"The contentious politics of the U.S. census, the data needs of social scientists, and America's changing racial sensibilities all come together in this rich and provocative volume. A remarkable array of contributors lay out the value considerations as well as the technical challenges raised by new modes of classifying races in a society marked by more and more interracial unions. Present dilemmas are put in broad historical perspective. Researchers, teachers, students, and the educated public will all find much of value in The New Race Question."
-Theda Skocpol, Harvard University

"For census 2000, the federal government made a historic decision to allow Americans to count themselves as members of more than one race. In this extraordinarily thorough and penetrating collection of essays, leading scholars explore the origins, implementation, and likely consequences of this crucial policy. An indispensable guide to the changing nature of race and racism in America."
-Gary Gerstle, University of Maryland

"The New Race Question is an indispensable guide for those perplexed by the complex societal and policy ramifications of the U.S. census's acknowledgment of racial mixture in 2000, perhaps the most momentous change in the measurement of race since the Civil War destroyed the equation of a black person who is not free with three-fifths of a white."
-Richard D. Alba, State University of New York at Albany

The change in the way the federal government asked for information about race in the 2000 census marked an important turning point in the way Americans measure race. By allowing respondents to choose more than one racial category for the first time, the Census Bureau challenged strongly held beliefs about the nature and definition of race in our society. The New Race Question is a wide-ranging examination of what we know about racial enumeration, the likely effects of the census change, and possible policy implications for the future.

The growing incidence of interracial marriage and childrearing led to the change in the census race question. Yet this reality conflicts with the need for clear racial categories required by anti-discrimination and voting rights laws and affirmative action policies. How will racial combinations be aggregated under the Census's new race question? Who will decide how a respondent who lists more than one race will be counted? How will the change affect established policies for documenting and redressing discrimination? The New Race Question opens with an exploration of what the attempt to count multiracials has shown in previous censuses and other large surveys. Contributor Reynolds Farley reviews the way in which the census has traditionally measured race, and shows that although the numbers of people choosing more than one race are not high at the national level, they can make a real difference in population totals at the county level. The book then takes up the debate over how the change in measurement will affect national policy in areas that rely on race counts, especially in civil rights law, but also in health, education, and income reporting. How do we relate data on poverty, graduation rates, and disease collected in 2000 to the rates calculated under the old race question? A technical appendix provides a useful manual for bridging old census data to new.

The book concludes with a discussion of the politics of racial enumeration. Hugh Davis Graham examines recent history to ask why some groups were determined to be worthy of special government protections and programs, while others were not. Posing the volume's ultimate question, Jennifer Hochschild asks whether the official recognition of multiracials marks the beginning of the end of federal use of race data, and whether that is a good or a bad thing for society?

The New Race Question brings to light the many ways in which a seemingly small change in surveying and categorizing race can have far reaching effects and expose deep fissures in our society.

JOEL PERLMANN is senior scholar and research professor at the Levy Economics Institute, Bard College.

MARY C. WATERS is professor of sociology, Harvard University.
Copublished with the Levy Economics Institute

A Volume in the RSF Census Series
 

"[N]ot only makes interesting reading, but also brings some clarifying historical insights to the immigration debate."
-Industrial and Labor Relations Review

"Will today's Mexican immigrants and their children follow the paths of the Italians and Poles of a century ago in moving up the economic ladder? Joel Perlmann's carefully drawn analysis tackles this much-debated question through a detailed and thoughtfully argued comparison of the Mexican second generation of today and the European second generation of the past. This insightful and stimulating book under scores the great value of past-present comparisons for understanding the trajectories of contemporary immigrants and their children."
-NANCY FONER, Hunter College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York 

"Italians Then, Mexicans Now is essential reading for anyone who hopes to make sense of the prospects of today's immigrants and their children, especially for groups like the Mexicans that are trapped in low-wage labor."
-RICHARD ALBA, Distinguished Professor, State University of New York, Albany

According to the American dream, hard work and a good education can lift people from poverty to success in the "land of opportunity." The unskilled immigrants who came to the United States from southern, central, and eastern Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries largely realized that vision. Within a few generations, their descendants rose to the middle class and beyond. But can today’s unskilled immigrant arrivals—especially Mexicans, the nation's most numerous immigrant group—expect to achieve the same for their descendants? Social scientists disagree on this question, basing their arguments primarily on how well contemporary arrivals are faring. In Italians Then, Mexicans Now, Joel Perlmann uses the latest immigration data as well as 100 years of historical census data to compare the progress of unskilled immigrants and their American-born children both then and now.

The crucial difference between the immigrant experience a hundred years ago and today is that relatively well-paid jobs were plentiful for workers with little education a hundred years ago, while today's immigrants arrive in an increasingly unequal America. Perlmann finds that while this change over time is real, its impact has not been as strong as many scholars have argued. In particular, these changes have not been great enough to force today’s Mexican second generation into an inner-city "underclass." Perlmann emphasizes that high school dropout rates among second-generation Mexicans are alarmingly high, and are likely to have a strong impact on the group’s well-being. Yet despite their high dropout rates, Mexican Americans earn at least as much as African Americans, and they fare better on social measures such as unwed childbearing and incarceration, which often lead to economic hardship. Perlmann concludes that inter-generational progress, though likely to be slower than it was for the European immigrants a century ago, is a reality, and could be enhanced if policy interventions are taken to boost high school graduation rates for Mexican children.

Rich with historical data, Italians Then, Mexicans Now persuasively argues that today’s Mexican immigrants are making slow but steady socio-economic progress and may one day reach parity with earlier immigrant groups who moved up into the heart of the American middle class.

JOEL PERLMANN is senior scholar at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College and the Levy Institute Research Professor at the college.

Copublished with the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College

This casebook documents public reactions to health programs and health situations in sixteen widely differing communities of the world. Some of the studies record successes, others failures. Of interest to anyone concerned with preventive medicine, public health, community betterment, or cultural problems involving peoples of different backgrounds and beliefs.

BENJAMIN D. PAUL is professor of anthropology and director of the program in medicine and behavioral sciences at Stanford University.

"Imprisoning America breaks new ground in our understanding of the impact of mass incarceration on society. By combining theoretical perspectives with data-driven analysis, the volume makes a significant contribution to our understanding of the complex dynamics that have been set in motion by the uniquely American 'experiment' with the use of incarceration."
-MARC MAUER, assistant director, The Sentencing Project

"The penal system now governs the lives and life chances of millions of Americans-not just the young minority men who are its chief targets but also their neighbors, their families, and, above all, their children. Imprisoning America is a major step forward in the effort to trace the deep social and economic impacts of penal policy. Using solidly documented data, careful social science, and dispassionate analysis, the contributors reveal the startling extent of the 'collateral damage' in America's decades-long war against crime. This book's message is an urgent one that citizens and policy-makers need to hear."
-DAVID GARLAND, Arthur T. Vanderbilt Professor of Law and professor of sociology, New York University

"Blending perspectives and insights in unique and comprehensive ways, this volume systematically reveals the unrecognized toll of collateral as well as direct damage mass incarceration has imposed on our nation's social fabric during a quarter century binge of ill-planned penality. This collection of original articles launches a much needed and long overdue research literature with extraordinarily important policy implications for the past, present, and future use of imprisonment in this country."
-JOHN HAGAN, John D. MacArthur Professor of Sociology and Law, Northwestern University

Over the last thirty years, the U.S. penal population increased from around 300,000 to more than two million, with more than half a million prisoners returning to their home communities each year. What are the social costs to the communities from which this vast incarcerated population comes? And what happens to these communities when former prisoners return as free men and women in need of social and economic support? In Imprisoning America, an interdisciplinary group of leading researchers in economics, criminal justice, psychology, sociology, and social work goes beyond a narrow focus on crime to examine the connections between incarceration and family formation, labor markets, political participation, and community well-being.

The book opens with a consideration of the impact of incarceration on families. Using a national survey of young parents, Bruce Western and colleagues show the enduring corrosive effects of incarceration on marriage and cohabitation, even after a prison sentence has been served. Kathryn Edin, Timothy Nelson, and Rechelle Parnal use in-depth life histories of low-income men in Philadelphia and Charleston, to study how incarceration not only damages but sometimes strengthens relations between fathers and their children. Imprisoning America then turns to how mass incarceration affects local communities and society at large. Christopher Uggen and Jeff Manza use survey data and interviews with thirty former felons to explore the political ramifications of disenfranchising inmates and former felons. Harry Holzer, Stephen Raphael, and Michael Stoll examine how poor labor market opportunities for former prisoners are shaped by employers’ (sometimes unreliable) background checks. Jeremy Travis concludes that corrections policy must extend beyond incarceration to help former prisoners reconnect with their families, communities, and the labor market. He recommends greater collaboration between prison officials and officials in child and family welfare services, educational and job training programs, and mental and public health agencies.

Imprisoning America vividly illustrates that the experience of incarceration itself—and not just the criminal involvement of inmates—negatively affects diverse aspects of social membership. By contributing to the social exclusion of an already marginalized population, mass incarceration may actually increase crime rates, and threaten the public safety it was designed to secure. A rigorous portrayal of the pitfalls of getting tough on crime, Imprisoning America highlights the pressing need for new policies to support ex-prisoners and the families and communities to which they return.

MARY PATTILLO is associate professor of sociology and African-American Studies, Northwestern University.

DAVID WEIMAN is Alena Wels Hirschorn 1958 Professor of Economics, and chair, department of economics, Barnard College.

BRUCE WESTERN is professor of sociology, Princeton University.

CONTRIBUTORS: Kathryn Edin, Harry J. Holzer, Elizabeth I. Johnson, Leonard M. Lopoo, James P. Lynch, Jeff Manza, Sara McLanahan, Timothy J. Nelson, Anne M. Nurse, Rechelle Paranal, Stevel Raphael, William J. Sabol, Michael A. Stoll, Jeremy Travis, Christopher Uggen, Jane Waldfogel. 

The Multi-City Study of Urban Inequality
 

"For the first time, Urban Inequality brings together solid evidence on the intersecting effects of skills, job availability, geographic segregation, and racism on the socioeconomic outcomes of American minority groups. This landmark study should quickly become a classic, and should inform discussions about public policy for years to come."
- DAVID O. SEARS, UCLA

"This important book investigates urban inequality by looking in detail at the barriers of race, gender, and class in the United States. The team of leading scholars clearly shows us how the search for decent housing, a living wage job, or simply walking down the street differs dramatically between the urban haves and have-nots. Urban Inequality belongs on the bookshelves of mayors, community organizers, and advocates."
- HUGH B. PRICE, National Urban League

"W.E.B. DuBois said that the problem of the twentieth century would be the color line. How sad that we enter the twenty-first century with a racial hierarchy still intact, putting those of African descent at the bottom. But how encouraging that an interdisciplinary team has taken this comprehensive look at many of the factors holding the racial hierarchy in place. Urban Inequality and the larger Multi-City Study of Urban Inequality are major accomplishments."
- PAULA ENGLAND, University of Pennsylvania

"This is an important volume. Based on careful analyses of rich sources of original data, the authors of the various chapters in Urban Inequality provide fresh insights on the interlocking factors that generate and sustain inequality in our nation's metropolises. I highly recommend this book to anyone seeking a comprehensive understanding of the urban social and economic divide."
- WILLIAM JULIUS WILSON, Harvard University

"The Multi-City Study of Urban Inequality is one of the most innovative and important survey research projects of the 1990s. It moves simultaneously across disciplinary, geographic, and racial boundaries; it extends the range of behavioral social science into structures and cultures. This collection shows off the breadth, flexibility, and substantive value of the Multi-City data when they are in the hands of people who are among our best analysts."
- JENNIFER HOCHSCHILD, Harvard University

Despite today's booming economy, secure work and upward mobility remain out of reach for many central-city residents. Urban Inequality presents an authoritative new look at the racial and economic divisions that continue to beset our nation's cities. Drawing upon a landmark survey of employers and households in four U.S. metropolises, Atlanta, Boston, Detroit, and Los Angeles, the study links both sides of the labor market, inquiring into the job requirements and hiring procedures of employers, as well as the skills, housing situation, and job search strategies of workers. Using this wealth of evidence, the authors discuss the merits of rival explanations of urban inequality. Do racial minorities lack the skills and education demanded by employers in today's global economy? Have the jobs best matched to the skills of inner-city workers moved to outlying suburbs? Or is inequality the result of racial discrimination in hiring, pay, and housing? Each of these explanations may provide part of the story, and the authors shed new light on the links between labor market disadvantage, residential segregation, and exclusionary racial attitudes.

In each of the four cities, old industries have declined and new commercial centers have sprung up outside the traditional city limits, while new immigrant groups have entered all levels of the labor market. Despite these transformations, longstanding hostilities and lines of segregation between racial and ethnic communities are still apparent in each city. This book reveals how the disadvantaged position of many minority workers is compounded by racial antipathies and stereotypes that count against them in their search for housing and jobs.

Until now, there has been little agreement on the sources of urban disadvantage and no convincing way of adjudicating between rival theories. Urban Inequality aims to advance our understanding of the causes of urban inequality as a first step toward ensuring that the nation's cities can prosper in the future without leaving their minority residents further behind.

ALICE O'CONNOR is associate professor of history at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

CHRIS TILLY is University Professor of Regional Economic and Social Development at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell.

LAWRENCE D. BOBO is professor of sociology and Afro-American studies at Harvard Universit

CONTRIBUTORS:  Irene Browne, Camille Zubrinsky Charles.  Sheldon Danziger,  Luis M. Falcon,  Reynolds Farley,  Roger B. Hammer,  Tom Hertz,  Harry J. Holzer,  Ivy Kennelly,  Joleen Kirschenman, James R. Kluegel,  Michael P. Massagli,  Edwin Melendez,  Philip Moss,  Julie E. Press, Leann M. Tigges.  Franklin D. Wilson.

A Volume in the Multi-City Study of Urban Inequality

"For more than a hundred years, philanthropists have invested in social science because they thought the knowledge it produced would help solve social problems and improve the human condition. And indeed, social scientists sought to inform public debate and public action, pursuing agendas shaped by the famous 'social question" of labor and inequality. But, as Alice O'Connor shows in this splendid history, the relatienship between social science and philanthropy was not automatic. It could come unstuck when social scientists claimed their work was self-justifying as the pursuit of knowledge in itself, and also with political challenges to the idea of neutral (or liberal) expertise. O'Connor rightly reveals that this early history has shaped enduring orientations and oppositions, and she traces these into our era of think tanks and a new gospel of wealth. She also challenges us to ask again what social science is for in an era when inequality seems once again to be increasing, and to wonder whether its connection with philanthropy can be restored. Social Science for What? is important reading for twentieth-century history and it eloquently poses crucial questions for twenty-first century social science."
-CRAIG CALHOUN, Social Science Research Council

This discerning history celebrates an important legacy of the Progressive Era: the best advocates for social reform sought to maintain their objectivity. Then, as now, true idealists tried to steer clear of ideology. Everyone concerned about the relationship between the theory and the practice of social science should read Social Science for What?"
-NANCY FOLBRE, University of Massachusetts

"In this fine book, based on both insider knowledge and academic research, Alice O'Connor explains why the great liberal foundations have been bested by conservative 'think tanks.' And she argues, astutely, that there is only one way the liberal foundations can compete- by openly embracing the progressive values that animated early social science. Social Science for What? is a must for those interested in contemporary conservatism, philanthropy, and social science."
-LINDA GORDON, New York University

Much like today, the early twentieth century was a period of rising economic inequality and political polarization in America. But it was also an era of progressive reform—a time when the Russell Sage Foundation and other philanthropic organizations were established to promote social science as a way to solve the crises of industrial capitalism. In Social Science for What? Alice O’Connor relates the history of philanthropic social science, exploring its successes and challenges over the years, and asking how these foundations might continue to promote progressive social change in our own politically divided era.

The philanthropic foundations established in the early 1900s focused on research which, while intended to be objective, was also politically engaged. In addition to funding social science research, in its early years the Russell Sage Foundation also supported social work and advocated reforms on issues from child welfare to predatory lending. This reformist agenda shaped the foundation’s research priorities and methods. The Foundation’s landmark Pittsburgh Survey of wage labor, conducted in 1907-1908, involved not only social scientists but leaders of charities, social workers, and progressive activists, and was designed not simply to answer empirical questions, but to reframe the public discourse about industrial labor. After World War II, many philanthropic foundations disengaged from political struggles and shifted their funding toward more value-neutral, academic social inquiry, in the belief that disinterested research would yield more effective public policies. Consequently, these foundations were caught off guard in the 1970s and 1980s by the emergence of a network of right-wing foundations, which was successful in promoting an openly ideological agenda. In order to counter the political in-roads made by conservative organizations, O’Connor argues that progressive philanthropic research foundations should look to the example of their founders. While continuing to support the social science research that has contributed so much to American society over the past 100 years, they should be more direct about the values that motivate their research.  In this way, they will help foster a more democratic dialogue on important social issues by using empirical knowledge to engage fundamentally ethical concerns about rising inequality.

O’Connor’s message is timely: public-interest social science faces unprecedented challenges in this era of cultural warfare, as both liberalism and science itself have come under assault. Social Science for What? is a thought-provoking critique of the role of social science in improving society and an indispensable guide to how progressives can reassert their voice in the national political debate.

ALICE O’CONNOR is associate professor of history at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

A Volume in the the Russell Sage Foundation's Centennial Series

"Richard Nelson has been a pioneer in the economics of research and development and in studying more generally the importance of organizational and institutional factors in the workings of the economy. Much of his contribution is exemplified in this book. It gives an outstanding series of industry studies, showing the importance of government regulation, demand, and subsidy in the operation of many of the most basic elements of the economy, such as transportation, education, and research and development, to name but a few. The Limits of Market Organization will be an indispensable starting-point for future research in the role of nonmarket forces in the economy."
-KENNETH J. ARROW, Joan Kenny Professor of Economics Emeritus and Professor of Operation Research Emeritus, Stanford University

"The triumph of neoliberalism has ushered in a widespread folk belief that 'markets can't be beat.' This simplification is harmful because it ignores the essential contributions of institutional diversity and public infrastructure provision to robust and democratic economic performance. This important volume, edited with the guiding wisdom of Richard Nelson, shows how the mix of market and state provision in a diverse array of sectors, including public health, education, science, transport, and finance, has changed in recent years and with what consequences. In so doing, the authors reinvigorate the debate about the role of institutional form in a just and productive society."
-WALTER W. POWELL, Professor of Education, Sociology, Organizational Behavior, and Communication, Stanford University

The last quarter century has seen a broad, but qualified, belief in the efficacy of market organization slide into an unyielding dogma that the market, as unconstrained as possible, is the best way to govern virtually all economic activity. However, unrestricted markets can often lead to gross inequalities in access to important resources, the creation of monopolies, and other negative effects that require regulation or public subsidies to remedy. In The Limits of Market Organization, editor Richard Nelson and a group of economic experts take a more sophisticated look at the public/private debate, noting where markets are useful, where they can be effective only if augmented by non-market mechanisms, and where they are simply inappropriate.

The Limits of Market Organization examines the appropriateness of markets in four areas where support for privatization varies widely: human services, public utilities, science and technology, and activities where market involvement is altogether inappropriate. Richard Murnane makes the case that a social interest in providing equal access to high quality education means that for school voucher plans to be effective, substantial government oversight is necessary. Federal involvement in a transcontinental railroad system was initially applauded, but recent financial troubles at Amtrak have prompted many to call for privatization of the rails. Yet contributor Elliot Sclar argues that public subsidies are the only way to maintain this vital part of the American transportation infrastructure. While market principles can promote competition and foster innovation, applying them in certain areas can actually stifle progress. Nelson argues that aggressive patenting has hindered scientific research by restricting access to tools and processes that could be used to generate new findings. He suggests that some kind of exception to patent law should be made for scientists who seek to build off of patented findings and then put their research results into the public domain. In other spheres, market organization is altogether unsuitable. Legal expert Richard Briffault looks at one such example—the democratic political process—and profiles the successes and failures of campaign finance reform in preventing parties from buying political influence.

This important volume shows that market organization has its virtues, but also its drawbacks. Just as regulation can be over-applied, so too can market principles. The Limits of Market Organization encourages readers to think more discriminately about the march toward privatization, and to remember the importance of public institutions.

RICHARD R. NELSON is George Blumenthal Professor of International and Public Affairs, Business and Law, Emeritus, at Columbia University.

CONTRIBUTORS: Roberta Balstad, Richard Briffault, Lawrence D. Brown, Nicholas Economides, Kira Fabrizio, Kristine M. Gebbie, Sherry Gliead, John A. James, Sheila B. Kamerman, David C. Mowery, Richard J. Murnane, Dahlia K. Remler, Elliott D. Sclar, Timothy Simcoe, Jane Waldfogel, David F. Weiman.

Inequality in income, earnings, and wealth has risen dramatically in the United States over the past three decades. Most research into this issue has focused on the causes—global trade, new technology, and economic policy—rather than the consequences of inequality. In Social Inequality, a group of the nation’s leading social scientists opens a wide-ranging inquiry into the social implications of rising economic inequality. Beginning with a critical evaluation of the existing research, they assess whether the recent run-up in economic inequality has been accompanied by rising inequality in social domains such as the quality of family and neighborhood life, equal access to education and health care, job satisfaction, and political participation.

Marcia Meyers and colleagues find that many low-income mothers cannot afford market-based child care, which contributes to inequality both at the present time—by reducing maternal employment and family income—and through the long-term consequences of informal or low-quality care on children’s educational achievement. At the other end of the educational spectrum, Thomas Kane links the growing inequality in college attendance to rising tuition and cuts in financial aid. Neil Fligstein and Taek-Jin Shin show how both job security and job satisfaction have decreased for low-wage workers compared with their higher-paid counterparts. Those who fall behind economically may also suffer diminished access to essential social resources like health care. John Mullahy, Stephanie Robert, and Barbara Wolfe discuss why higher inequality may lead to poorer health: wider inequality might mean increased stress-related ailments for the poor, and it might also be associated with public health care policies that favor the privileged. On the political front, Richard Freeman concludes that political participation has become more stratified as incomes have become more unequal. Workers at the bottom of the income scale may simply be too hard-pressed or too demoralized to care about political participation. Social Inequality concludes with a comprehensive section on the methodological problems involved in disentangling the effects of inequality from other economic factors, which will be of great benefit to future investigators.

While today’s widening inequality may be a temporary episode, the danger is that the current economic divisions may set in motion a self-perpetuating cycle of social disadvantage. The most comprehensive review of this quandary to date, Social Inequality maps out a new agenda for research on inequality in America with important implications for public policy.

KATHRYN NECKERMAN is associate director of the Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy, Columbia University.

CONTRIBUTORS: Suzanne Bianchi,  Henry E. Brady,  Coral Celeste,  Tiffani Chin,  Philip N. Cohen,  Sean Corcoran,  Janet Currie,  Paul DiMaggio,  Christine E. Eibner,  David T. Ellwood,  William N. Evans,  Neil Fligstein, Richard B. Freeman,  Jennifer Godwin,  Eszter Hargittai, Robert M. Hauser,  Robert Haveman, V. Joseph Hotz,  Michael Hout,  Christopher Jencks, Thomas J. Kane,  Meredith Kleykamp,  Gabriel S. Lenz,  Kara Levine,  Steven P. Martin,  Susan E. Mayer,  Marcia K. Meyers,  John Mullahy, Sheila E. Murray, Kei Nomaguchi, Lars Osberg, Anne R. Pebley, Meredith Phillips,  Sara Raley, Stephanie Robert,  Dan Rosenbaum,  Jake Rosenfeld, Howard Rosenthal,  Christopher Ruhm,  Gary Sandefur,  Narayan Sastry, Kay Lehman Schlozman,  John Karl Scholz,  Robert M. Schwab, Jonathan Schwabish, Steven Shafer.  Taek-Jin Shin,  Theda Skocpol, Timothy M. Smeeding,  Sidney Verba,  Andrea Voyer,  Jane Waldfogel,  Bruce Western,  Barbara Wolfe.

"Our commitment to the elimination of health disparities in the United States is greatly challenged by the impact of social and political forces on public health policy and implemen tation discussed so vividly in Disease Prevention as Social Change. Our success will depend upon our ability to better manage these forces."
-DAVID SATCHER, Poussaint-Satcher-Cosby Chair in Mental Health, director of the Center of Excellence on Health Disparities, Morehouse School of Medicine, and former Surgeon General of the United States

"Constance A. Nathanson illuminates how history, politics, ideology, and key actors shaped the varying responses to four major health threats over time in the United States, Britain, Canada, and France. Professionals, students, and other informed readers will gain from this ambitious and insightful book."
-DAVID MECHANIC, director and Rene Dubos University Professor, Institute for Health, Health Care Policy, and Aging Research, Rutgers

"A big, bold, riveting analysis of how communities respond to disease. Constance Nathanson's narrative sweeps across time and place, politics and culture, illness and public health. Disease Prevention as Social Change is required reading for scholars, professionals, and citizens interested in the health of nations."
-JAMES A. MORONE, professor of political science and urban studies, Brown University

From mad-cow disease and E. coli-tainted spinach in the food supply to anthrax scares and fears of a bird flu pandemic, national health threats are a perennial fact of American life. Yet not all crises receive the level of attention they seem to merit. The marked contrast between the U.S. government’s rapid response to the anthrax outbreak of 2001 and years of federal inaction on the spread of AIDS among gay men and intravenous drug users underscores the influence of politics and public attitudes in shaping the nation’s response to health threats. In Disease Prevention as Social Change, sociologist Constance Nathanson argues that public health is inherently political, and explores the social struggles behind public health interventions by the governments of four industrialized democracies.

Nathanson shows how public health policies emerge out of battles over power and ideology, in which social reformers clash with powerful interests, from dairy farmers to tobacco lobbyists to the Catholic Church. Comparing the history of four public health dilemmas—tuberculosis and infant mortality at the turn of the last century, and more recently smoking and AIDS—in the United States, France, Britain, and Canada, Nathanson examines the cultural and institutional factors that shaped reform movements and led each government to respond differently to the same health challenges. She finds that concentrated political power is no guarantee of government intervention in the public health domain. France, an archetypical strong state, has consistently been decades behind other industrialized countries in implementing public health measures, in part because political centralization has afforded little opportunity for the development of grassroots health reform movements. In contrast, less government centralization in America has led to unusually active citizen-based social movements that campaigned effectively to reduce infant mortality and restrict smoking. Public perceptions of health risks are also shaped by politics, not just science. Infant mortality crusades took off in the late nineteenth century not because of any sudden rise in infant mortality rates, but because of elite anxieties about the quantity and quality of working-class populations. Disease Prevention as Social Change also documents how culture and hierarchies of race, class, and gender have affected governmental action—and inaction—against particular diseases.

Informed by extensive historical research and contemporary fieldwork, Disease Prevention as Social Change weaves compelling narratives of the political and social movements behind modern public health policies. By comparing the vastly different outcomes of these movements in different historical and cultural contexts, this path-breaking book advances our knowledge of the conditions in which social activists can succeed in battles over public health.

CONSTANCE A. NATHANSON is a professor in the Department of Sociomedical Sciences at the Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University.

Are judges competent to decide complex scientific disputes over toxic chemicals and hazardous wastes? Have courts gone too far in awarding damages to victims? Does the judiciary unreasonably constrain free market forces and usurp power from democratically elected branches of government? What constitutes judicial "due process" in the regulation of health-safety and environmental risks?

David O'Brien addresses these and other key questions in a comprehensive survey of the role of courts in resolving science-policy disputes. He theorizes that such disputes, with their burden of scientific uncertainty and intense value conflict, become judicialized in the United States because they pose an uncomfortable trilemma for policy makers: how to accommodate competing demands for scientific certainty, political compromise, and procedural fairness in the regulation of risks. When policy negotiations break down, courts are called on not to settle scientific controversies per se, but in their traditional role as independent tribunals for settling value conflicts and imposing norms in a pluralistic society.

This interpretation is enhanced by a unique set of case studies, including DES and asbestos litigation and the ban on Tris (a carcinogenic flame-retardent). O'Brien's analytical framework and his detailed examples illuminate the extent, the implications, and the underlying causes of the judicialization of risk regulation.

DAVID M. O'BRIEN is associate professor of political science at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.