Category: ACE Research

Pay for Performance Healthcare
Executive Summary:

Pay for performance (P4P) is a healthcare payment model that offers financial incentives to healthcare providers that meet certain performance measures. A wide range of healthcare providers are eligible to participate in P4P programs, including physicians, hospitals, and medical groups. Performance measures are predetermined evidence-based practices that lead to better patient health outcomes. Successfully meeting these performance measures should, in theory, lead to better patient health outcomes. The main objective of P4P programs are to lower healthcare expenditures while simultaneously improving patient health outcomes. There are two basic types of P4P programs: the first type provides financial incentives to healthcare providers if they meet performance measures, while the second type financially penalizes healthcare providers for bad practices and bad outcomes. Consistent positive associations between P4P programs and patient health outcomes have not yet been achieved in any healthcare setting. While some studies have shown that P4P programs produce positive results in ambulatory settings, results are often inconsistent across studies, the magnitude of the effect is not significant, or methodological flaws make results difficult to interpret. At the moment, there is currently no clear evidence that patient health outcomes will improve through implementing P4P programs.

Fee For Service Vs. Pay for Performance:

No country spends more on healthcare than the United States. In 2018, healthcare expenditures totaled 3.6 trillion dollars, averaging $11,172.00 per person, and accounting for 17.7% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Despite this, Americans experience poor health outcomes, compared to citizens from other high income countries (as defined by the World Bank). Relative to 10 other high-income countries, the US has the highest number of hospitalizations from preventable causes like diabetes and hypertension, the highest rate of avoidable deaths, the highest chronic disease burden, the highest obesity rate, and the lowest life expectancy. One solution proposed by United States policy makers to address high healthcare expenditures and negative patient outcomes is to implement large scale P4P programs.

P4P programs emerged in the early 2000s as an alternative kind of healthcare reform, deviating substantially from the traditional fee for service (FFS) healthcare payment models. P4P programs focus on issuing bonuses and penalties to healthcare providers, based on their adherence to performance measures and their patient health outcomes. This differs from FFS approaches, which pay healthcare providers universal rates regardless of patient health outcomes or financial efficiency. FFS systems are criticized for promoting healthcare providers to administer as many services as possible. This can lead to unnecessary spending on medical equipment, personnel, and facilities; substantially driving up healthcare costs while offering a marginal improvement of patient health outcomes.

For example, the United States has the second-highest number of MRI units per capita, at 40 MRI units per million people. This is more than four times the number of MRI units per capita in Canada. Similarly, Canada also has three times less cardiac surgeons per capita than the United States. This is due to the Canadian government restricting the number of MRI machines that hospitals can buy, and limiting how many hospitals can have open-heart surgery facilities. This forces Canadian healthcare providers to ration these services to patients that need them the most. Despite having three times more cardiac surgeons and performing far more cardiac surgeries than Canada, the survival rate of patients with myocardial infarctions (heart attacks) in the United States marginally differs. Critics argue that cases such as the one above demonstrate that FFS systems lead to healthcare overspending.

Performance Measures:

To counteract healthcare overspending, proponents of P4P programs advocate the use of performance measures in order to determine the amount of funding that healthcare providers receive. The most common type of P4P program rewards healthcare providers for meeting predetermined performance measures, usually in the form of bonuses and increases in funding. Performance measures tracked by P4P programs can be divided into four subcategories: process measures, outcome measures, patient experience measures, and structural measures.
1. Process measures refer to clinicians’ performance of evidence-based practices that lead to positive patient health outcomes. An example of a process measure could be examining whether or not patients were counseled to quit smoking during an annual physical, determining how often healthcare providers check the blood pressure of patients that are admitted to the emergency room, and analyzing how accessible early detection cancer screenings are to at-risk patients.
2. Outcome measures analyze certain end results following the administration of aftercare.An example of an outcome measure could include heart attack survival rates among patients admitted to the emergency room.
3. Patient experience measures refer to patients’ perceptions of and satisfaction with the quality of care they receive.This can include patients’ perception of the quality of communication with their providers and the cleanliness and quietness of their rooms.
4. Structure measures consider the physical facilities and equipment used during the care delivery process, an example being whether or not providers use health information technology.
Alternatively to issuing bonuses, pay for performance programs may also penalize healthcare providers for negative performance measures. Such penalties can include a reduction in funding and a reduction in services that the healthcare provider in question can offer. Negative performance measures can include poor patient health outcomes, medical errors, and inefficient spending.

Potential Benefits and Consequences of Implementing Pay for Performance Programs:

There are many debates both for and against implementing P4P programs. Proponents of P4P programs maintain that it is necessary to move away from FFS programs in order to eliminate the possibility of providers taking advantage of pay-by-volume approaches for healthcare funding. Such funding systems can lead to gross overspending, driving healthcare expenses up and ultimately making healthcare less accessible due to high costs.Furthermore, FFS programs often neglect preventative care’s role in improving patient health outcomes and minimizing healthcare expenditures. Many of the performance measures outlined in the section above embrace preventative care principles, which further incentivizes healthcare providers to focus on preventing diseases rather than treating them. P4P programs can be specifically designed to increase healthcare transparency through publicly reported metrics.This is beneficial for patients because it encourages provider accountability and motivates providers to strengthen their reputations, while building competition through consumer-informed choice.

In some areas, P4P has proved effective at decreasing negative patient outcomes. For example, 30-day hospital readmission rates have been falling since 2012 following the implementation of large scale P4P programs. However, while P4P programs have advantages, there are also criticisms against such programs. One of the most notable objections towards implementing P4P programs is that quality of care may be sacrificed for the sake of meeting performance measures. Critics have expressed concerns about the exacerbation of disparities as providers become disincentivized to treat certain populations that may not perform well on P4P measures. Similarly, more severe or complicated patients may be avoided, or patients who need end-of-life care may not receive it until the measured time period is complete, so as not to impair providers’ statistics. Another concern is the difficulty of measuring quality of care. There is controversy surrounding how effective performance measures are, since patient health outcomes can be affected by many external factors that are beyond healthcare providers’ control. Additionally, some P4P programs analyze financial performance measures separate from patient related performance measures. Certain performance measures may appear paradoxically good, despite a negative patient outcome. For example, financial performance measures may classify a patient that dies soon after an operation as more cost-efficient than a patient who is healthy but needs longer postoperative care prior to being discharged.

It’s inconclusive how effective P4P programs are at improving patient outcomes. A P4P demonstration project by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in partnership with Premier Inc. compared 260 hospitals that had implemented P4P programs against a control group of 780 hospitals that operated traditional FFS programs. The performance of hospitals implementing P4P initially improved more than the control hospitals, with more than half of P4P hospitals reaching high-performance scores while less than a third of control hospitals achieved high scores. However, by the fifth year of the program there was virtually no difference between the performance scores of P4P hospitals and control hospitals. Though P4P shows a lot of potential, evidence for its benefits is not conclusive, and more research is warranted regarding the outcomes of P4P programs, from both short-term and long-term perspectives.
March 24, 2022
Russia’s Foreign Policy Part II

Russia and China

Image Courtesy of Axios

From the United States’ perspective, Russia and China represent competitors on the international stage. Experts argue that the relationship between Russia and China has strengthened in recent years due to their shared perceived threat of US power and influence. Russia and China signed the “Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation” in 2001. In 2021, Russia and China signed a five-year extension of the treaty, symbolizing their close ties. The treaty initially allowed the two countries to develop a “strategic partnership” based on economic cooperation and strong military collaboration. Russian politicians have asserted that Western actors, such as those from the US and the EU, have made consistent efforts to disrupt competition stemming from Russia-China relations.

The two nations are also members of BRICS—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. This group includes the five major emerging economies in the world. It is unclear whether BRICS has viable political leverage as some contend that the nations differ too much in ideologies and economic growth to maintain robust cooperation. Although Russia is arguably not the most influential player in the alliance, some have debated that it has been able to uphold its interests despite China’s evident dominance.

Russia and Eastern Europe/Central Asia

Image Courtesy of The Guardian

Image Courtesy of World Atlas

In the Western view, Russia seeks to expand and maintain its influence on the former Soviet Union states through its political, military, and economic forces. This first became evident in 2008 when Russian troops invaded Georgia and sparked the Russo-Georgian War. The act of aggression left lasting consequences, including sustained Russian control over Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Russia further exhibited aggression through the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the subsequent ongoing Ukrainian Conflict. In 2014, the leaders of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia signed and established the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). The EAEU, which now includes Kyrgyzstan and Armenia, organized free trade agreements amongst member states. Although formed as an apolitical union, the EAEU has become politicized in recent years due to the rising tensions between the West and Russia, and Belarus. The border conflict between Russia-backed Belarus and NATO/EU member Poland has recreated East-West Cold War tensions. A host of migrants have fled into Belarus’ bordering countries following the reelection of Alexander Lukashenko and democratic backsliding. The relationship between Russia and Belarus is critical as they formed the Union State, an agreement between the two countries to commit to the integration of their economies, defense, and other policies.

Russia is also a member of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). CIS is an assembly of former Soviet states in Eastern Europe and Asia that collaborates on economic, military, and political policies. Likewise, CSTO is a military alliance between Russia, Belarus, Armenia, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan.

Russia and Africa

Image courtesy of The New York Times

The involvement in African politics began with the Soviet Union’s support of African independence and promotion of education as many African students fled to study in Soviet universities. In the contemporary world, Russia has made aims to regain and expand its influence in Africa, which is now one of its major military allies. Many argue that Africa is a political priority for Russia as it disrupts US interests that seek to champion the spread of democracy and stability in the region.

Following the Covid-19 pandemic, vaccine diplomacy—the use of vaccines to influence the diplomatic relations between nations— constitutes one tool Russia attempted to utilize in upholding its interests in Africa. However, experts argue that the rollout of the Sputnik V vaccine failed in its original purpose due to factors like delayed deliveries and high costs, which resulted in many concerns from African officials.

Russia and the Middle East

Image Courtesy of The New York Times

When the Syrian Civil War broke out in 2015, Russia provided military aid on the side of the Syrian government, showing support for the Assad regime. The Kremlin’s decision to interfere in the civil war stemmed from concerns that the fall of the Syrian government would threaten Russian interests and endanger global stability. Many argue that Russia’s military intervention in Syria and overall involvement in the Middle East demonstrate its efforts to assume a greater role on the global stage and disrupt US dominance in the region. As a result, experts fear Russia’s involvement in key countries in the Middle East can pose challenges to the American foreign policy agenda under the Biden Administration.

From 1979-1989, the Soviet Union waged a war with mujahideen rebels in Afghanistan to support the unpopular communist government. The Geneva Accords of 1988 later facilitated the end of the conflict and withdrawal of Soviet troops. However, the mujahideen became fragmented in the early 90s, which sparked a civil war that prompted the Taliban to gain control in the country. Consequently, regime changes led to decades of conflict and ongoing instability. In the summer of 2021, the Biden Administration began pulling troops to end the war in Afghanistan, allowing the Taliban to regain control at the fall of the government. As the world watched a humanitarian crisis emerge in the region, Russia and China’s expanding influence became evident; the flexible alliance leveraged potential new economic and political opportunities in the country. Recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has had success, unlike the US, in hosting talks with the Taliban.

Why is Russian Foreign Policy Relevant to Americans?

Understanding Russia’s general foreign policy strategy allows one to gain a deeper, more nuanced interpretation of the US’ own foreign policy goals. The two countries have a complicated history of both cooperation and conflict that continue to influence how they act on the international stage.

March 23, 2022
Russia’s Foreign Policy Part I

What is Foreign Policy?

Image Courtesy of The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs

A country’s foreign policy refers to the general objectives that guide its activities and relationships with other nations. The concept often becomes a point of contention in political campaigns; candidates disagree over how to forge their nation’s image and interests on the international stage. In the Russian Federation, foreign policy is a major part of the Kremlin’s political agenda. Experts describe Putin’s foreign policy as a bulwark against the West, particularly through measured efforts to curtail US hegemony or global dominance. Through flexible alliances and involvement in the major geopolitical regions of the world, many argue Russia has taken steps to dismantle the status quo and change the international order to allow other world powers to emerge and govern.

Russia’s Foreign Policy Tools

Image Courtesy of Gazprom

Military intervention is just one way countries can implement their foreign policy initiatives. Countries now have other foreign policy tools at their disposal. In recent years, Russia has continually made headlines due to accusations of disinformation campaigns, cyber-attacks, and interference in foreign elections. Moreover, Russia’s state-owned oil and gas companies provide the economic resources and influence to help shape and carry out foreign policy goals throughout Europe. This is most notably evidenced by the Russian company Gazprom’s ownership of the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline, which runs from Russia to Germany. Many argue it will allow Russia to yield greater geopolitical power in Europe.

Russia and the US

Image Courtesy of Center for New American Security

Marred by a history of volatility, the relationship between the United States and the Russian Federation is critical to international security. Both nations maintain nuclear capabilities and powerful militaries. After deteriorating peaceful diplomatic relations following the fall of the Soviet Union, the dynamic between the countries has evolved with each administration. During the Clinton years, the US and Russia maintained a friendly relationship; President Clinton supported President Yeltsin’s policies and commitment to Russian democracy. Despite President George W. Bush’s preoccupation with the War on Terror, the Bush Administration sought to embrace a cautious but cooperative relationship when President Putin came into power. By the the end of Bush’s second term, however, relations became strained. In the Obama Era, US-Russia relations grew more tense. Furthermore, accusations of collusion with the Kremlin, which led to an official investigation, tainted the image of the Trump Administration. In recent years, the complicated relationship has continued to deteriorate, with some experts claiming that it mirrors Cold War tensions. The US has accused Russia of systematic efforts to disrupt American interests both domestically and abroad. Prompted by Russia’s role in the Ukrainian crisis and increased aggression, the US has reduced its political relationship with Russia. Alongside its EU partners, the US has also imposed economic sanctions and travel restrictions on Russia and key Russian policymakers.

Russia and the European Union Image Courtesy of Financial Times

Unlike US-Russia relations, the relationship between the Russian Federation and European Union is more nuanced. In geopolitical terms, Russia and its European neighbors consider each other potential threats, forcing key flexible working relationships. France and Germany–the two countries with the most economic influence in the EU–have made clear their intentions to “reset” their relationships with Russia to foster stability in the region and achieve mutual political goals. This has been met with stark criticism due to accusations of Russia’s efforts to induce democratic backsliding throughout eastern Europe and unchecked corruption. The Kremlin has claimed that the current EU-Russia relationship lacks aspects of a truly equal partnership and continues to be influenced by past actions during the Cold War. Thus, Russia and its European neighbors maintain an uncertain future in their diplomatic relationships.

The relationship between Russia and NATO, an international organization considered an extension of the West, has always been strained. Many argue that NATO views Russian aggression as a threat to its objectives of maintaining peace and democracy. On the other hand, Russia views NATO expansion into the post-Soviet space as a direct threat to its sovereignty with aims to curtail Russia’s sphere of influence.

Russia and Latin America

Image Courtesy of Royal United Services Institute (RUSI)

As with many of Russia’s other current diplomatic relationships, the Soviet Union’s role in the Cold War continues to influence relations between Russia and strategic Latin American countries. Russia maintains its post-Cold War sphere of influence in Cuba, where the two have managed both an economic and military partnership. Recently, the US has imposed sanctions for the mishandling of demonstrators during protests. In contrast, Russia, united with the communist regime, has called for non-interference from outside actors. Russia has also sent aid to protect its influence with the shifting regime. Venezuela constitutes another Russian ally as Maduro depends on Cuban military forces backed by Russian aid and weaponry. Many argue that Russia has made a strategic alliance with Venezuela to create instability with the US in the region. Russia’s intervention in Latin America has benefited from political transitions, which some claim exhibit the Kremlin’s efforts to prove Russia as a global rather than a regional power. In the 2021 presidential election in Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega won his fourth consecutive term amid controversy surrounding the legitimacy of the results. In turn, the US announced sanctions against Nicaragua. Russia has condemned the US and others who have rejected Nicaragua’s election results as a Russia-Nicaragua partnership holds weight in Russia’s foreign policy ambitions in Latin America.

March 22, 2022
Introduction to United States and Haiti Relations

Fact Sheet

President: Ariel Henry

Capital: Port-au-Prince

Population: 11.4 million (2020)

Languages: Haitian Creole and French

Government regime: Semi-Presidential Republic
GDP per capita: $1,176.76

Freedom level: 37/100

History of US-Haiti Relations

The United States has shared an extensive history with Haiti since the island, then called Saint-Domingue, was under French colonial rule. In the 18th century, Saint-Domingue was France’s most profitable colony due to its high levels of sugar, indigo, and coffee production, and the United States served as the island’s second largest trading partner (after France). Enslaved Africans, whose labor fueled Saint-Domingue’s agriculture industry, eventually grew tired of the abuses they suffered from the French. Consequently, the Haitian Revolution began in 1791 under the leadership of Toussaint L’Ouverture and Jean-Jacques Dessalines, culminating in 1804 with the formation of Haiti. With the former slaves in control of the island, Haiti became the first Caribbean nation to achieve independence and the first modern state to abolish slavery. Despite freeing themselves from direct French colonial rule, inhabitants of the island were obligated to pay reparations to France if they hoped their newfound nation would be granted diplomatic recognition.

The United States government did not acknowledge the Haitian Revolution out of fear that its own enslaved workers would revolt in the South. Despite the American refusal to acknowledge Haiti as a sovereign nation, the United States continued to import Haitian agricultural products and exported its own goods to Haiti. It was not until 1862, after the South seceded, that the United States officially recognized Haiti. In the following year, diplomatic relations and the American Legation in Port-au-Prince were established.

The following decades in Haiti were characterized by significant political turmoil, a high presidential turnover rate, and violence. These dynamics were widespread throughout Latin America at this time. In response, the U.S. enacted the Roosevelt Corollary, which enabled Washington to use military force in the Western Hemisphere to restore political stability. Such circumstances, along with the fear that German influence was encroaching on the Caribbean at the beginning of World War I, led President Woodrow Wilson to send U.S. Marines to the island in 1915. Wilson approved the invasion with the hope that the U.S. could reshape Haiti’s government, assist with the formation of a national army, and strengthen Haiti-U.S. economic ties. During its occupation, the United States assumed control of Haiti’s security and finances and imposed racial segregation, forced labor, and press censorship. In addition, U.S. forces deposed Haitian presidents and legislatures that opposed their presence. Consequently, rebellions against the U.S. administration in Haiti erupted, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Haitians. After 19 years of occupation, the U.S. Marines withdrew from the island in 1934, and Haiti regained its sovereignty. The American government’s decision to withdraw troops was linked to the Good Neighbor Policy, which reversed previous interventionist policies and declared that no state has the right to intervene in another’s affairs.

After the U.S. withdrawal, Haiti experienced a series of unstable governments, culminating in 1957 with a 29 year dictatorship under Francois Duvalier and his son Jean-Claude. During the reign of the Duvaliers, corruption and human rights violations ran rampant, resulting in the disappearances and/or deaths of approximately 30,000 people. Despite this, the United States continued to support the Duvalier regime out of fear that communism would spread to Haiti. In 1986, massive protests and international pressure forced Jean-Claude Duvalier to flee the nation. With the Duvaliers gone, Haiti had the opportunity to develop its own constitution and establish democratic institutions.

The nation’s first elections took place in December 1990, and were won by a Catholic priest, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. In February 1991, he took office; later that year, he was overthrown. Aristide remained in exile for three years, returned to Haiti in 1994, and finished out his term in 1996. The United States occupied Haiti from 1994 to 1997 and claimed its goal was to restore peace and democracy in the island nation. In 2000, Aristide won a second presidential election, and Haiti was once more fraught with instability. In 2004, the American and Haitian militaries exiled Aristide to South Africa. Soon after, the United Nations began a peacekeeping mission in Haiti aimed at restoring order, which would last 13 years.

Since then, Haiti has continued to face political turmoil and corruption. Haitians have demanded their leaders resign and have participated in mass protests, often against alleged U.S. involvement. The role of the United States in Haiti has been further called into question following the July 2021 assassination of then-President Jovenel Moïse. Before his death, Moïse’s opponents claimed that his presidency should have ended in February 2021 because he won the 2015 election, though it was later nullified. Moïse’s supporters, on the other hand, argued that Moise’s five-year term started following the 2016 election, meaning that it was not supposed to end until February 2022. Despite these allegations of political illegitimacy, President Moïse was supported by the Trump administration. It has come to light that some of the perpetrators of the Haitian president’s assassination had received U.S. military training.

In addition to its political problems, Haiti has been struck numerous times by natural disasters, notably hurricanes, often worsening the country’s economy and pushing Haitian citizens to flee their homeland. The Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations have all been confronted with questions of how to restore order in Haiti, encourage development, and tackle migration issues.

U.S. Strategic Interests in Haiti

Political Instability

Since colonial times, Haiti has experienced bouts of political instability on its journey to sovereignty and democracy. These goals have been prevented by foreign intervention and corruption. The recent assassination of Moïse has exacerbated the nation’s downward spiral with violence and criminal activity exploding. Critics claim that the United States’ response to the assassination was underwhelming. The Biden administration decided against providing additional military assistance to Haiti in the midst of the chaos. Despite this, President Biden appointed a new special envoy to Haiti to coordinate the United States’ response to Haiti’s present situation. Some U.S. congressmen, on the other hand, have demanded that the U.S. intensify its efforts to provide support and assistance to Haitian security forces until elections take place. However, the Haitian elections have been postponed indefinitely, and it remains to be seen when and how the Haitian political conflict will be resolved.

Development

Once a thriving colony, Haiti has become the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere, largely as a consequence of the reparations the island was forced to pay to the French along with numerous foreign interventions and corruption. Currently, the majority of the Haitian population lives below the poverty line. Much of the population is reliant on subsistence farming for survival, but such customs are threatened by the frequency of natural disasters, which destroy land, intensify worsening economic conditions, and exacerbate health crises. In efforts to improve conditions on the island, the United States has frequently provided humanitarian and development assistance. The amount of foreign aid often varies with the administration. For example, the Trump administration cut the amount of aid USAID could allot to Haiti, which has since changed under President Biden. In January 2021, the Biden administration announced that it was going to send an additional $75.5 million in development aid and health assistance to Haiti. Following a devastating hurricane in August 2021, Biden approved another $32 million devoted to disaster relief.

Migration

As a result of deteriorating economic and living conditions, numerous Haitians have fled to nearby Latin American and Caribbean nations as well as the United States. Though the number of migrants fluctuates year to year and often spikes after hurricanes strike the island, immigration continues to be a crucial aspect of the U.S.-Haiti relationship. In recent years, the United States government has extended Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to Haitian nationals. TPS is often granted to migrants from nations suffering from political turmoil or natural disasters wishing to remain in the United States until the situation in their homeland improves. Following the 2010 earthquake, for example, the Obama administration extended TPS to Haitians who were living in the United States prior to January 12, 2010. To prevent mass migration, Haitians who arrived after the designated date were sent back. The Trump administration denied an extension of TPS for Haitians, leading to the deportation of thousands. Due to Haiti’s instability and political challenges, however, the nation’s TPS designation was extended multiple times, preventing Trump from completely terminating it.

Though President Biden has revived TPS for Haitians, he has also upheld Title 42, which permits the Director of the Center for Disease Control (CDC) to prohibit the introduction of individuals to the United States if it believes there is a considerable risk for the spread of a communicable disease. Title 42 was issued in March 2020 in response to the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19). This decision has led to thousands being turned away at the southern border, including Haitian asylum seekers, who are often being expelled to Mexico.

March 21, 2022
Smart Growth Implementation at the Local Level

Steps Towards Smart Growth

The Goal: to create an attractive, livable area with walkable amenities and residences, while simultaneously cutting down on suburban sprawl, traffic, and new roads and infrastructure.

Identifying the Bones

Identifying the bones refers to identifying the most attractive, unique, and important parts of an area. For some spaces, it could be that they are a gateway to a major national park, a main street, a historical downtown, open spaces, etc. The first step in this process is identifying the features of an area which have the most appeal. Afterwards, city planners build around these parts to create an overall livelier town. Some examples of these “bones” are New Orleans, Louisiana’s French Quarter; Charleston, South Carolina’s Historical District and beach, and Charlottesville, Virginia’s gateway to Shenandoah Valley National Park, University of Virginia and Jefferson’s Monticello. After identification, it is necessary to examine current growth trends to understand whether these will slow or increase. It is also pivotal to understand the town’s dynamics and relations to the area surrounding the “bones,” such as whether the town operates as a commuter town into another area or vice-versa. These dynamics will affect what smart growth looks like, and may provide an incentive to create different types of public transportation.

Education and Polling

A key part of the process is understanding how the residents of an area will respond to a smart growth program. The local government should take steps towards educating their residents about the possible benefits of smart growth. These steps would likely involve the creation of pamphlets, PSAs, local news articles, and more, while also involving local business owners as a means of promoting the program. Polling can happen after various plans are drawn to examine what appeals to the residents and best fits the town.

Zoning and Housing

The next step is to adjust zoning regulations to allow for new development. Zoning regulations should be changed or adapted to favor high density residential areas. Typically, suburban zoning is more difficult to change since these areas generally have more incentive and more political power than other ones do. However, transitioning developed areas into higher-density areas helps to prevent further sprawl. In some instances it would be easier to pass high density zoning measures by appealing to the more “removed” governments – i.e., the state rather than the local government, and in some areas, the local government rather than the HOA (Homeowner’s Association).

Along with these regulations, many cities elect to include affordable housing requirements for new developments. Affordable housing is one of the primary reasons for suburban sprawl; therefore, creating affordable housing within a walkable distance to shopping, groceries, businesses, etc. could reduce the overall sprawl, as well as land per unit, walls per unit, infrastructure, and more. Reducing sprawl is important as it protects farmlands, habitats and more. Typically, they approach this through inclusionary zoning, which ties the affordable housing development to the market-rate housing development by incentivizing or requiring specific percentages of units in new developments to be affordable for households with certain income ranges. One method by which affordable housing zones or laws are implemented is by requiring one-quarter of new units to be affordably priced for a period of 5-15 years. This differs depending on the city, but overall allows for a variety of income levels to live within walkable distance. Generally speaking, those who oppose inclusionary zoning oppose it because they believe that the market alone should dictate housing and rental prices. In addition, inclusive zoning often faces opposition from existing residents, because it can change low-density, suburban areas into more high-density semi-urban areas. Those opposed feel that existing residents should be able to select what type of community they wish to live in, and local decision making should be respected. In this way, the preferences of more privileged residents who already own homes in the area come into conflict with less privileged residents currently priced out of the area. For more information on inclusive zoning, see ACE’s brief on the subject.

Zoning regulations could also be adjusted to allow for mixed-zoning – residential and commercial. This facilitates walkability by creating jobs and amenities close to residences. Implementing parking maximums rather than parking minimums will limit the amount of land used for parking lots. Parking minimums are the most common form of government regulation in regard to parking. They ensure that certain types of businesses and restaurants have adequate parking for customers. However, parking lots contribute to sprawl heavily and space buildings out further than necessary which discourages walking. Parking maximums limit the amount of parking that a business can have by capping the number of spaces. By having parking maximums, the town or locale can control where and how much parking is available to help to concentrate the activities, amenities, and residences. Parking maximums can be difficult to adjust to, especially in areas where the majority of transportation is done by car. Businesses do have to worry that if they have insufficient parking or no parking that customers will choose other businesses. Thus if this method is used, it is generally in the best interest of the business owners to have the maximums applied to a region of a town such as a downtown so that all businesses have the same parameters.

Afterwards, tax incentives can be used to push developers and consumers to build and live in more central areas. This also discourages sprawl, and saves farmlands, habitats and more. A split-rate tax, when incentives are used to encourage developing existing areas rather than undeveloped areas, may also be used to incentivize redeveloping brownfields (a property that has known or potential contamination – the EPA provides grants for cleaning up these sites). This will help save money by centralizing infrastructure such as sewer, energy, and roadways.

Beyond the Local Level

The state can facilitate smart growth at the local level. Maryland recently created a cabinet position that focuses on smart growth, as well as an office dedicated to smart growth. Similarly, New Jersey Governor James McGreevey announced smart growth as a central issue for his office and established a Smart Growth Policy Council. Because these steps for smart growth are generally only conceivable at a local level, the support from state and federal governments could come in the form of grants, resource offices with smart growth specialists, or subsidies for areas implementing smart growth. At the federal level, the EPA advocates for smart growth and provides funding in the form of grants for smart growth features, however, there have also been a few federal officeholders that have advocated for smart growth policies within Congress and other bureaucracies.

March 9, 2022
Building from the Bottom Up: Grassroots Development in Sub-Saharan Africa

Introduction

From mission trips to Red Cross donations to foreign aid from the World Bank, international development is often perceived as flowing unilaterally from the Global North to the Global South. Arguably more than any other region on the planet, Africa is often conceptualized as the endpoint of this international development cycle. But considering how 40 years of so-called “development” aid from international lenders have only spurred more tumult, what if Africa was recognized for its own creation, not reception, of progress? This form of indigenously-generated progress in Africa is often called to mind with the phrase grassroots development.

Definitions and Terminology

Also known as community-led development, grassroots development is a bottom-up process by which a community defines its own socio-politico-economic needs and implements strategies to achieve them at the local, regional, national, or international level. Grassroots development can involve various sectors such as agriculture, education, infrastructure, and healthcare. However, the term “grassroots development” exists against a backdrop of controversy concerning the eurocentric implications of “development” as a concept. “Development” emerged as a common theory in Western foreign policy discourse in the mid-1900s, as a product of Modernization theory and the Truman Doctrine. Today, many scholars and activists see “development” as a culturally-imperialist conjecture. They believe it absolves the West of its role in creating the “underdevelopment” it sees as an inherent feature of the global south while suggesting that the success of nations could be accurately gauged by Western measures like GDP.

Because of this, there exists a push amongst some African grassroots activists to erase the word “development” from social progress discourse because it ignores the political nature of “underdevelopment.” The term obscures colonialism’s long history of forced impoverishment, political destabilization, and cultural erasure, expecting African nations to simply “develop” from it. For many grassroots changemakers in Africa, however, the challenge is not development but emancipation.

On the other hand, some African scholars divorce the term from Western imperialist concepts of modernity yet still use the term to describe the fight for socio-political progress. Whether it is referred to as emancipation, participatory development, grassroots development, or another name, the bottom-up paradigm remains the same. For Africa in particular, this bottom-up strategy represents a shift away from Western concepts of “modernity” and dependence on foreign aid to self-reliant, pluralistic, and Pan-Africanist strategies of progress.

History of Grassroots Movements in Sub-Saharan Africa

While grassroots development has become a buzzword in global affairs, it is not a novel concept in Sub-Saharan Africa. In fact, popular activism has served as the foundation for successful independence movements and anti-corruption uprisings across the continent for more than a century.

Anti-colonial uprisings from the 1880s through the 1950s provide early examples of grassroots organizing in Africa. In the Matabeleland Rebellion of 1896, a local spiritual leader galvanized the people of Southern Rhodesia (presently Zimbabwe) to rise up against the British South Africa company. Over 50 years later, trade unionists, women, and students formed grassroots movements that pushed Guinea’s Sékou Touré to reject a constricting French constitution and instead declare independence in 1958.

However, immediately after the era of independence, increasing national power led to the suppression and integration of grassroots organizations into national parties from the 1960s to the 1970s. In this period, Sub-Saharan Africa saw the rise of centralized national ruling parties, many of which epitomized nationalist beliefs by claiming a monopoly on national progress and perceiving grassroots movements as threats to the independent governments they helped create. Grassroots movements were pacified or integrated into national systems. For example, preexisting peasant unions were dissolved by Mali’s first post-colonial ruling party, and popular resistance to this dissolution was violently repressed by the state.

As OPEC oil price hikes in the early 1970s exacerbated the financial crises of several Sub-Saharan nations, an era of national debt and structural adjustment emerged and continued until the early 1990s. This period saw an immense increase in grassroots activity for two reasons. First, the erosion of state power under structural adjustment programs (SAPs) decreased previous state suppression of grassroots movements. Second, the deleterious effects of SAPs on already-marginalized communities such as the rural poor, working-class, and women galvanized those populations to protest top-down development models that increased their poverty. This era marked the first time that local grassroots movements partnered with international NGOs.

The 1990s brought a process of “NGOization” to Sub-Saharan Africa, in which the number of registered formal nonprofit organizations skyrocketed. The wave of pro-democracy movements in the 1990s and 2000s led to a preference for highly professionalized and bureaucratized transnational agencies over less formal grassroots organizations. Thus, private donations and public funds flowed to the formal nonprofit sector.

While the 1990s and 2000s constricted space for grassroots activity in Sub-Saharan Africa, the 2010s have seen a reawakening of grassroots priorities. Younger generations born in post-independence Africa are actively protesting authoritarian national governments and Western imperialism without the influence of donor agendas. Students have organized notable grassroots movements for the decolonization of education in South Africa, against authoritarianism in Angola and Zimbabwe, and for gender equality in Namibia. Even corporate NGOs have adopted more grassroots-friendly stances, although some remark that the use of buzzwords like “grassroots,” “human-centered,” and “community partnerships” has done little to change the top-down approaches of large transnational NGOs.

Relative Benefits of Grassroots Organizations

Despite their tumultuous history in Sub-Saharan Africa, grassroots development organizations offer several benefits relative to both state-led development programs and large transnational NGOs.

Compared to many African national governments, grassroots movements may be more accessible and efficient in their efforts to reduce poverty and promote equality. Due to a long history of colonialism and structural adjustment causing the typical African state to grow separately from society and its wills, many national governments have been forced to focus on meeting loan conditions rather than listening to constituents. Even barring a preoccupation with loan conditionalities, national governments are often inaccessible to the most vulnerable populations who “live far from international conference halls and capital cities.” Conversely, grassroots movements are more accessible to locals who might not have the education or wealth to pursue careers in government. With their heightened sensitivity to human rights abuses on the ground, they can also fill key gaps in human rights protection left unfilled by national governments.

Compared to larger transnational NGOs, grassroots organizations feature several unique strengths. From the Red Cross to Oxfam, several large NGOs have come under fire for violence towards the local populations they purport to serve. The bureaucratized nature of many such organizations makes it difficult for local communities to have a say in their strategies, resulting in “band-aid” solutions that are divorced from local cultural and economic contexts. Even when local activists offer their input, many large nonprofits—even those who preach grassroots partnerships—end up predicating decisions on the opinions of major donors and elite political interests rather than the people they purport to serve. On top of this, there is a more philosophical drawback to transnational, Western-based NGOs with all-White boards purporting to save the Global South from problems that were largely created by Western colonialism. Grassroots movements remedy many of these drawbacks. As organizations created by members of a community for their community, they are inherently people-centered and thus more in tune with nuanced local dynamics. This is significant seeing as alignment with community goals is a predictor of nonprofit success.

While grassroots organizations certainly provide a host of advantages, it is important to note that grassroots movements cannot effectively operate in a vacuum. Rather, effective strategies for change often emerge when grassroots movements partner with other institutions such as local governments to make progress.

Challenges for Grassroots Organizations

While the international community is gradually becoming more aware of the important role that grassroots organizations play in African development, grassroots organizers still face myriad obstacles. Broadly, the biggest barrier for grassroots organizations is the dominance of large, corporatized NGOs that have turned charity into a lucrative industry. Both public and private donors are more likely to give funds to more familiar or formal organizations, leaving grassroots movements with few paths to substantive funding except being integrated into the business models of larger NGOs. When they do try to get involved with larger NGOs or departments of their national government, grassroots organizers are required to complete substantial legal paperwork. This makes it more likely for people with experience in the formal sector or with higher levels of education—predominantly men—to be able to partner with larger institutions when they want to, placing the most vulnerable at even more of a disadvantage when it comes to making their voices heard.

Conclusion

Grassroots organizations and community-led activism are embedded in the cultural and political history of Africa. They proved key in securing liberation from formal colonialism, and despite barriers to success, African grassroots movements are on the rise again. Overall, grassroots movements truly embody the struggle for emancipation. They resist the influence of Western elite donors while protesting the remnants of structural adjustment programs and other imperialist policies. They are grounded in the ideas and innovation of African people, subverting the sentiment that Africa is the recipient or “endpoint” of development initiatives. In this sense, grassroots participatory organizations are a true symbol of the oft-revered mantra “African solutions to African problems.”

March 8, 2022
Environmental Impacts of Agriculture & Food Production

Monocropping

The common utilization of monocropping in early history has proven to be environmentally unsustainable, as this farming technique is detrimental to soil health. Monocropping exhausts soil of nutrients, and is therefore less productive in growing future crops. Growing one crop on the same plot of land decreases the biodiversity of fields, since only one or two crops are consuming an entire field. Additionally, pesticides are necessary to control a multitude of insect predators. If a pest’s food source comes from a large field of one crop, it will have abundant resources to reproduce in large numbers.

Vertical Integration

One major change in modern farming practice is “vertical integration“, which marked a shift from small farms producing many different crops to industrialized systems that focus on mass production. These large farming systems are often run by large corporations that dominate the food industry by creating “factory farms”. The growth of crops on these farms usually involves large-scale production sites to provide for the increasing human population. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are often used, as well as harmful animal antibiotics to treat animals involved in food production. Animal confinements, known as CAFOs, are also commonly used in industrial agriculture and are employed to feed animals used in food preparation.

CAFOs are large sources of pollution, and affect both air and water quality. The 1972 Clean Water Act prompted the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate animal confinement, but current regulations often lack enforcement. Many animal rights activists object to the treatment of animals in CAFOs. In practice, many of the cages created for animals are small and overcrowded, and pain medications are not utilized for painful procedures, such as tail docking. In 1970, the average dairy farm supported 19 cattle, and in 2006, this number grew to 120. Some of the largest farms in the country maintain more than 15,000 cattle. CAFOs are often not monitored closely by the EPA, so the enforcement of environmental and humane policies is limited.

Fertilizer

The use of fertilizer in farming can have negative environmental repercussions. For example, through natural runoff, chemicals in the fertilizer, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, enter nearby waterways. These chemicals promote the growth of microorganisms within water systems, inducing processes like eutrophication, which is caused by excessive algal growth and leads to the depletion of dissolved oxygen within water ecosystems. The microorganism “blooms”, causing fish and other organisms to suffocate from a lack of oxygen, eventually leading to a surplus of dead organisms, decreasing the overall water quality. In addition, some bacteria within manure can cause disease as well. Lastly, fertilizers can be dangerous to groundwater sources. When nitrates enter the soil, they are not absorbed within the ground, which causes them to seep into groundwater. In drinking water, nitrates can cause methemoglobinemia, which is a blood disorder in humans and other warm-blooded animals.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

In 2019, the agriculture sector accounted for 10 percent of US greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation of products, farming practices and machines, and factories all contribute to a larger abundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Fertilizers used on agricultural soil, the growth of nitrogen-fixing crops, and irrigation practices—among other methods of production—promote the release of nitrous oxide into the atmosphere. Livestock contribute to atmospheric methane as they undergo enteric fermentation, which involves the digestion of food within their stomachs, specifically the stomachs of cattle. Manure management also affects the amount of greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere, currently accounting for 12 percent of agriculture-related emissions in the United States. Agriculture emission rates have increased by 12 percent since 1990. This is due to an increase in nitrous oxide releases from soil and livestock manure management, as well as a rise in methane production from livestock.

While greenhouse gas emissions prove to be an environmental problem, there are many opportunities to reduce the rate and quantity of their release into the atmosphere. Because the overuse of fertilizers leads to an increased production of nitrous oxide emissions, using less fertilizer can decrease emissions. Furthermore, by modifying pasture quality, farmers can decrease the amount of methane contributed to emission rates. Lastly, managing manure in a more sustainable way can reduce nitrous oxide and methane emissions.

Legislation

Many pieces of legislation have been aimed at regulating food production in an attempt to lower its impact on the environment. In 1970, the Clean Air Act was established, which regulated atmospheric emissions. The Clean Air Act was amended multiple times, as stricter policies were implemented to control air emissions. To address water pollution concerns, the 1972 Clean Water Act, an amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, was passed to monitor the amount of pollution in water systems. This law gives the EPA authority to set standards for wastewater. Finally, in 2007, the EPA mandated the “public reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from large sources.’. This was part of the Fiscal Year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act.

Sustainable Approach

Many farmers try to incorporate sustainable practices into their work. These farmers grow a more diverse set of crops and employ methods to minimize environmental impacts. Farmers incorporate crop rotation—using a variety of crops in their fields—and combine livestock and plants while farming, among other practices. Furthermore, farmers are trying to move away from the use of tillage in their routines. As sustainable agricultural practices become more prevalent, the future of farming will become more environmentally safe.

March 7, 2022
2021 Russian Gosduma Election

The Gosduma

What is it?

The Gosudárstvennaya duma, or Gosduma, refers to the State Duma of Russia. The Gosduma is the lower house of the Federal Assembly of Russia, while the Federation Council is the upper house. Since October 2016, Vyacheslav Volodin (UR) has served as chairman of the legislative body. The Gosduma consists of 450 members, referred to as “deputies,” who serve 5-year terms. To achieve an electoral majority in the Gosduma, a party must occupy 226 seats.

Comparison to U.S. Congress

Compared to the United States’ legislative system, the Gosduma shares more similarities to the House of Representatives. Both are the lower houses of their respective legislative bodies, and both consist of more members than the upper house. Additionally, the number of representatives each federal subject receives is not uniform. However, their differences are striking.

In the Gosduma, all 85 federal subjects are represented; this includes oblasts, republics, krais, autonomous okrugs, federal cities, and autonomous oblasts. However, while the number of representatives a U.S. state receives is contingent on its population, the number of representatives a federal subject receives is contingent on the number of constituencies, or sub-regions within it. For example, Adygea, a republic, has one constituency, while the Rostov Oblast has seven constituencies. Thus, the two federal subjects are represented by one and seven representatives in the Gosduma, respectively.

A second significant difference between the U.S. House and Russian Gosduma is how they behave politically. In the case of the U.S. House of Representatives, the House is a significant legislative body. The Gosduma is as well, but compared to the House, the Gosduma is more executive-focused. Rather than serving primarily as a legislative body, the Gosduma is a reliable ally of the executive and works to forward the policy goals of the Putin Administration.

Administrative Divisions of Russia

Image courtesy of World Atlas

Primary Political Parties in Russia

United Russia—Yedinaya Rossiya

United Russia (UR) is the largest and most influential political party in Russia. Former President Dmitry Medvedev has chaired the party since 2012, and the party is the legislative backbone for President Vladimir Putin. Although it is a centrist, big-tent party, UR is definitively conservative and promotes nationalist positions like building up Russia’s military, staunch Euroscepticism, and further ties between the state and the Russian Orthodox Church.

Liberal Democratic Party of Russia—Liberal’no-demokraticheskaya partiya Rossii

Of the parties that occupy seats in the Gosduma, the LDPR is unquestionably the most ultra-nationalist, right-wing party. Vladimir Zhirinovsky has led the party since the 1990s, but despite being far more hardline and conservative than UR, the LDPR poses virtually no threat to the Putin regime.

Communist Party of the Russian Federation—Kommunističeskaya Partiya Rossijkoj Federatsii

The Communist Party traces its roots back to the early revolutionary movement in imperial Russia and built upon Marxist-Leninist ideology. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the creation of the independent Russian Federation, communist parties were banned between 1991 and 1993. However, in 1993, the Communist Party officially registered as a legal political party with the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation.

A Just Russia-For Truth—Spravedlivaya Rossiya-Za pravdu

Compared to UR, the LDPR, and the Communist Party, A Just Russia is relatively new, having been founded in 2006. The party is considered to be center-left while being a moderate supporter of the Putin regime. It backed him during the 2018 presidential election after opting not to nominate any of its members for election.

Russian United Democratic Party “Yabloko”—Rossiyskaya obyedinyonnaya demokraticheskaya partiya

Of the four aforementioned political parties, “Yabloko” is perhaps the most unique. It is a social-liberal, center-left party with favorable views on the European Union and the United States. These views make it an outlier compared to most Russian parties, including liberal and left-wing parties.

Political Spectrum of Russian Political Parties

Election Results

Election Background

Between September 17^th and 19^th in 2021, Russians across the country turned out to vote for their constituency’s representative to the Gosduma. It is estimated that approximately 51.7% of eligible voters cast their ballots.

Results

In total, United Russia won just under 50% of the vote. This signaled that despite losing 19 seats, resulting in 324 seats, the pro-Putin United Russia party is still undoubtedly in control. The closest competitor to UR was the Communist Party which amassed just under 19% of the vote and gained 15 seats, increasing its total to 57. Although the LDPR won over 7.5% of the vote, the party experienced a net loss in seats resulting in only 21 seats occupied by its politicians. A Just Russia won 7.46% of the vote but experienced positive growth as the 4 additional seats won by the party resulted in a total of 27 occupied seats. Lastly, “Yabloko” won a mere 1.3% of the vote, resulting in the party occupying 0 seats in the Gosduma.

Composition of the Gosduma post-election

Image courtesy of Radio Free Europe/Free Liberty

Why are the results important?

Although the election results were unsurprising, they indicate that the Putin regime is still squarely in power. Despite losing 19 seats, UR has retained a supermajority and controls the legislative process. Despite UR’s significant victory, the election has been marred by controversy. Communist Party officials, candidates, and supporters alleged that the government had committed significant election fraud, and allies of imprisoned dissident Alexei Navalny echoed the CP’s objections.

Anti-corruption demonstrators at the Communist Party rally following the preliminary results

Implications for the United States

For the United States, the results of the Gosduma election mean very little. United Russia remains the most powerful party with an anti-western stance, and its victory signals that this position will continue. Moreover, it indicates that anti-American sentiment is still prevalent in Russian society, at least to some extent.
The response by the U.S. government was unsurprising. In a press statement, Ned Price, a U.S. State Department Spokesperson, condemned the election and said that it “took place under conditions not conducive to free and fair proceedings.” Moreover, the U.S. criticized the Russian government’s use of laws that designate opposition political groups and movements as “extremist organizations” and “foreign agents.”

March 4, 2022
Introduction to US Government’s System of Checks and Balance
Introduction

Checks and balances refers to a system of government allowing separate government branches to “check” or overturn acts of one branch if those acts are unconstitutional. Checks function to “balance” governing power equally among branches. The U.S. federal government’s system of checks and balances exists in the powers shared between its three branches of government which are the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The U.S system of checks and balances serves democratic governance by functioning to protect individual rights and stop any one part of the government from becoming too powerful.

Historical Motivation

American colonists desired a government that functioned to protect individual rights. In colonial America, the British government enacted laws subjecting colonists to taxation without representation. British authorities stationed in the colonies are also widely documented to have regularly violated colonists’ individual rights. As a result, in 1775, colonists revolted. Their goal was to establish a government that functioned without leadership by one all-powerful person. In doing so, they aimed to establish a government featuring a system of checks and balances—a government comprised of multiple facets, any one of which could step in to overturn acts of another if such acts were likely to result in the violation of citizens’ individual rights. The 1787 Constitution serves this desire by creating a government with three branches and awarding each branch certain governing powers and certain checking powers.

Judicial Branch

The judicial branch consists of the federal judiciary: the Supreme Court, appellate courts, and district courts. The Constitution awards the judicial branch the power to:
1. Interpret how federal laws are meant to be applied by their authors,
2. Determine whether a law aligns with our Constitution, and
3. Apply it to individual cases.
This power only applies to those laws which are tried in court as a result of lawsuits filed by citizens claiming their individual rights have become violated in their application. The Constitution requires that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of laws determine how district and appellate courts must henceforth apply that law to individual cases. This is insofar as their application must agree with this interpretation. The Constitution awards the judicial branch checking power over the executive branch in the form of their responsibility to overturn presidential vetoes they deem unconstitutional. An executive order is an act of presidential power to create a law without prior approval from Congress.

Legislative Branch

The legislative branch consists of Congress i.e., the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Constitution awards the legislative branch governing power to draft (or “make”) laws, declare war, regulate interstate and foreign commerce, and control spending and tax policies. The legislative branch has checking power over the judicial branch in the form of a Congressional chamber’s ability to vote to impeach federal judges and in the form of their responsibility to determine the jurisdiction of federal courts i.e., to determine the types of cases federal courts can rule on. For certain disputes, however, the Constitution overrides the legislative branch’s capacity to determine jurisdiction and guarantees the Supreme Court original jurisdiction. Examples of such disputes are those between U.S. states. The legislative branch also has checking power over the executive branch through the ability to vote to impeach the president and/or members of their administration and in the form of their responsibility to vote to pass treaties proposed by the president, determine Presidential nominations, and determine the current budget for executive offices

Executive Branch

The executive branch includes the president and their administration. The Constitution awards the executive branch the governing power to enforce laws. The executive branch has checking power over the judicial branch in the form of an ability to nominate Supreme Court judges when there is a vacancy. The executive branch also has checking power over the legislative branch in the form of an ability to overturn laws that Congress has recently approved. This act is otherwise known as a presidential veto.
March 3, 2022
Introduction to Individual Rights and the U.S. Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights comprises the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution and functions to protect citizens’ access to individual rights.

John Locke’s Conception of “Individual Rights” and the Purpose of Government

17th-century British philosopher John Locke believed that people are equal in that they are each born with the same “natural, inalienable” rights. Locke defined “natural rights” as rights people have because of one’s personhood. Natural rights are inalienable, meaning they cannot be given or taken away. He otherwise referred to natural rights as individual rights.

Locke believed individual rights can be violated through others’ actions. For example, imagine a king who penalizes or threatens to penalize citizens for speaking ill of government functioning. According to Locke, this king violates citizens’ individual right to liberty. He considered a liberated person, in the context of a law-bound society, as one living free from governance by political authorities other than political authorities which citizens freely vote into office. Because Locke believed people’s equality to be grounded in individual rights, he would consider this king’s violation of citizens’ liberty as tantamount to oppression.

Accordingly, Locke believed the purpose of government was to protect individual rights. He saw people as “naturally” equal which meant people own themselves and their property. He also thought people join societies to ensure their own safety and the protection of their individual rights by surrounding themselves with others who desire the same security. From these ideas, Locke concluded the purpose for people to establish a government is to protect individual rights, which he summarized in writing as “life, liberty, and property”. He concluded that if one’s government does not function to protect individual rights, citizens are justified in acting to disassemble it.

American Colonists’ Oppression by the British Government

U.S. colonists decided to establish a government respecting individual rights. The U.S. colonies were established on British-owned North American land. In exchange for permission to settle in North America, the Monarch required colonists to continue living under British law. In 1765, Britain enacted the Stamp Act which required colonists to pay taxes on imported business and legal documents, pamphlets, books, and newspapers. British authorities stationed in the colonies largely enforced this act by warrantlessly invading colonists’ homes to determine if a colonist’s stamp-act relevant items were obtained through illegal import. British authorities stationed in the colonies also regularly denied colonists’ freedom of speech, press, and assembly and regularly arrested colonists for arbitrary reasons. Colonists arrested for arbitrary reasons were often then subjected to excessive fines and bail. In addition, it was common for British government authorities living in the colonies to board in colonists’ homes without the homeowner’s permission.

Colonists resented the Stamp Act because it required them to pay taxes to a government in which they lacked representation. Colonists also resented British authorities stationed in the colonies for violating existing English laws protecting colonists’ individual rights. Adhering to Locke’s philosophy on individual rights, colonists revolted against the British government. They aimed to sever political ties with the British to enable self-government for the sake of escaping their subjection to oppressive rule.

The (1776) Declaration of Independence and the (1781) Articles of Confederation

The Declaration of Independence declared colonists’ support for Locke’s philosophy by announcing colonists’ desire to sever political ties with the British and enable self-government. It defended this claim by listing ways British authorities regularly violated colonists’ individual rights. Author Thomas Jefferson summarized colonists’ individual rights deserving of protection as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.

The (1787) Articles of Confederation established the U.S. as a new nation by awarding powers to a federal government. The Articles did not award the federal government powers to tax citizens, meaning the United States could not create or finance a military. Congress chose to not to do so to limit the power the government could potentially use to oppress citizens. Many citizens responded to the articles with concern that the federal government’s inability to maintain a military left them vulnerable. To address these concerns, congress members gathered in Philadelphia for the Constitutional Convention later that year. Here Congress created the 1787 draft of the U.S. Constitution which laid out plans for government functioning more capable of protecting citizens’ individual rights from dismissal by foreign entities.

The (1787) U.S. Constitution

The 1787 Constitution instituted a U.S. federal government with three tiers, creating a system of checks and balances. It left out mention of powers that do not belong to the federal government as well as mention of the individual rights the federal government is required to respect. These features of the Constitution stem from negotiations during the Constitutional Convention, which produced two political parties: federalists and antifederalists. Both parties wanted to establish a U.S. federal government that incorporated a system of checks and balances and would be unable to ignore individual rights.
- Federalists believed a strong national government would best protect citizens’ individual rights. Accordingly, federalists supported the construction of the 1787 constitution. Federalists also thought the act of adding a bill of rights to the constitution would be superfluous as they believed the construction of the 1787 constitution would protect individual rights necessarily.
- Antifederalists believed a bill of rights would be categorical to protect individual rights. This is because they believed majority groups would inevitably attempt to oppress minority groups.
Ratification of the 1787 Constitution required the support of all thirteen states. Congress understood states with majority antifederalist populations would likely only agree to the Constitution if a bill of rights were added. To enable a more immediate enactment of a constitution, Congress promised these states the eventual addition of a bill of rights. On September 17^th of 1787, and with antifederalist states having agreed to Congress’s offer for compromise, Congress enacted the U.S. Constitution. In 1791, Congress added the Bill of Rights.

Individual Rights and the U.S. Bill of Rights

The following are summaries of each of the ten amendments composing the Bill of Rights.
1. Congress must not create laws barring citizens’ right to freedom of religion, speech, assembly, and petition.
2. Citizens may own and carry a firearm to enable the existence of a functioning U.S. militia.
3. During peace or war times, soldiers are prohibited from lodging in homes unless permitted by the homeowner.
4. Government authorities must not subject citizens to unreasonable searches and seizures or subject them to arbitrary arrests.
5. Citizens on trial for a crime have a right to (1) due process of law, (2) freedom from government coercion to incriminate oneself, and (3) freedom from double jeopardy.
6. Citizens accused of a crime have the right to (1) a speedy trial, (2) a lawyer, (3) a jury whose members lack the motivation to agree with either the plaintiff or defendant, (4) know the identity of their accuser, (5) know the allegations made by their accuser, and to (6) know any evidence that has been brought forward to support accusations made against them.
7. Citizens accused of a civil crime have the right to be trialed for that crime with the use of a grand jury.
8. Government must not subject citizens to cruel or unusual punishment or excessive fines and bail.
9. The fact that citizens have certain individual rights which are stated in the Constitution does not mean that citizens also do not have other rights which have yet to be spelled out in a governing document.
10. The federal government only has those powers given by the Constitution. Powers that the Constitution does not list effectively belong to either state governments or to or individuals.
March 1, 2022