In the recent Fisher v University of Texas case, the U.S. Supreme Court voted to affirm the Fifth Circuit’s decision to allow University of Texas to consider race in admissions. This is good news, because numerous studies have documented the positive impact of racial diversity on college campuses. This robust body of research was cited in an amicus brief from more than 800 academic scholars explaining the benefits of campus diversity. The dangers of ending affirmative action are also evident in California, where enactment of an anti-affirmative action state referendum in 1996 led to a steep decline in the number of black and Latino college students.

The Supreme Court’s decision to allow continued efforts to racially diversify college admissions is good news. But the bad news is that the decision will continue to encourage selective colleges and universities to frame such efforts in unintentionally limiting ways. Although the benefits of a diverse learning environment are clear, affirmative action overall was originally intended to further multiple goals: to promote greater access for African Americans into elite, predominantly white colleges; to make up for the historical effects of racial segregation; and (on many campuses) to counter previous policies of outright racial exclusion. Today’s students, however, hear little about these broad goals. Instead, students hear from colleges that affirmative action will benefit them. Most students have internalized this message, which has troubling implications for how America’s college students think about race and meritocracy. more...

In the early morning hours on June 12, 2016, Omar Mateen killed dozens of patrons in a horrific mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Mateen was a U.S.-born citizen of immigrant parents from Afghanistan, and during the attack he pledged allegiance to the international terrorist group Islamic State. The reaction of Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump was to reiterate his previously declared concerns about Muslims entering the United States.

Not only did Trump promise to suspend immigration from parts of the world tied to terrorism against the United States, he also charged that Muslim Americans were complicit, maintaining, “They know what is going on. They know that he was bad. They knew the people in San Bernardino were bad. But you know what, they didn’t turn them in and we had death and destruction.” Trump continued, “people who know what was going on, they knew exactly, but they used the excuse of racial profiling for not reporting it. Which was probably an excuse given to them by their lawyer so they don’t get in trouble.” A few days later, he called for increased surveillance of American mosques, saying, “We have to maybe check, respectfully, the mosques and we have to check other places because this is a problem that, if we don’t solve it, it’s going to eat our country alive.”

Trump’s remarks were criticized for lumping together all Muslims, immigrants and citizens, mainstream and radicalized. In its coverage of the speech, the New York Times wrote, “he was wagering that voters are stirred more by their fears of Islamic terrorism than any concerns they may have about his flouting traditions of tolerance and respect for religious diversity.” Observers wonder whether Trump is making an effective bet about Americans’ views. Many elected Republicans have distanced themselves from their candidate’s remarks, but what about the American public overall? As a political scientist who studies public opinion about policies related to the nation’s changing ethnic composition, I have given careful thought to this issue.Trump’s remarks after the Pulse shootings were criticized for lumping together all Muslims, immigrants and citizens, mainstream and radicalized. In its coverage, the New York Times wrote, “he was wagering that voters are stirred more by their fears of Islamic terrorism than any concerns they may have about his flouting traditions of tolerance and respect for religious diversity.” more...

One of the most important cases the Supreme Court reviewed this year was United States v. Texas, which ruled on challenges to two Obama administration initiatives – Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents and an expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program – that would have affected up to five million people. In November 2014, President Obama announced Executive Actions that included additional temporary protections for immigrants who arrived as children (also referred to as “DREAMERS”) and a new program for parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. The programs would allow them to remain in the country and apply for work permits if they have been here for at least five years and have not committed felonies or repeated misdemeanors. These actions have been on hold since early 2015, when a district court issued a preliminary injunction in response to a challenge brought by Republican authorities in Texas and ultimately joined by 25 other states. The actual focus of the case was quite mundane: Texas argued that it would suffer significant financial damages if required to subsidize the cost of driver’s licenses to those qualifying for the s new programs. However, the larger context was an unwillingness to allow the President to enact policy change following years of blocked and failed efforts at immigration reform at other governmental levels.In November 2014, Obama announced Executive Actions that included temporary protections for immigrants who arrived as children and a new program for parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to apply for work permits. These actions have been on hold since early 2015.

The Supreme Court was unable to reach a decision in June. The case resulted in a 4-4 tie, an unusual but not unexpected result given the current makeup of the court following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia and reflecting the politically divisive nature of the case. This means that the decisions of the lower courts remain in place and the two initiatives are blocked, for now. more...

Catholic hospitals are a large and growing part of the U.S. health care system. Considerable public funding flows to these institutions, but they deny many reproductive health services and some kinds of end of life care to their patients. Catholic rules limit care in far-reaching ways, well beyond what many patients and health care providers understand or expect. These realities raise important issues about the future of religious restrictions in U.S. health care.

Restricted Care in a Growing Sector

Between 2001 and 2011, the number of Catholic hospitals increased by 16%, while public and secular not-for-profit hospitals decreased. One in six patients in the United States is cared for in a Catholic hospital, and in 2015, seven of the country’s 12 largest nonprofit hospital systems were Catholic. Although Catholic hospitals provide the same amount of charity care as non-Catholic hospitals, in terms of the percent of total revenues, they provide less care to Medicaid recipients than other kinds of hospitals.

Like other hospitals, Catholic institutions receive considerable public funding, yet they limit patient care to fit the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services written by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. As a condition of employment or medical privileges, doctors, nurses, and other clinical personnel are required to follow these directives when caring for patients in Catholic facilities.Legal rights mean little without practical access to reproductive health services. more...

Originally published in January 2016.

Americans are engaged in a great gun war, one that has raged for at least four decades. The war has intensified to the point where citizens cannot agree on the most basic facts. How many guns do Americans own? Does carrying firearms do more harm than good? Do firearm regulations work?

Although the answers are hotly disputed, most Americans share the goal of reducing our unconscionably high rate of gun violence. In a politically challenging environment, it makes sense to pull together what is known about guns and gun violence and look for policy approaches that could garner broad support.Most Americans share the goal of reducing our unconscionably high rate of gun violence. more...

The United States and Mexico are political allies and neighbors with intertwined economies. They both need and at times compete for talent, capital and investments in new technologies. In 2013, the Obama and Peña Nieto administrations launched the High Level Economic Dialogue, a cabinet-level vehicle for deeper engagement on economic issues, and the Bilateral Forum on Higher Education, Innovation and Research, a parallel effort to increase academic and scholarly exchanges between the United States and Mexico. Part of this effort involves cooperation with non-governmental actors to encourage meaningful exchanges among students, faculty and staff from U.S. and Mexican educational institutions at all levels of higher education.

Academic exchanges between countries are critical for robust collaborations in education, research and technological and economic innovation. Regular exchanges and movement of faculty and students back and forth promotes cultural understanding and deeper understandings of each country’s educational and research practices and technologies. Researchers learn about the lines of inquiry that drive innovation in both countries. Over the long term, transnational social and academic networks are strengthened – as has happened before through academic exchanges such as those orchestrated between the United States and Russia and the United States and China.

What are the key challenges and opportunities for leaders trying to strengthen academic ties between the United States and Mexico? Some answers can be found in institutional surveys conducted at Rice University in 2013 and 2014. The results show that, so far, transnational exchanges are hampered by limited communication, inadequate funding, and perceptions of insecurity in Mexico. But important opportunities remain to make progress in the future. more...

When they work well, democratic governments make laws to protect people from harmful things that they cannot prevent on their own. This is the basic role of good government, yet the American public hears a constant drumbeat of anti-regulatory messages from conservative politicians and think tanks and influential business organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. According to these groups, regulations are almost always bad for the country, because they interfere with “free” market activity and inhibit investment and job growth.

But the arguments against sensible regulations are not valid empirically or in principle. Much evidence shows that the benefits of regulations vastly outweigh the costs. Furthermore, anti-regulatory claims rest on faulty ideas about the economy and democratic governance.

Wrong Empirically

For many years, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget has systematically studied the costs of regulation. Looking at more than 100 major regulations over the ten-year period ending in 2010, it found that benefits were three to ten times greater than costs. For every regulatory agency considered, benefits exceeded costs. As the Office reported to Congress in June 2014, the economic benefits of federal regulations totaled in the hundreds of millions of dollars over the previous decade, while the costs were a mere fraction of that total.The U.S. Office of Management and Budget reported in 2014 that, in the prior decade, the economic benefits of federal regulations totaled in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The costs were a mere fraction of that amount.

Many other studies have also shown that regulations have little impact on employment – or else a slight positive effect on balance. Businesses find ways to deal with new regulations. When automobile companies were required to reduce air pollution, for example, they started using catalytic converters. Car prices rose slightly, perhaps leading to some job layoffs, but employment grew overall as more workers were hired to make, sell, and install the converters.

Wrong about How the Economy Really Works

In Econ 101, students learn that, in theory, a pure market consisting of large numbers of independent buyers and sellers will produce goods and services in optimal amounts at the lowest possible prices. In this ideal pure market world, rules restricting buyers or sellers can only distort the optimal distribution of goods and services. However, this abstract academic lesson tells us little about the real world, because pure market conditions almost never exist in actual commerce. Real-world markets differ from theoretical models in markets in several ways – and good regulations can help those imperfect markets work better:Pure market conditions almost never exist in actual commerce.

• Real-world customers often lack complete information about products they might buy, or have difficulty understanding technical terms describing goods like cars, pharmaceutical drugs, and mortgages. Consumer protection regulations help by requiring companies to spell out the features and risks of their products.
• In the real world, markets are often dominated by one or a small number of sellers, who can limit production and force customers to pay artificially high prices. Anti-monopoly regulations can insure greater competition and fairer prices.
• Unregulated markets do not take social costs into account. Unimpeded by public rules, anything-goes markets give us air and water pollution, employment discrimination, exposure to pornography by children, and other harmful results that most people in society abhor. Democratic governments can put in place rules that force sellers to avoid or limit such unacceptable consequences of market activities (called “negative externalities”).

In addition to the departures from “pure free market” theory that almost all experts understand, the new field of behavioral economics has discovered clear evidence that peoples’ preferences are strongly influenced by how choices are presented to them. For example, experiments show that people’s plans about retirement programs vary depending on whether they have to “opt in” or are automatically enrolled and have to “opt out.” Corporations spend billions to influence consumer preferences and set up choices to maximize profits, so it hardly seems out of line for governments to use product information rules to ensure optimal consumer information and beneficial options for citizens.

Wrong about Good Governance

Throughout American history, governments have subsidized businesses and established conditions for markets to function. But periodically, as Americans experienced unacceptable harms from market practices, they have insisted that public authorities override protests from profit-seekers and step in to secure the public interest. Examples of such public-interest regulations include laws to outlaw child labor, building code regulations to ensure stable construction and prevent catastrophic fires, food and pharmaceutical regulations, environmental protections, and laws to prevent irresponsible mortgage lending. Those who claim that all such regulations are unwarranted are implying that governments should only maximize private profits, not protect the environment and ensure public health and security. This makes little sense.Not all regulations are effective or achieve their purposes. Some are too restrictive, while others are weak or improperly implemented. But that does not mean that all regulation is harmful.

Claims that regulation is bad for business are wrong – because the interests of more companies are well served by regulations in the public interest. To sell their products, businesses depend on public confidence that products will not harm people. Businesses also benefit when all of them have to meet the same standards, so some firms cannot undercut others. Even when some businesses are in fact disadvantaged by proposed regulations—such as coal-fired power plants required to limit pollution—others will benefit, such as firms promoting wind and solar power.

Not all regulations are effective or achieve their purposes. Some are too restrictive, while others are weak or improperly implemented. But that does not mean that all regulation is harmful. Although society benefits from well-functioning markets, critics are wrong to claim that all government regulations are bad for business. To produce optimal results for firms and citizens, America needs a balance between markets free from unnecessary impediments and public rules to prevent businesses from inflicting grievous harms on people and the environment.

In January 2016, the State of Michigan declared a public health emergency in the city of Flint because the city’s drinking water was contaminated with lead. This breakdown in public health happened following an earlier emergency declaration – a financial emergency – which lead to the aggressive move by Governor Rick Snyder, who invoked authority enshrined in state law, to appoint an emergency manager to run Flint. Now activists are calling for the repeal of that state emergency manager law.

The crisis in Flint draws attention to ongoing conflicts in responses to U.S. urban crises. Is fiscal stability to be pursued at the expense of social equity, balancing budgets at the expense of helping people who live in a troubled city? Flint is hardly alone. Local governments across the United States are caught between increasing costs and shrinking revenues. From city to city, the proximate causes vary from loss of state revenues to rising costs for public services and underfunded public pensions, to outright fiscal mismanagement. But the difficulties are similar and hit poor, minority communities hardest, creating acute dilemmas of social equity. more...

Education beyond high school is increasingly necessary for a good job, and so growing numbers of people are paying ever-rising prices to attend college. Yet many are not completing degrees. Food insecurity should be added to the list of factors contributing to this shortfall. Our work suggests that too many undergraduates are struggling to afford sufficient nutritious food – and current policies provide insufficient support. An expansion of the National School Lunch Program to help college students could help many more complete their degrees. more...

Micro loans help small borrowers start or continue enterprises, even if the borrowers cannot put up collateral. Giving such loans to women in developing countries has been widely touted as a way to help them and their families economically – and also boost the social status of women in societies where relations between men and women are very unequal. Do micro loans work to achieve these goals? Our research looked at this issue in Bangladesh and discovered that it takes more than increments of economic help to improve the social status of women.It takes more than increments of economic help to improve the social status of women.

Results of a Project Meant to Help Women

Our recently completed research project analyzed data collected as part of the Chronic Poverty and Long Term Impact Study in Bangladesh. Various development initiatives over a 10 year period were examined in this study, which used panel surveys, life-history interviews, and focus groups to learn how programs have influenced family decision making and the control of resources by various household members. Our research focuses specifically on women’s participation in the “fishpond program,” an economic development project implemented in the Jessore District of Bangladesh.

The fishpond program aimed to improve economic wellbeing and nutritional standards for women and their families, and at the same time hoped to empower women and improve their social status. Women in a dozen different villages were offered both technical training and credit to help them develop group fishponds using innovative techniques. The female recipients were selected by a non-governmental organization based on economic need.

As the program unfolded, it was evaluated by researchers who interviewed husbands and wives shortly after the project was launched and again ten years later. Of course the researchers wanted to see if the fishponds improved the economic and nutritional status of families, but in addition they probed how the new economic activities of women grantees influenced their social status. Would their marriages improve as a result of the program? Would the women report less domestic violence? Would women come to own a greater share of the marital property after they became more important economic providers? Would both spouses report that women were more equal partners in their marriage?Not only did the Bangladeshi fishpond program fail to change the gender balance of resource ownership; it also had little to no effect on the nutritional status of participating households. more...