No abstract

No abstract

Objective. As the price of energy swells, renewable energy sources will serve as important alternatives to fossil fuels. Identifying what influences a state to adopt a policy that promotes the construction of renewable energy sources is an important step toward understanding the nature of our future energy supplies. Methods. Using an event-history analysis, we examine three competing diffusion explanations on the likelihood of a state adopting net metering. Results. We find that regional policy diffusion influences the likelihood of a state to adopt a net metering policy. Conclusions. The results suggest that states are learning from one another and that the EPA's regional offices help facilitate this diffusion.The process through which policies are replicated and spread across the country is a vital part of the policy process. Scholars have devoted a great deal of attention in recent years to state policy adoption and diffusion (Berry and Berry, 2007). However, this scholarship has overlooked the diffusion of renewable resource policies. As global warming becomes a greater public concern, and the cost of fossil fuels continues to climb, policies that encourage renewable energy will become increasingly important. Given a lack of federal direction regarding renewable energy policy, the states have been forced into taking a more proactive role in best using their natural energy resources (Brown, Brutoco, and Cusumano, 2007).One way states have addressed clean energy production is through creating an incentive structure to foster the still fledgling, yet potentially potent, renewable energy industry. The traditional way to do this has been to offer financial incentives for individuals, companies, or schools to construct renewable energy production sources such as photovoltaic solar arrays or wind turbine units. Examples of these incentives include research and development grants, tax credits, and, most basically, the public funding of various

A 2009 national telephone survey of 924 U.S. adults assessed perceptions of terrorism and homeland security issues. Respondents rated severity of effects, level of understanding, number affected, and likelihood of four terrorist threats: poisoned water supply; explosion of a small nuclear device in a major U.S. city; an airplane attack similar to 9/11; and explosion of a bomb in a building, train, subway, or highway. Respondents rated perceived risk and willingness to pay (WTP) for dealing with each threat. Demographic, attitudinal, and party affiliation data were collected. Respondents rated bomb as highest in perceived risk but gave the highest WTP ratings to nuclear device. For both perceived risk and WTP, psychometric variables were far stronger predictors than were demographic ones. OLS regression analyses using both types of variables to predict perceived risk found only two significant demographic predictors for any threat--Democrat (a negative predictor for bomb) and white male (a significant positive predictor for airline attack). In contrast, among psychometric variables, severity, number affected, and likelihood were predictors of all four threats and level of understanding was a predictor for one. For WTP, education was a negative predictor for three threats; no other demographic variables were significant predictors for any threat. Among psychometric variables, perceived risk and number affected were positive predictors of WTP for all four threats; severity and likelihood were predictors for three; level of understanding was a significant predictor for two.

The theoretical and empirical debate over the ability of the U.S. Supreme Court to influence public opinion through its decisions is far from settled. Scholars have examined the question using a variety of theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence, but there is no theoretical consensus, nor are the empirical studies without methodological weaknesses. We enter this debate in an attempt to bring some clarity to the theoretical approaches, overcome some of the methodological shortcomings, and bring a yet unstudied issue area, Court decisions on gay civil rights, under scrutiny. We argue that the ability of Court decisions to influence public opinion is a function of the salience of the issue, the political context, and case specific factors at the aggregate level. At the individual level these factors are also relevant, but citizen characteristics must also be taken into consideration. Our analysis of aggregate level and individual level opinion does indeed suggest that Court decisions can influence public opinion. However, the ability of Court decisions to influence public opinion is conditional. Our findings lend support to the legitimation hypothesis and the structural effects model. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our findings and suggestions for future research.