private forces). This question was asked again in 2017, allowing Fuchs-Schündeln and the paper’s co-author Mariia Bondar to see how preferences were further changing over time.  

    West and East Germans have been moving towards a common level of preference for state support over the years. However, the extra results from 2017 indicate this rate of convergence is slowing. “In our original study, we concluded that if the convergence continued at its original pace we wouldn’t see any differences in one or two generations,” said Fuchs-Schündeln. “However, that wasn’t the case.”

    Interestingly, East German preferences for more state support appear to be passed on to the next generation. The researchers found that people born between 1990 and 1999 (that is, after reunification) who had at least one parent from the former GDR were significantly more likely to think that it was the state’s responsibility to provide financial security for families and the elderly. “That means that living under different systems can have really long-lasting effects on preferences, which are passed down from one generation to the next,” said Fuchs-Schündeln.

    These results highlight that even though unification happened in 1990, key differences still survive. “It’s a bit of a call for action on how we can generate a more unified Germany,” said Fuchs-Schündeln. “It tells us we shouldn’t take it for granted that separation is not a topic anymore.”

    [ad_2]

    De Gruyter

    Source link

  • House, Senate Reintroduce Bill to Increase Medicare Coverage of Chiropractic Services

    House, Senate Reintroduce Bill to Increase Medicare Coverage of Chiropractic Services

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — Arlington, VA – Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have reintroduced legislation to increase access to Medicare-covered services provided by doctors of chiropractic. The Chiropractic Medicare Coverage Modernization Act (H.R. 1610 / S. 799) would bring Medicare’s coverage of chiropractic into alignment with most other federal programs and private health plans, giving seniors improved coverage of non-drug treatments to alleviate pain and improve function.

    The legislation was introduced March 14 by Reps. Gregory Steube (R-Fla.), Brian Higgins (D-N.Y), Mark Alford (R-Mo.) and John Larson (D-Conn.) in the House and Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) in the Senate. Both bills were introduced with a number of bipartisan original cosponsors. An identical bill that expired last year in Congress achieved more than 150 cosponsors in the House, split almost evenly between Democrats and Republications, and six cosponsors in the Senate.

    “The level of bipartisan support we achieved with the last bill tells us that this is an issue that resonates and has the momentum to go all the way,” noted John Falardeau, ACA senior vice president of public policy and advocacy. “We thank Sens. Blumenthal and Cramer and Reps. Steube, Higgins, Alford and Larson for their leadership in reintroducing this important legislation, which will benefit America’s seniors.”

    “Giving Medicare beneficiaries more options for non-drug services to treat common musculoskeletal conditions such as back pain is critical in ongoing efforts to reduce opioid overuse,” noted ACA President Michael Martin, DC. “Chiropractic care is a part of the solution for many patients who seek to avoid or reduce their reliance on prescription pain medications.”

    H.R. 1610/S. 799 would update the Medicare statute that has limited beneficiary access to chiropractic services for over 50 years. The bill adds no new benefits; it simply allows Medicare beneficiaries access to the profession’s broad-based, non-drug approach to pain management and musculoskeletal health. This includes manual manipulation of the spine (the only chiropractic service now covered), as well as services such as manual manipulation of the extremities and numerous other non-drug treatments, evaluation and management services, and diagnostic imaging. The range of services available to beneficiaries would be determined by a chiropractor’s state licensure.

    Chiropractic services and other nonpharmacologic approaches to pain management have become an important part of national efforts to reduce the overuse and abuse of prescription opioid pain medications. The opioid crisis has taken its toll among seniors and other Medicare beneficiaries as it has in communities nationwide.

    Learn more at www.acatoday.org/medicare.

    About the American Chiropractic Association

    The American Chiropractic Association (ACA) is the largest professional chiropractic organization in the United States. ACA attracts the most principled and accomplished chiropractors, who understand that it takes more to be called an ACA chiropractor. We are leading our profession in the most constructive and far-reaching ways—by working hand in hand with other health care professionals, by lobbying for pro-chiropractic legislation and policies, by supporting meaningful research and by using that research to inform our treatment practices. We also provide professional and educational opportunities for all our members and are committed to being a positive and unifying force for the practice of modern chiropractic. To learn more, visit www.acatoday.org.

    [ad_2]

    American Chiropractic Association

    Source link

  • Daylight Savings Begins This Weekend, Hackensack Meridian Sleep Experts Available on Health Impact, How to Prepare Your Body for the Loss of Sleep and Why They Want US to Stop “Springing Forward” to Daylight Saving Time

    Daylight Savings Begins This Weekend, Hackensack Meridian Sleep Experts Available on Health Impact, How to Prepare Your Body for the Loss of Sleep and Why They Want US to Stop “Springing Forward” to Daylight Saving Time

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — Daylight saving time begins this weekend, meaning clocks will move ahead one hour this Sunday. This means while you will gain more hours of daylight for the spring and summer, people will initially lose an hour of sleep, and this can have big health impacts.

    Sleep experts say patients can prepare for the loss of sleep, by slowly shifting their bed time incrementally in the days leading up to daylight saving time on Sunday. 

    Adjusting your body to the time change will not fully blunt the impact of daylight saving time. Sleep experts believe it’s not just the loss of an hour of sleep but the long term impact of being on daylight saving time accounts for additional absences from work, increased incidence of atrial fibrillation and even car accidents. Daylight saving time disrupts the natural circadian rhythms of the body. Circadian rhythms not only control a person’s sleep schedule but it also impacts bodily hormones including thyroid and cortisol levels.

    There is legislation in Congress to make Daylight Saving Time permanent, meaning the clocks would remain on spring and summer time and not fall back for the fall and winter. While it may seem desirable to have more daylight hours while most Americans are awake, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine advocates we permanently stay on standard time, because it is more in line with a person’s natural bio-rhymes and produces less negative health outcomes. 

    Hackensack Meridian Health’s Director of Sleep Medicine, Adrian Pristas, M.D. is available for interviews on the dangers of Daylight Saving Time and how to prepare for it.

    [ad_2]

    Hackensack Meridian Health

    Source link

  • Health policy experts call for confronting anti-vaccine activism with life-saving counter narratives

    Health policy experts call for confronting anti-vaccine activism with life-saving counter narratives

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — Public and private sector health officials and public policymakers should team up immediately with community leaders to more effectively disseminate accurate narratives regarding the life-saving benefits of vaccines to counter widespread, harmful misinformation from anti-vaccine activists in the United States, according to a new Viewpoint piece in The Lancet, led by authors at Boston University School of Public Health (BUSPH), University of California, Riverside (UCR), and The Stanford Internet Observatory Cyber Policy Center (SIO) at Stanford University.

    Published in the leading international medical journal on Friday, March 3, the Viewpoint provides valuable insight into the recent developments of US-based anti-vaccine activism and proposes strategies to confront this dangerous messaging.

    “Messages of health freedom gained traction during the pandemic, turning members of the public against public health messages and prevention-focused activities, including vaccination,” says second author Timothy Callaghan, associate professor of health law, policy & management at BUSPH, and who was one of three lead writers of the Viewpoint, along with lead author Richard Carpiano, public policy professor at UCR, and third author Renee DiResta, technical research manager at SIO.

    In the Viewpoint, the authors and 18 other leading public health experts describe a perfect storm that allowed anti-vaccine activism, once a fringe subculture, to become a well-organized form of right-wing identity with narratives that associate refusing vaccines with personal liberty. This narrative was consistently repeated and amplified by social media influencers, pro-Donald Trump political operatives, and right-wing blogs, podcasts, and other media as the COVID-19 pandemic spread worldwide.

    The authors underscore the need to consistently amplify accurate science and information through multiple communication channels, to avoid the spread of inaccurate or misleading information to people through limited sources. 

    “This is a matter of life and death,” says Carpiano. “People don’t always see it that way. We’ve forgotten how many people have died, have been sick, or continue to get sick from COVID-19 as well as many other vaccine-preventable diseases.” 

    The paper comes out at a time when more than 1.1 million people have died from COVID-19, and the worldwide toll is estimated at 6.8 million. The disease continues to spread as vaccines have been found to greatly reduce illnesses that require hospitalization or result in death.

    Anti-vaccination activism has existed as long as there have been vaccines. But the movement picked up steam in 1998 when British physician Andrew Wakefield published a now-discredited study that falsely claimed a link between childhood vaccines and autism.

    In more recent years, however, anti-vaccine messaging shifted in large part from health-effect concerns to conservative and libertarian political identity arguments of medical freedom and parental rights. This was prompted in part by legislative efforts in several states to eliminate personal belief exemptions from school vaccination requirements in response to falling child vaccination rates and vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks. But these arguments were confined to childhood vaccines and were somewhat contained. 

    Since the COVID-19 pandemic affected the entire population, it brought on a vast expansion of not only anti-vaccine activism, but more broadly, anti-public health activism as people faced the inconveniences of mask-wearing, social distancing, closed restaurants and bars, and cancelations of concerts and other events that draw crowds.

    Celebrities, wellness influencers, partisan pundits, and certain scientists and clinicians, among others, joined the fray, often spreading false and misleading claims about vaccinations. The increasing number of voices found larger audiences, which meant more votes for right-wing candidates, and greater monetization of right-leaning social and media outlets.

    “As celebrities, influencers, and politicians started speaking out negatively about vaccination, growing segments of the American public were exposed to these messages, shifting troubling proportions of the US public who had previously vaccinated in other contexts against getting vaccinated for COVID-19,” Callaghan says.   

    The result was more people becoming ill.

    “Political leaders were sadly, particularly effective anti-vaccine messengers, and because of that, we now have clear disparities in COVID-19 vaccination rates across party lines” he says.

    Meanwhile, pro-vaccine messaging has been based on the statements of individual public health experts, such as former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Anthony Fauci and director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Rochelle Walensky, who the authors say are outgunned.

    Callaghan, Carpiano, and DiResta were part of the Commission on Vaccine Refusal, Acceptance, and Demand in the USA that The Lancet convened to examine issues surrounding COVID-19 vaccine acceptance uptake, acceptance, and hesitancy. The membership is composed of 21 national experts from public health, vaccine science, law, ethics, public policy, and the social and behavioral sciences.  

    The group recommends the development of networked communities that simultaneously share information with different audiences about the health and economic benefits of vaccines. This would preempt the well-funded messaging of the antivaccine movement.

    “Without concerted efforts to counter the anti-vaccine movement, the USA faces an ever-growing burden of morbidity and mortality from an increasingly under-vaccinated, vaccine hesitant society,” the authors conclude in the paper.

    **

    About Boston University School of Public Health

    Founded in 1976, Boston University School of Public Health is one of the top five ranked private schools of public health in the world. It offers master’s- and doctoral-level education in public health. The faculty in six departments conduct policy-changing public health research around the world, with the mission of improving the health of populations—especially the disadvantaged, underserved, and vulnerable—locally and globally.

    [ad_2]

    Boston University School of Public Health

    Source link

  • Archaeological study of 24 ancient Mexican cities reveals that collective forms of governance, infrastructural investments, and collaboration all help societies last longer

    Archaeological study of 24 ancient Mexican cities reveals that collective forms of governance, infrastructural investments, and collaboration all help societies last longer

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — Some cities only last a century or two, while others last for a thousand years or more. Often, there aren’t clear records left behind to explain why. Instead, archaeologists piece together clues from the cities’ remains to search for patterns that help account for why certain places retained their importance longer than others. In a new study published in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, researchers examined 24 ancient cities in what’s now Mexico and found that the cities that lasted the longest showed indications of collective forms of governance, infrastructural investments, and cooperation between households.

    “For years, my colleagues and I have investigated why and how certain cities maintain their importance or collapse,” says Gary Feinman, the study’s lead author and MacArthur Curator of Anthropology at the Field Museum in Chicago.

    In previous studies, Feinman and his colleagues cast a wide net in terms of the cities they looked at, ranging across Mesoamerica over thousands of years. They found a broad pattern of societies with good governance that fostered the well-being of their people lasting longer than ones with autocratic leaders and big disparities in wealth. This new study tightens the focus on cities from similar places and times: all 24 of the cities analyzed were in the western half of Mesoamerica and were founded between 1000 and 300 BCE.

    To a non-archaeologist, looking at ancient ruins and trying to extrapolate what its government was like might seem like an impossible task. But remnants of the cities’ buildings, ground plans, plazas, and monuments contain clues.

    “We looked at public architecture, we looked at the nature of the economy and what sustained the cities. We looked at the signs of rulership, whether they seem to be heavily personalized or not,” said Feinman. Art and architecture celebrating larger-than-life rulers point to more autocratic or despotic societies, whereas the depiction of leaders in groups, often masked, is more indicative of shared power arrangements.

    Feinman and his co-authors, David Carballo of Boston University, Linda Nicholas of the Field Museum, and Stephen Kowalewski of the University of Georgia, found that among the 24 ancient cities they analyzed, the ones with more collective forms of governance tended to remain in power longer than the autocratically ruled cities, sometimes by a thousand years. However, even among places that likely had good governance, some cities outlasted others.

    To get at why these similarly governed cities fared differently, the researchers examined other aspects of their makeup including infrastructure and indications of household interdependence. “We looked for evidence of path dependence, which basically means the actions or investments that people make that later end up constraining or fostering how they respond to subsequent hazards or challenges,” says Feinman.

    Early efforts to construct dense, interconnected residential spaces and the construction of large, central, open plazas were two of the factors that the authors found contributed to greater sustainability and importance of the early cities.

    To examine sustainability in the past, most research looks for correlations between specific climatic or environmental events and the human responses. This approach may make sense, but it is hard to know whether the timing is reliable. Such studies often emphasize a correlation between environmental crisis and collapse without also considering how other cities successfully navigated the challenges and continued as major population centers.

    The authors use a different tack. Knowing residents faced hazards, including drought, earthquakes, periodic hurricanes/heavy rains, challenges from competing centers and groups, they examined the durational history of the 24 centers and what factors fostered their sustainability. The finding that governance had an important role in sustainability shows that “responses to crises and disasters are to a degree political,” says Linda Nicholas, an adjunct curator at the Field Museum and co-author of the study.

    The cities that lasted the longest had a combination of infrastructural investments and collective governance. It’s a lesson still relevant today. “You cannot evaluate responses to catastrophes like earthquakes, or threats like climatic change, without considering governance,” says Feinman. “The past is an incredible resource to understand how to address contemporary issues.”

     

    ###

    [ad_2]

    Field Museum

    Source link

  • Economics expert explains how consumer price reports show ‘inflation is not done yet’

    Economics expert explains how consumer price reports show ‘inflation is not done yet’

    [ad_1]

    Expectations that inflation has eased fueled recent stock market gains, but results from two major price-tracking indexes came in higher than expected, dousing that optimism with cold water. The statistics from these reports have economists predicting that the Federal Reserve will continue to raise interest rates to get inflation under control.

     “The latest figures underscore the risks of persistently high inflation. Much of the easing that was celebrated at the end of last year has been erased,” said David Bieri, an economics professor for Virginia Tech’s School of Public and International Affairs. He answered a few questions about the persistence of inflation and the Federal Reserve’s efforts to reverse it. 

     Q: What is the difference between the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index (PCE)?

    “The CPI is a measure of the average change over time in the prices paid by urban consumers for a basket of goods and services. This basket includes commonly purchased items such as food, housing, clothing, transportation, and medical care. The rate of inflation (or deflation) is then inferred by comparing the price of this basket to a base period. The PCE is the one used by the Federal Reserve. Unlike the CPI, the PCE measures not just goods and services for urban consumers, but the prices of all goods and services purchased by households. While the CPI uses a fixed basket of goods and services, the PCE uses a changing basket of goods and services that reflects consumers’ evolving spending patterns. Also, the PCE incorporates data on the quality of goods and services.” 

    Q: What can be deduced about inflation and the economy from these new statistics? 

    “Different components of the indexes react to different influences of the economic process, and they also do so at different speeds, or as economists like to say, with different lags. For example, fuel and gas prices react with very little delay and if the price of crude oil goes up, it does not take long for these effects to show up. But this is not the case for other important components. Quite a bit of the recent uptick in inflation has to do with the fact that it has taken so long for the post-COVID related upswing in housing to show up in the data. As for the most recent PCE numbers, these were unexpected and point in the direction of more entrenched inflation.  In other words, inflation is not done yet.”

    Q: What do these results indicate about the Federal Reserve’s efforts to curb inflation? 

    “The Fed has to be patient. If we take the image of interest rates working like a brake pedal, the Fed is driving a car on a windy road with a blacked-out windscreen and when it brakes, it can only guess how soon the car — that is, the economy — will slow down, let alone by how much and when the next bend will be. However, the Fed has one key trick up its sleeve: unlike the hapless driver of our car, the Fed can influence how many bends in the road might show up in the future. It does this by something that we call ‘forward guidance,’ which is a wonky term for how the Fed’s attempts influence consumer and market expectations of consumers and market participants. Essentially the Fed is saying that if we stop believing there will be inflation in the future, there actually won’t be any.” 

     About Bieri 
    David Bieri is an associate professor of urban affairs in the School of Public and International Affairs and an associate professor of economics. He also holds an appointment in the Global Forum on Urban and Regional Resilience. His teaching interests are at the intersection of public finance, monetary theory, and history of economic thought. He has held various senior positions at the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland. Prior to his work in central banking, he worked in investment banking in London and Zurich. View Bieri’s full bio.

    [ad_2]

    Virginia Tech

    Source link

  • Syria peacebuilding efforts must address causes of the country’s “failed” state

    Syria peacebuilding efforts must address causes of the country’s “failed” state

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — Any attempts to build peace in Syria must address the factors which led to the country being a failed state before civil war began, research says.

    There must be more inclusive governance practices and structures to allow meaningful popular participation in the running of the country’s affairs, according to the study. Citizens should be allowed to air their grievances and have a new “social contract” with their leaders.

    The analysis shows how state failure was a factor in the uprising but has become more clearly apparent in the ongoing civil war. The Syrian state has ‘failed’ because it cannot meet its citizens’ economic, political and social needs and requirements.

    The study, published in the journal Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies , was carried out by Samer Bakkour, from the University of Exeter, and Rama Sahtout.

    Dr Bakkour said: “The outbreak of the civil war was not due to the sudden deterioration of state capacity or the abrupt collapse of state institutions. Instead, it was more clearly due to the regime’s attempts to crush a peaceful uprising by using force. This strength was superficial, rested on shallow foundations and lacked popular support.

    “Any governance was distinctively ‘sectarian’ and state structures were ‘hollowed out’ by pervasive corruption. Even efforts to ‘modernize’ or ‘reform’ functioned to reinforce and perpetuate this.

    “State failure and weakness were established parts of the country’s political arrangement, and the appearance of state strength could hardly conceal the fact that the state was vulnerable to a broad-based uprising.”

    The study says repression pre-war was an inadvertent and implicit acknowledgement that it lacked both legitimacy and more subtle means through which to assert its authority. There was no social contract and the heavy-handed governance that served as an implicit acknowledgement of this would ultimately contribute to the outbreak of the civil war. Sectarian policies were deliberately planned to create divides and animosities between different groups.

    Involvement of other nations in the civil war has further underlined the weakness of the Syrian state.

    Dr Bakkour said: “The extent of the displacement of the country’s population, both internally and externally, is a further confirmation of state failure. Minority groups forced to leave their homes were the worst affected in terms of reported deaths, sexual violence, and poverty and malnutrition.

    “Rapid economic decline, huge demographic decreases and growing food insecurity are now long-established trends in the country, and clearly have the potential to ‘feedback’ into conflict and instability. Basic food items such as bread are still rationed and foreign sanctions have inflicted billions of dollars of damage on the country’s economy.”

    [ad_2]

    University of Exeter

    Source link

  • Connections with Jimmy Carter extend into West Virginia

    Connections with Jimmy Carter extend into West Virginia

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — Several West Virginia University faculty and staff members with a range of ties to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter cite his work in service and education as keys to his lasting legacy. 

    Quotes:

    Crissy Estep, director of the WVU International Studies Program, served as an election monitor on behalf of The Carter Center in Tunisia during the democratic election in 2014.

    After earning her doctoral degree at WVU, Estep spent one year teaching at a college in Tennessee where she and her then-fiancé Paul took a group of students on a trip to The Carter Center in Atlanta. Inspired by the work there, she and her husband would go on to name their first child William Carter Estep in honor of the former president. She has pictures of her son square dancing with President Carter and former First Lady Rosalynn Carter.

    “President Carter’s most impressive achievements are his accomplishments through The Carter Center. His post-presidency work was focused on the Center’s two-fold mission of peace and health programs. The health programs focus on neglected, yet preventable diseases, most notably the Guinea worm eradication program. The peace programs promote democracy in several ways, but mainly through helping to ensure elections represent the will of the people. It was my honor to serve as a short-term election observer for The Carter Center for the first presidential and parliamentary election in Tunisia after the Arab Spring. I don’t doubt that The Carter Center will continue to ‘wage peace, fight disease, and build hope’ to honor the legacy of President Carter.” — Crissy Estep, director, WVU International Studies Program, director, WVU Honors Experiential and Community Engaged Learning Program

    Jay Cole, who now serves as senior advisor to WVU President Gordon Gee, wrote his application for the Harry S. Truman Scholarship about Carter’s creation of a federal Department of Education.

    Cole has studied Carter’s presidency, particularly his education policy reforms and their long-term effects, at length.

    “By championing the creation of the U.S. Department of Education, President Carter affirmed the fundamental importance of education to our society. He also said that the federal government should be a ‘junior partner,’ not a ‘silent partner,’ with state and local governments on education. The creation of the Department of Education was controversial, and its continued existence remains a topic of political debate today. It is a valuable debate because it compels us to think about how we organize our educational system and also about how we calibrate the relationship between levels of government. I consider that ongoing debate to be one of President Carter’s most significant legacies.” — Jay Cole, senior advisor to WVU President Gordon Gee, Truman faculty advisor

    Jorge Atiles, dean of WVU Extension and Engagement, oversees efforts to support and advance the comprehensive land-grant mission of WVU in West Virginia’s 55 counties.

    WVU Extension includes the WVU Center for Community Engagement and AmeriCorps VISTA, which is integral to Energy Express, along with community development, engagement and service programs throughout the state.

    “President Jimmy Carter was instrumental to the success and widespread efforts of Habitat for Humanity. Extension housing and resource management specialists across the nation partnered with Habitat to help families access affordable housing in their communities. 

    “President Carter also exemplified civic engagement and showed the world how to promote democratic elections while serving as an international electoral observer for many nations.” — Jorge Atiles, dean of WVU Extension and Engagement

    [ad_2]

    West Virginia University

    Source link

  • The unnecessary burden of war

    The unnecessary burden of war

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — Governments could help millions of people and save a lot of money with targeted energy subsidies. Different kinds of households around the world suffer in various ways from the exorbitant energy prices and need different kinds of support, says Klaus Hubacek from the University of Groningen, the Netherlands, in a new study that was published on 16 February in Nature Energy.

    All around the world, households are affected by soaring energy prices due to the war in Ukraine. But these households are affected in different ways: ‘This depends on their income level, how they spend their money, and how and where the products that they are using are being produced,’ explains Hubacek, Professor of Science, Technology, and Society. 

    Poverty

    ‘Our study is one of the very first that quantifies—at an unprecedented level of detail—the impacts of the energy crisis, including its impact on households, within many countries and with a global reach,’ says Hubacek. ‘Without such detailed knowledge, it is impossible to know who to help and how. If the governments were to use this as a guide, they could save a lot of money.’

    The increased fossil fuel prices potentially push millions of people into poverty, or even extreme poverty. Government measures to subsidize towering energy bills for households are inefficient because they do not take enough details into account. ‘If you look at the responses of governments, for example in Germany, the UK, the US, or the Netherlands, they have been using policies that do not sufficiently help those who need it most,’ states Hubacek. ‘Meanwhile they spend lots of money on people who don’t need it. That really frustrates me.’

    Food

    Energy prices affect households in two ways. Directly, through high energy bills, and indirectly, through the goods and services that became more expensive due to fossil fuel use in their supply chains. ‘So, for example, if you use a cell phone in the Netherlands you need direct energy, which is not a lot,’ explains Hubacek. ‘But a cell phone is made of many different components that come from Japan, China, Austria, the US, and so on.’ Therefore higher energy prices effect the price of a new smart phone indirectly.

    The same is true for food: energy prices push up costs for fertilizer, transport, etcetera. Energy inputs are required in production and transportation all the way to the final product. The rising costs of energy are passed on to the consumer through the price of the product, thus indirectly increasing the burden on households.

    Straw

    Because different households spend their money on different things, the kind of burden that the energy price shock imposes varies as well. ‘We show this in detail in our paper,’ says Hubacek. ‘For example, in some countries it is the increase in food prices that affects households most, in other cases it’s mobility, and so on. Knowing what causes the increased costs exactly allows you to really subsidize the products and services that put the highest pressure on households.’

    For both high- and low-income countries, the indirect energy costs impose the biggest burden, whereas for middle-income countries, direct energy costs have the biggest impact. A possible explanation is that in high- and low-income countries, households’ direct energy availability is uniform, according to Yuru Guan, one of Hubacek’s PhD students and first author of the paper. Therefore, they are affected more by consumption patterns of other goods. ‘For example, Dutch people basically use natural gas for heating, so when energy prices increase, everyone suffers from the same rate of increase in direct energy costs,’ explains Guan.

    In middle-income countries, households show larger disparities when it comes to the availability of energy. ‘In China, the rich have access to natural gas for heating, while the poorest burn coal or even straw,’ continues Guan. Therefore, the total burden on household expenditure is dominated by direct energy costs.

    Windfall tax

    Hubacek makes another point. He suspects that the increase of energy prices due to the Russian invasion in Ukraine wouldn’t have been as extreme if better policies had been made before. ‘Governments could have saved money by helping people with lower incomes to insulate their houses instead of digging for coal and investing in LNG terminals that are hugely inefficient,’ says Hubacek. ‘Now they invest in a very expensive infrastructure that we shouldn’t have in the first place if we take climate change seriously.’

    Governments could moreover increase their income relatively easy. ‘Energy companies’ profits have increased considerably since the onset of the war,’ according to Hubacek. ‘And many other sectors benefited as well. They increase their prices more than required to cover the extra energy costs, thus increasing their profits.’ Special windfall and carbon taxes could help enormously in the fight against poverty. ‘It’s all linked,’ says Hubacek. ‘Polluting sectors could be taxed and the money could be used to help poor households. It’s simple. It’s just politically difficult.’

    It is up to policy makers to make decisions that take the bigger picture into account, and to not just stick plasters. ‘However, there is no free lunch,’ as Hubacek puts it. ‘Renewable energy contributes to climate change as well. So the focus should be on policies that fight poverty and energy use in the long term.

    Reference: Yuru Guan, Jin Yan, Yuli Shan, Yannan Zhou, Ye Hang, Ruoqi Li, Yu Liu, Binyuan Liu, Qingyun Nie, Benedikt Bruckner, Kuishuang Feng en Klaus Hubacek. Burden of the global energy price crisis on households, Nature Energy, 16 February 2023

    [ad_2]

    University of Groningen

    Source link

  • U.S. unprepared for dangers posed by zoonotic diseases, new analysis concludes

    U.S. unprepared for dangers posed by zoonotic diseases, new analysis concludes

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — The United States, the largest importer of wildlife in the world, is not prepared for future spread of animal-borne, or zoonotic, diseases due to gaps among governmental agencies designed to combat these threats, concludes a new analysis by researchers at Harvard Law School and New York University. The authors call for a “One Health” approach, integrating multiple agencies in order to better govern human-animal interactions.

    The editorial, “Blind spots in biodefense,” which appears in the journal Science, is authored by Ann Linder, a research fellow at Harvard Law School’s Brooks McCormick Jr. Animal Law & Policy Program, and Dale Jamieson, a professor at New York University’s Center for Environmental and Animal Protection in the Department of Environmental Studies.

    Linder and Jamieson note that the Biden administration’s recent release of its National Biodefense Strategy (NBS-22), the first update since the COVID-19 pandemic began, frames threats as largely external to the United States. 

    “NBS-22 focuses primarily on bioterrorism and laboratory accidents, neglecting threats posed by routine practices of animal use and production inside the United States,” they write. 

    This oversight is significant, Linder and Jamieson observe, given the United States’ past and present when it comes to human-animal interface:

    • More zoonotic diseases originated in the United States than in any other country during the second half of the 20th century. 
    • In 2022, the U.S. processed more than 10 billion livestock, the largest number ever recorded and an increase of 204 million over 2021.
    • The ongoing H5N1 avian influenza outbreak has left 58 million animals dead in backyard chicken coops and industrial farms in the U.S.
    • Since 2011, the U.S. has recorded more swine-origin influenza infections than any other country. Most occurred at state and county fairs, which attract 150 million visitors each year and where an estimated 18% of swine have tested positive. 

    Moreover, they add, the current patchwork of siloed agencies and authorities is marked by a lack of coordination, leaving significant gaps and areas of underregulation. In fact, of the many agencies that govern food animal production, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is the most important, but it has no authority to regulate on-farm animal production.

    The authors call for rebuilding from the ground up the U.S. regulatory system in order to combat zoonotic disease risk.

    “What is needed is not simply for agencies to do their jobs better or to paper over the gaps, but a fundamental restructuring of the way that human–animal interfaces are governed,” Linder and Jamieson urge. “A One Health approach, which NBS-22 claims as its guiding principle, would take the health of other living things not merely as the occasional means or obstacles to human health, but as continuous with it. The first step in implementing such an approach would be to create a high-level process for integrating the broken mosaic of multiple agencies, with their unclear and sometimes competing mandates, into an effective, comprehensive regime.”

    The editorial is based on research from the Live Animal Markets Project, which is examining global policy responses to animal markets and their role in zoonotic disease transmission. The project includes 15 individual country case studies involving local collaborators, partner institutions, and members of the core research team. The project aims to provide a comprehensive assessment that will aid policymakers, contribute to public education about zoonotic risks, and support the human health and animal protection communities. The project is led by researchers from Harvard Law School’s Brooks McCormick Jr. Animal Law & Policy Program, and New York University’s Center for Environmental and Animal Protection, and involves researchers and institutions from around the world. Kristen Stilt, Arthur Caplan, Chris Green, Bonnie Nadzam, and Valerie Wilson McCarthy contributed to this editorial.

    # # #

    [ad_2]

    New York University

    Source link

  • State of the Union Coverage: Experts Available

    State of the Union Coverage: Experts Available

    [ad_1]

    Rutgers University–New Brunswick faculty experts are available before, during and after President Biden’s State of the Union address on Feb. 7. For interviews, please reach out to the listed contacts.

    David Greenberg, @republicofspin

    Expert on U.S. political and cultural history, including the presidency, campaigns and elections, political parties, political ideas, public policy, and a contributing editor to Politico. Greenberg can discuss past States of the Union, presidential history and rhetoric, and the impact Biden’s speech may have on current divisions in the United States. Professor of history and of journalism and media Studies.

    Ross Baker, @Rosbake1

    Expert in U.S. government, legislative politics, Congressional issues and the presidency. Baker can discuss coronavirus relief, bipartisanship and polarization in the House and Senate, and passing legislation. Distinguished Professor in political science.

    John J. Farmer, Jr.

    Expert on U.S. politics, redistricting, law, security and community protection for vulnerable populations. Farmer can discuss the U.S. Capitol riots, national security and how President Biden is working to bridge the partisan divide. Director of Rutgers’ Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers’ Miller Center for Community Protection and Resilience, and University professor of law.

    Ashley Koning, @AshleyAKoning

    Expert on U.S. public opinion, survey design, polling trends and mass political behavior. Koning can discuss President Biden’s approval rating and public opinion on COVID-19, the vaccination rollout and coronavirus relief, and the national political dynamic and polarization. Director of Rutgers’ Eagleton Center for Public Polling and Eagleton assistant research professor.

    Saladin Ambar, @dinambar

    Expert on race and U.S. politics, the president and American governors. Eagleton associate professor of political science, senior scholar at the Eagleton Center on the American Governor.

    John Weingart

    Expert on U.S. politics and government, including history of relevant past elections, and the administrative functioning and inclusion of the public in government operations. Associate director of Rutgers’ Eagleton Institute of Politics and director of the Eagleton Center on the American Governor.

    Kristoffer Shields

    Shields researches and analyzes the office of the governor in a national context. He is an Eagleton Assistant Research Professor and Historian at the Eagleton Center on the American Governor.

    Debbie Walsh, @DebbieWalsh58 Expert on the modern history of women in politics, progress in political representation, women and the political parties, and campaign messaging for women candidates. Director of the Center for American Women and Politics, a unit of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers.

    Jean Sinzdak Expert on milestones in women’s political history, candidate recruitment and training, and state legislatures. Associate director of the Center for American Women and Politics, a unit of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers.

    Kelly Dittmar, @kdittmar Expert on gender and campaigning, women and institutions of government, current data and analysis on women’s representation, and women voters. Director of Research and Scholar of the Center for American Women and Politics, a unit of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers.

    Kira Sanbonmatsu Sanbonmatsu’s research interests include gender, race/ethnicity, parties, public opinion, and state politics. Professor of political science and senior scholar at the Center for American Women and Politics.

    [ad_2]

    Rutgers University-New Brunswick

    Source link

  • Notre Dame study finds voter ID laws mobilize voters in both parties, rather than sway election results

    Notre Dame study finds voter ID laws mobilize voters in both parties, rather than sway election results

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — In the past two decades, many state governments have enacted voter identification requirements for constituents voting in their state, requiring a photo ID or other significant proof to access a ballot. These laws were intended to prevent voter fraud and increase election security, but they also sparked national debate over whether they disenfranchised disadvantaged groups such as people living in poverty or people of color, who may not have a valid ID nor be able to obtain one. 

    Many argued that implementing the ID requirements gave Republicans the electoral advantage while harming Democrats, whose supporters were more likely to be affected by the laws. Up until now, the extent to which these laws provided electoral benefits for Republican candidates and/or disadvantages for Democratic ones had not been considered. 

    In a study recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Jeffrey Harden, the Andrew J. McKenna Family Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and concurrent associate professor in the Department of Applied and Computational Mathematics and Statistics, and Alejandra Campos, a third-year graduate student in the political science doctorate program, both at the University of Notre Dame, found that voter ID requirements motivated supporters of both parties equally to comply and participate, but had little overall effect on the actual outcomes of the elections.

    “We addressed a very simple question of whether or not these laws actually have the sort of electoral effects that people seem to think they do,” Harden said. “It was surprising to us to see that no one had really addressed that question yet.”

    The two researchers examined the effect of voter ID laws on the electoral results for significant political races at the state level (state legislatures and governorships) and federal level (U.S. Congress and president) from 2003 to 2020. The framework of the study was to find out whether a voter ID requirement affected the vote share advantage of Republican or Democratic candidates in these races. The assumption, Harden explained, is that because Democratic voters tend to be the ones who are more impacted by voter ID requirements, it is in the Democratic Party’s interest to push back against these laws and in the Republican Party’s interest to advocate for them. 

    “This suggests that one party’s candidates would benefit more, and one party’s candidates would be penalized more, by these laws,” Harden theorized. “But that’s not really what’s going on here — the long-term implications of voter ID are more nuanced than that.” 

    Rather, the researchers speculated, voter ID laws had a countermobilization effect by creating a complex series of events, happening over the course of the campaign, that resulted in supporters of both parties getting motivated and mobilized, which ultimately diminished the laws’ anticipated effects on the actual election results.

    “The parties had to take additional steps to counteract these laws,” Campos explained. “The Democratic Party, for example, mobilized their constituents to meet the ID requirements so the laws would not impact their electoral fortunes.”

    Other implications include the idea that ID requirements frustrated Democrats and enthused Republicans — motivating both groups’ supporters to vote. In addition, the researchers wrote, voters may have become accustomed to adhering to the laws, thus softening their controversial stigma in the public’s opinion and eventually reducing their effects.

    “Any impact these laws exert on voter access occurs concurrently with their effects on other elements of the electoral process,” the researchers pointed out. “What we find out, in the end, is that the results get washed out to the point where these voter ID laws don’t have much of an impact on the actual electoral outcomes.”

    With existing research pointing to the fact that voter ID laws don’t necessarily impact voter fraud or voter turnout, and Harden’s and Campos’ research indicating that they don’t have much of an effect on election results, Harden suggested we ask ourselves: “How difficult should it be in a democratic society for a person to vote?” 

    “We think this should be a part of the discussion,” both researchers said. “Future election policy may benefit from a shift in the debate.” Instead of focusing on which is more important — voting security or access — lawmakers should consider what is the minimum amount of voter responsibility required to vote, the researchers said, rather than setting up barriers to voting not supported by evidence.

    “We need to ask ourselves: Why are we doing this?” Campos noted. “We need to think seriously about the consequences of these laws and whether or not there’s any benefit to them at all.”

    Harden noted the importance of studying democratic institutions and the way in which democracy can ebb and flow within a country — and how this practice fits in ideally with the mission of Notre Dame. 

    “What we’re talking about here are reforms that make a fundamentally democratic practice (i.e., voting) more or less difficult for people,” Harden said. “Being at a university committed to truth and the common good, we need to understand if this significant reform is doing what people expect it to when they enact that reform.”

    [ad_2]

    University of Notre Dame

    Source link

  • Incivility reduces interest in what politicians have to say, shows research

    Incivility reduces interest in what politicians have to say, shows research

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — Toronto — Nasty remarks by politicians against their critics are so common that we may not pay them much mind. That’s the problem of political incivility, say a pair of researchers who’ve studied the phenomenon among U.S. politicians.

    “The results are pretty clear,” says Matthew Feinberg, an associate professor of organizational behaviour at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management. “Incivility may grab attention, but the ultimate result is less interest in what you have to say.”

    Prof. Feinberg and fellow researcher Jeremy A. Frimer from the University of Winnipeg already knew from their past work that incivility has been on the rise, especially online. In this most recent research, their analysis of rude and demeaning language in former U.S. president Donald Trump’s and current U.S. president Joe Biden’s social media posts revealed that the two gained fewer additional followers in the days after they made particularly uncivil comments.

    The researchers analyzed more than 32,000 tweets issued from Trump’s Twitter account between mid-2015 and Jan. 8, 2021, when he was permanently suspended from the platform. Over that time, Trump’s followers rose from 3 million to about 89 million. However, his biggest gains were made in the days after his tweets were particularly civil – about 43,000 new followers versus only 16,000 new followers after he was especially rude.

    The researchers used a machine-learning program that detects toxic speech and phrases to identify and classify the most uncivil tweets.

    In Biden’s case, the researchers analyzed just over 7,000 tweets between 2012 and June 2021. His followers rose from 5 million to 32 million over that time. He gained an average of 45,000 new followers when his tweets were very civil but only 11,000 in the days after they were not.

    Prof. Feinberg said the steeper drop in new followers for Biden may be due to people expecting more civil behaviour from him than Trump. However, the researchers estimated that Trump’s incivility cost him more than 6.3 million followers.

    Two additional experimental studies that formed part of the research, with a total of about 2,000 participants confirmed the finding that political incivility breeds longer-term disinterest. That was true even when the participant identified with the same political party, something Prof. Feinberg called “surprising.” As well, the third study showed that moral disapproval of what a politician said had a stronger influence on a person’s ongoing interest than whether the politician’s words were attention-grabbing.

    So given the results, how come politicians continue to lob rhetorical grenades at one another? It’s possible they do it because they may inflict greater damage on their opponents’ reputations or even turn voters off so much that they don’t even bother going to the polls, the researchers suggest. Or, says Prof. Feinberg, “maybe it’s just that they’re wrong.”

    The study was published in Social Psychological and Personality Science.

    Bringing together high-impact faculty research and thought leadership on one searchable platform, the new Rotman Insights Hub offers articles, podcasts, opinions, books and videos representing the latest in management thinking and providing insights into the key issues facing business and society. Visit www.rotman.utoronto.ca/insightshub.

    The Rotman School of Management is part of the University of Toronto, a global centre of research and teaching excellence at the heart of Canada’s commercial capital. Rotman is a catalyst for transformative learning, insights and public engagement, bringing together diverse views and initiatives around a defining purpose: to create value for business and society. For more information, visit www.rotman.utoronto.ca

    -30-

    [ad_2]

    University of Toronto, Joseph L. Rotman School of Management

    Source link

  • Terror under lockdown: Pandemic restrictions reduce ISIS violence

    Terror under lockdown: Pandemic restrictions reduce ISIS violence

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — New Haven, Conn. — Lockdown measures aimed at slowing the spread of COVID-19 had the unintended benefit of curtailing violence by the insurgent group ISIS, according to a new study led by Yale political scientist Dawn Brancati.

    The study, published on Jan. 30 in the journal American Political Science Review, found that government-imposed curfews and travel bans instituted to protect public health in Iraq, Syria, and Egypt were significantly associated with a reduction in ISIS attacks, especially in urban areas and locations outside the militant organization’s base of operations.

    “Although ISIS leaders vowed to ramp up attacks during the pandemic, our analysis found that pandemic lockdown measures likely reduced the group’s attacks by depleting its financial resources, reducing high-value civilian targets, and making it logistically more difficult for ISIS to conduct attacks by reducing its cover,” said Brancati, a senior lecturer in the Department of Political Science in Yale’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences. “Our findings provide important insights into the effects of public health measures on violence by non-state actors like ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Boko Haram, as well as the general effectiveness of curfews and travel restrictions as counterinsurgency tools.”

    In examining the effects of the lockdown measures on violence by non-state actors, Brancati — along with coauthors Jóhanna Birnir of the University of Maryland-College Park and Qutaiba Idlbi of the Atlantic Council — focused on ISIS due to the group’s explicit pledge to accelerate violence during the pandemic and because its large financial reserves, rural base, and preference for targeting government installations over civilians make it less vulnerable to the effects of curfews and travel restrictions.

    The researchers analyzed data on more than 1,500 ISIS-initiated violent events in Iraq, Syria, and Egypt — the countries where the group launches most of its attacks — compiled by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project covering a 78-week period between Dec. 31, 2018, and June 28, 2020. In March 2020, pandemic-related curfews and travel bans were imposed in all three countries and were in place for three to four months. The researchers also mapped the number and location of ISIS attacks within and across Iraq’s governorates using geographic information system (GIS).

    The public health measures significantly reduced violence, especially in cities and areas outside of the militant group’s rural bases, the study showed. For example, the number of violent events was about 30% lower in Iraq and 15% lower in Syria when COVID-19 related curfews were in place in these countries.

    The researchers found that the higher a governorate’s population, the more effective curfews were in reducing violence. For example, the number of ISIS-initiated violent events in the governorate of Baghdad, which has a population of 8.1 million, was 11% lower when the curfews were in place. There was no change in the Iraqi governorate of Najaf (a center of Muslim pilgrimage, surpassed by only Mecca and Medina), which has a population of 1.5 million people.

    Based on interviews with government officials, military leaders, policy experts, and residents of places covered in the study, the researchers concluded that the curfews and travel restrictions reduced the number of high-value civilian targets and made it more difficult for ISIS militants to move about without being noticed. While there is evidence that the public health measures also strained the group’s financial resources — for instance, by limiting its ability to collect money from locals or operate its commercial businesses — the group’s financial reserves, which amount to hundreds of millions of dollars by most estimates, likely allowed it to keep funding its cells, the researchers concluded.

    Given that pandemic lockdown measures seem to have hindered ISIS’s ability to initiate violence, they likely have similar or greater effects on other violent non-state organizations, the researchers said.

    “Most non-state actors lack ISIS’s financial resources, tend to target civilians more heavily, and operate in urban areas, which suggests they would be more vulnerable to the effects of lockdown measures than ISIS is,” Brancati said. “This does not suggest that lockdown measures are a magic bullet in fighting insurgencies since they have harsh side effects on society, especially in developing countries where militant groups operate.”

    [ad_2]

    Yale University

    Source link

  • Susan G. Komen® Applauds House Introduction of Bipartisan Metastatic Breast Cancer Access to Care Act

    Susan G. Komen® Applauds House Introduction of Bipartisan Metastatic Breast Cancer Access to Care Act

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — Susan G. Komen®, the world’s leading breast cancer organization, applauds House lawmakers for their leadership on bipartisan legislation that would make financial benefits and health insurance immediately available to people living with metastatic breast cancer. In the 117th Congress, this bill was supported by more than 50 percent of members of the House of Representatives.

    The Metastatic Breast Cancer Access to Care Act (H.R.549) waives a five-month waiting period for Social Security Disability Insurance and a subsequent 24-month waiting period for Medicare benefits. People diagnosed with MBC, on average, don’t live long enough to receive both benefits, yet most face thousands of dollars in medical expenses every month without the means to pay their bills.

    “Many living with metastatic breast cancer do not have the luxury of waiting for the health care services and financial support they need. Those receiving this devastating diagnosis face enough challenges without the added burden of long and arduous waiting periods, which create barriers to the care patients so desperately need, and need now,” said Molly Guthrie, Vice President of Advocacy and Public Policy at Susan G. Komen.

    An estimated 168,000 Americans live with MBC, breast cancer that has spread beyond the breast to other parts of the body – often the brain, bones, lungs and liver. Treatments exist for MBC but there is no cure for it. The average life expectancy is three years after diagnosis and MBC is responsible for the majority of the breast cancer deaths each year.

    “In New York, over 16,800 women are diagnosed with breast cancer each year and about 2,500 women die from the disease annually. Long Island has among the highest occurrences of breast cancer in the country. These numbers and the real people they represent make this issue deeply personal for me and for my constituents. Roughly 90 percent of breast cancer deaths are a result of metastatic disease and the life expectancy of an individual with metastatic breast cancer is anywhere between 4 and 36 months. Given this timeframe, it is outrageous to double the suffering of those living with this horrible disease by making them wait to gain access to health benefits that they are immediately eligible for. This bill waives these onerous waiting periods, relieving the potential financial burden on those with the disease, and allowing them to focus on fighting the cancer,” said Rep. Andrew R. Garbarino (R-NY-02), bill sponsor.

    Added Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL-14), original co-sponsor of the bill, “The statistics are startling. In 2022, it is estimated that 43,780 people died from breast cancer in the United States – 90 percent as a result of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). To save lives and improve breast cancer outcomes, we must invest in treatments and cures and increase access to affordable, quality care for individuals with MBC. Immediately connecting recently-diagnosed individuals with access to treatment can improve outcomes, and our bipartisan bill would eliminate barriers and reduce current health disparities in care. People diagnosed with MBC should not have to worry about long waiting periods for eligibility to care and I look forward to working with my colleague, Rep. Andrew Garbarino, to deliver financial security and critical care to families.”

    Passage of the MBC Access to Care Act is a top legislative priority for Susan G. Komen this year. “Komen applauds Reps. Garbarino and Castor for their leadership in reintroducing the Metastatic Breast Cancer Access to Care Act on behalf of those living with MBC,” Guthrie added. “We look forward to building off of previous support for this legislation and passing the bill as soon as possible to provide much-needed help to those who are living with the disease now and will be diagnosed in the future.”

    [ad_2]

    Susan G. Komen

    Source link