No abstract

No abstract

This study begins with an exploration of the external (European Union) and internal (Czech political parties) forces that shaped the creation of regional assemblies in the Czech Republic. The institutional and administrative requirements of EU regional policy served as a catalyst for the creation of Czech regional governments. Domestic struggles over decentralization, particularly among Czech political parties, are reflected in the number and boundaries of the regions as well as in the slow transfer of policy competences from the national government to regional governments. This study also examines the November 2000 regional elections and places the results in the context of the 2002 parliamentary elections. Party support clustered by region, but the position that parties took on the creation of regional assemblies did not impact electoral success in the regional elections, nor did party success or failure in the regional elections forecast electoral fortunes in the parliamentary elections. The regional and national elections reflected low voter turnout, relatively strong support for the Communist party, and a dramatic rise and fall of party coalitions. JVLany Central and Eastern European countries created regional governments in preparation for accession to the European Union (EU). Countries such as Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia are rebuilding their regional levels of public administration. In building a new system of regional governance after 1992, the Czech Republic did not have much of a tradition of political decentralization to draw upon. Emerging from the ruins of the Austro-Hungarian Empire after the First World War, the newly independent Czechoslovakia organized itself territorially into four administrative regions, or "lands," based on historic ethnic and cultural divisions: Bohemia, Moravia-Silesia, Slovakia, and Ruthenia. 1 This territorial system was abolished under the abbreviated

This research examines state support for higher education by first ascertaining the amount supplied and demanded of this service. The approach assumes that supply and demand occur simultaneously, and that each is affected by higher education spending policies among the states. We argue that enrollment is the most satisfactory proxy for both supply and demand. State policy is measured as expenditure effort. We estimate three time‐series equations using two‐stage least squares regression with data for the years 1986–95. In the final equation, supply/demand (enrollment) emerges as the strongest predictor of state spending effort. Commitment to higher education (effort) is also especially sensitive to variations in the number of employees (per student). Employee costs clearly are a major factor in fueling increases in state higher education spending effort. State per capita income exerts a negative effect on the final dependent variable. Poor states exert greater financial effort in support of their colleges and universities than do more affluent states.

Objective: This article reviews the extant literature on southern politics and gun/firearm ownership in the South as a precursor to three symposium papers. Methods: We employ standard literature review techniques to synthesize two significant bodies of literature. The latter part of the article introduces the three papers in the symposium. Results: We find that the papers in this symposium share two common themes: continued southern distinctiveness, and the importance of the role of race in southern politics and policymaking. Conclusion:We find support for a hypothesis that the South remains distinctive as a region in the policy arena of gun ownership/firearm policy.The political, social, cultural, and economic role of firearms in American society has been a flash point for decades, and recently has become a significant point of contention. Arguments tend to coalesce around differing definitions and interpretations of the Second Amendment, personal freedom, community safety, personal security, and a host of other values. As Stone (1997) so aptly illustrates, differences in value definition may be found at the root of nearly all policy disagreements. As hyperpartisanship has combined with an increase in mass shootings, economic uncertainty, racial tensions, and a number of high-profile incidents involving gun violence, the issue of firearm policy has been thrust firmly into the public spotlight.Like many policy arenas, the nature of the policy problem is not felt equally across the nation, nor are the policy choices to address those problems the same across states. State political culture, history, political control, and a range of other factors have led to a broad patchwork of state policies regarding firearms, all against a backdrop of limited federal law on the topic. States have thus taken very different positions on firearm ownership and the means through which firearms are regulated (or not regulated) within the states. In this sense, states are truly "policy laboratories" (Dror, 1968). While state variation is clearly evident, a less-examined question concerns the degree to which regional policy differences can be detected.While regional studies have largely faded from scholarly agendas, a clear exception is the region of the American South. While studies of most regions in the nation have fallen into disfavor, regional studies of the South have seen something of a resurgence in the past two decades. A field of study led by V.O. Key's seminal Southern Politics in State and Nation (1949), students, and scholars of southern politics has grappled