This article develops an empirical measure of public entrepreneurship and uses it to discover the correlates that distinguish between those participants in a policy domain who are seen as more or less important in the entrepreneurial process. Looking at two rural regions dealing with telemedicine technologies, the authors examine the role of personal attributes and situational attributes in predicting who will emerge as the most mentioned public entrepreneurs on these issues in their community. Status in the local community, membership in the health professions, and strong local focus and ties are the most instrumental variables in distinguishing between those in a policy domain who are more likely to be identified as entrepreneurial. The authors provide an empirical test that can, for the first time, identify in a comparative context the traits that distinguish more entrepreneurial individuals from less entrepreneurial ones (or nonentrepreneurial ones) participating in the same policy domain. Copyright 2008 by The Policy Studies Organization.

W.R. Mack, Karl DeRouen Jr and David Lanoue. (2011) Foreign Policy Votes and Presidential Support in Congress. Foreign Policy Analysis, doi: 10.1111/j.1743‐8594.2011.00166.x This paper explores the role of foreign policy votes on presidential support in Congress. We postulate that a selection effect is inherent in this topic. Failing to consider that certain factors will influence whether a president takes a position on an issue in the first place can yield misleading results. For instance, presidents might not take positions during lame duck years or when their popularity is low. They might be more willing to take positions on international votes, votes requiring super majorities, or those that take place during a honeymoon period. In turn, this decision regarding position‐taking can bias the outcome. We also capture the relationship between Congress and public opinion in our models as it is important to consider that the Congress is listening to its constituents as well. If the public identifies international problems as the most important to the nation, Congress might be more willing to vote in favor of the president on international votes. Testing key vote data from 1953 to 2003 for each chamber, we show that presidents are more likely to take positions if the vote is international, if the public identifies the “most important problems” as international ones, and if the vote requires a super majority for passage. They are less likely to take positions if they are up for reelection and are lame ducks. In turn, international votes, the percentage of the public identifying international problems as the most important, and the size of the president’s majority have positive effects on presidential support. These findings are obscured if selection is not taken into account.

This research probes the voting behavior of the Congressional Border Caucus in the U.S. House after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. These attacks raised the consciousness of Congress, the media, and the public about the U.S-Mexico border and put the policy interests of the Border Caucus in the national spotlight. After the attacks, did caucus members adhere more closely to caucus positions that were important to border districts or more regularly vote against them? House votes on border and non-border amendments before and after the terrorist attacks are examined to determine if caucus members rallied to support the caucus majority on votes important to the border region after the attacks, or if factors such as party and ideology were more important influences on their votes. The findings reveal that Caucus members were indeed more supportive of border-related House amendments than non-Caucus members after the attacks. Yet, party and ideology still played a significant role in determining the votes of caucus and non-caucus members.

No abstract