Suchergebnisse

AbstractRecent fiscal crises in Detroit and Puerto Rico have brought Financial Oversight Boards (FOBs) to the forefront. In spite of these developments, there is a notable gap in the literature as social scientists have barely studied this type of oversight organization and its implications. This article highlights intergovernmental and political dynamics that arise with the imposition of FOBs in localities facing fiscal distress by studying the case of the Puerto Rican FOB, commonly known as la junta. By focusing on the governance of the largest debt restructuring in the history of the U.S. bond market, in the context of a newly established territorial bankruptcy regime, this article explores how the presence of the Puerto Rican FOB has been linked to contentious dynamics that challenge local autonomy and democratic principles. By analyzing a variety of legal cases, this article shows how the creation of the Puerto Rican FOB has also put into question the foundations of the unincorporated territory's self-governance status.

The aim of this paper is to capture and explain the differential influences of non-binding agreements (i.e., soft law) launched by the European Union. More specifically, this piece proposes a theoretical framework to understand why and how the European Employment Strategy has affected domestic settings in Belgium, Spain, and Sweden in similar and different ways. To answer this question, I develop a theoretical toolbox to guide researchers who study and analyze policy areas ruled by non-binding agreements. More specifically, to develop my arguments, I focus on four types of internalization: 1) legal, 2) political, 3) intra-governmental, and 4) governmental-societal. The paper seeks to contribute to the literatures on Europeanisation and 'second image reversed' by developing theoretical propositions about the domestic factors that facilitate and hinder the internalization of supranational non-binding regulations on EU Member States. In addition, the paper seeks to make a contribution to the literature on welfare states in advanced industrial states as I argue that contemporary accounts of European welfare state reform ought to consider the articulation of rules outside the realm of nation-states, specifically those launched by the supranational level, given that these soft mandates have the capacity to subtly transform domestic policies and institutions.

The architecture of fiscal federalism in the United States represents an obstacle for prompt and comprehensive policy responses to economic crises, especially by subnational levels of government. As both a public health and economic crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic has put unique fiscal pressures on subnational governments. This article reviews the pandemic's fiscal effects on these governments, as well as the federal government's response. By comparing the response to the COVID-19 crisis during the Trump administration with the response to the Great Recession during the Obama administration, we show that while the speed and magnitude of federal aid was unprecedented in 2020, it was nevertheless conditional in nature and beset by familiar political and institutional obstacles. Despite major fiscal pressures, state revenues rebounded earlier than expected, in part due to the relaxation of public health measures and the collection of taxes from online transactions; yet, state resources remained strained throughout the year, especially in states reliant on the hospitality and the oil sectors. And while local property taxes were buoyed by a surging housing market, cities and counties were confronted with declining revenue from other sources and intense emergency spending needs. Thus, despite unprecedented levels of federal support for state and local governments, the legacies of "fend for yourself" federalism live on.

Abstract
The 2021 American Rescue Plan included the temporary expansion of the Child Tax Credit (CTC)—the largest individual income tax credit program in the United States—for most families with children. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, how did the public perceive this social policy benefit for families, especially in relation to other traditional social programs? By focusing on the CTC, an understudied policy area, and presenting original survey data, this paper first shows that, while the majority of respondents favored the CTC, levels of support for these benefits were lower than support for other social programs. Second, the paper suggests that, compared to older people and people with disabilities, Americans view families as part of the "undeserving" population. Third, by presenting panel data, we show that there is no change in levels of CTC support even among recipients of these benefits. Overall, these findings shed light on important challenges to the development and implementation of family policy in the USA, as well as the possibility of recalibrating the US liberal welfare state.