The William & Mary Policy Review is a publication of the College of William & Mary’s Public Policy Program. The Policy Review‘s purpose is to showcase critical analysis, applied research, and engaging opinions on current policy issues.
We publish two semi-annual issues of the Policy Review, an in-depth and peer-reviewed academic journal, per academic year. Articles published in our print journal may be viewed on our website for free. Submissions requirements for authors interested in publication may be found here.
Additionally, we semi-regularly publish more concise blog posts pertaining to contemporary policy topic areas. Authors primarily consist of current graduate students of public policy at William & Mary though pieces are additionally contributed by undergraduate interns, affiliated researchers as well as invited guests.
Preview of the Blog
Although Official Development Assistance (ODA) fell 2.7% in 2018, things in the development world are shaking up. The Chinese Belt and Road Initiative is in full force. The United States is set to launch the new U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (USIDFC) this year. In addition to government action, development wonks continue to innovate. These innovations include not only policy goals to achieve the sustainable development goals (SDGs) by 2030, but also tangible development tools that are impacting the world as we know it. Specifically, Development Impact Bonds (DIBs) might be the hottest topic in international development that you have not heard about yet.
In recent years, wildfires have wrought havoc across the American West. Each year, flames tear through hundreds of thousands of acres and destroy thousands of structures; some years, scores of individuals lose their lives. In California, the 2017 Tubbs Fire and 2018 Camp Fire set back-to-back, ignominious records for the most destructive fires in state history. And this duet of record-setting blazes was no one-off occurrence – wildfires out West have become increasingly larger and more intense over the past four decades.
On March 29, 2019 Britain will no longer be part of the European Union, a result of the June 23, 2016 referendum in the United Kingdom known as Brexit. The “Vote Leave” campaign won 51.9% of the country’s vote, based on a platform of border security, immigration control, dissatisfaction with EU spending, trade management, and strengthening democracy. At the time of the referendum, Americans were preoccupied with our own campaigns (and have since been a bit distracted) and took little notice as to the bilateral and international implications this break-up would have for us. So, what does Brexit mean for the United States?
As conservative states continue to resist Medicaid expansion, pro-expansion advocates may be tempted to use healthy behavior incentives (HBIs) as an homage to conservative ‘personal responsibility’ values to win over conservative politicians. This post describes Medicaid HBIs, their incentives, recent research findings on their outcomes, and the policy implications of their adoption. It finds that states considering adopting HBIs as part of their Medicaid expansions should seriously consider that the costs of implementing such programs will likely outweigh the benefits.
The bottom line is that volunteers are non-negotiable for nonprofits; they are necessary for an organization’s survival. While some nonprofits operate with big overhead budgets and complete full-time staff, there are many others that are run entirely by volunteers. Most nonprofits fall somewhere in between and no matter the range of reliance, nonprofit organizations need volunteers to function.
On July 26, 2017, President Donald Trump announced to the world that the United States military would no longer allow transgender people to serve as military personnel. Over the span of three tweets, he argued that transgender individuals create costs and cause disruption, impacting the US military’s effectiveness and readiness. Since the announcement, there has been a lively discourse between the LGBTQ+ community and its allies and those who support the ban. The question remains; is a ban on all transgender military personnel feasible?