"Transatlantic Policymaking in an Age of Austerity" integrates the study of politics and public policy across a broad spectrum of regulatory and social welfare policies in the United States and several nations of Western Europe. The editors and a sterling list of contributors look at policymaking in the 1990s through the present - providing a comparative politics framework - stressing both parallel development and the differences between and among the nations. Similar prevailing ideas and political factors can be identified and transatlantic comparisons made - providing for a clearer understanding of the policymaking process. Faith in regulated markets and the burden of rising welfare costs are concerns found on both sides of the Atlantic. Western democracies also share political climates colored by economic austerity; low trust in government, pressures from interest groups, and a sharply divided electorate. Because of differing political processes and differing policy starting points, a variety of disparate policy decisions have resulted. Real world policymaking in the areas of welfare, health, labor, immigration reform, disability rights, consumer and environmental regulation, administrative reforms, and corporate governance are compared. Ultimately, the last decade is best characterized as one of "drift", sluggish changes with little real innovation and much default to the private sector. In general, policymakers on both sides of the ocean, constrained by economic necessity, have been unable to produce policy outcomes that satisfy the key segments of the electorate. The contributors examine the United States, Great Britain, France, and Germany, as well as a number of other European countries, and study the European Union itself as a policymaking institution. "Transatlantic Policymaking in an Age of Austerity" distills the prominent issues, politics, and roles played by governmental institutions into a new understanding of the dynamics of policymaking in and among transatlantic nations.

From Prison to Power A Tale of Intrigue and Adventure in Ancient Times Paul Duevel says, "In his "Scroll of Naska Series" author Martin Shapiro transports the reader to the Middle East of 1600 BC. I found myself quickly caught up in the fascinating culture of these Biblical times and places, and was reluctant to put it down for fear of breaking the spell. Naska's story is filled with passion, cunning and violence. Life in this era was not for the meek, and Shapiro captures this essence with many scenes of love, hate and revenge. I can't wait for the next in the series " The Pharaoh's government is in transition. Joseph is appointed Grand Vizier to prepare Egypt for the coming famine. His surprise elevation suddenly demotes others. Enemies lurk. Then High Priest Haroun dies. The Karnak Temple is in turmoil. Men of vision see opportunities and threats. Conspiracies abound. Some seek power, some fortune. Others seek the return of pride. Power and fortune have no greater rival than pride. Joseph Reigns continues our incredible journey through the translation of Shapiro's Scroll of Naska, an imagined pre-biblical text, discovered in Iraq during Operation Desert Storm. This Scroll, dictated by Naska, the Midianite that bought Joseph as a slave from his brothers, offers new details of this well-known story after 3600 years of darkness and mystery. Witness the drama, Ride in the action, Revel in the romance, Wince at the cruelty, Laugh at the humor. Life was as it is today The truth might surprise you.

A well-respected political study of free speech on a changing Supreme Court in an era of rights jurisprudence. One of the great continuing disputes of American politics is about the role of the Supreme Court. Another is about the First Amendment and freedom of speech. This book is about both. As a classic defense of the responsible yet openly political role of the Court, this book belies the notion reasserted most recently by Chief Justice Roberts that judges are just the neutral umpires in the legal ballgame. Especially in the realm of free speech, the Court must own up to its political function, Martin Shapiro argues in a way that seems to anticipate the current vogue of judicial modesty. He takes head-on the supposed modesty and deference of Frankfurter, Hand, and others, and supports the legacy of clear and present danger inherited from Holmes and Brandeis. The book is thus timeless in its insight as to the true position of the Court in the legal landscape. In FREEDOM OF SPEECH, Shapiro offers a provocative challenge to those who uphold the judicially modest interpretation of the role of the Supreme Court and who would keep the Court inviolate from the political process. Each branch of the government, he says, represents specific clienteles and defends specific interests and beliefs. Shapiro argues that one of the Supreme Court's unique functions is to defend those interests which can find no defenders elsewhere; those speakers whose methods we may not be able to countenance, whose ideologies we may deplore, whose objectives we may fear. From this original analysis of the role of the Supreme Court within the American political system, the author goes on to challenge the Court to use its powers of judicial review to fulfill its special responsibility by maintaining a special preference for freedom. Shapiro affirms the cause of judicial activism and clears the way for the Court to make a more empowering defense of the most cherished right. More generally, and as applicable today as when he first wrote it, it is time for judges to acknowledge that constitutional review is not a simplistic task of submission; political and policy choices are necessarily made. For if the people have been led by the Justices themselves, or for that matter by Fourth of July oratory, into believing that the Supreme Court merely puts the Constitution on top of a statute and lops off whatever sticks out over the edges, they have accepted the form but not the substance of review. The legacy of Marbury v. Madison, and the last century's legacy of Holmes and Brandeis in the arena of free speech, deserve better.

Promoting competition has been a leading theme of public policy over the past 30 years. In the United States, the movement began in the 1970s with efforts to rewrite the rules for aviation, trucking, and telecommunications. Since then, many other industries have come in for similar treatment, with banking, securities, agriculture, and energy heading the list. This trend is often described as "deregulation," but "market design" is a better term. Promoting competition is not just about removing legal controls and then getting out of the way. It also requires that policymakers consciously design new markets, often with significant rules and regulations to promote efficiency. In Creating Competitive Markets: The Politics and Economics of Regulatory Reform, leading experts from academia, government, and the private sector evaluate more than a dozen efforts at market design. The contributors to this volume analyze a broad range of sectors, including airlines, electricity, education, and pensions. They examine developments in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Japan, as well as the United States. In each case, the authors ask three critical questions: Can markets be designed? How significant are the impediments to competition found in different sectors? And how do the politics of market design shape the policies that result? Taken together, these chapters help explain why few recent cases of market design have proven to be as unambiguously successful or as relatively uncontroversial as the deregulation of trucking, airlines, and telecommunications. They also provide valuable lessons for future participants in the never-ending process of market construction and redesign. Rich in analysis and detail, Creating Competitive Markets is essential reading for anyone interested in regulatory politics and policy. Contributors include John Cioffi (University of California-Riverside), Darius Gaskins (Norbridge, Inc.), Jacob Hacker (Yale University), Udi Helman (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), Frederick Hess (American Enterprise Institute), Edward Iacobucci (University of Toronto), Alan Jacobs (University of British Columbia), Michael Levine (New York University), Jonathan Macey (Yale University), Richard O'Neill (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), Eric Patashnik (University of Virginia), Andrew Rich (City College of New York), Peter Schuck (Yale University), Steven Teles (Yale University), Michael Trebilcock (University of Toronto), Steven Vogel (University of California-Berkeley), Graham Wilson (University of Wisconsin), and Ralph A. Winter (University of British Columbia).

In this provocative work, Martin Shapiro proposes an original model for the study of courts, one that emphasizes the different modes of decision making and the multiple political roles that characterize the functioning of courts in different political systems.

Across the globe, the domain of the litigator and the judge has radically expanded, making it increasingly difficult for those who study comparative and international politics, public policy and regulation, or the evolution of new modes of governance to avoid encountering a great deal of law and courts. In On Law, Politics, and Judicialization, two of the world's leading political scientists present the best of their research, focusing on how to build and test a social science of law and courts.
Chosen empirical settings include the United States, the GATT-WTO, France and Germany, Imperial China and Islam, the European Union, and the transnational world of the Lex Mercatoria.