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
On Wednesday February 6th, President Donald Trump announced that he would nominate David Malpass to be the next president of the World Bank. This follows current World Bank President Jim Yong Kim’s surprise resignation in January. Sources conclude that Kim believes he can make more of an impact in the private sector and he is expected to continue his development work with a firm. Currently, Kristalina Georgieva, World Bank’s CEO, is serving as interim President. As the leadership of the World Bank transitions, it raises two major questions: who is David Malpass and why does the President of the United States decide who heads the World Bank?
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?
It’s an election year. Politics and policy conversations –whether intelligent or not- seem to be everywhere. This election cycle we have heard quite a bit about the economy but surprisingly not much about entitlements – at least not since the Republican primary ended. This is surprising considering entitlement spending accounts for nearly half of the federal government’s budget. That makes the issue an obvious channel for candidates to illustrate their particular politics on the role of government, government spending, and the economy. Not only that, but it is an issue that impacts every voter, whether they are retired, close to retirement, or paying taxes to fund others’ retirement. However, this election cycle, strangely enough, louder, more colorful topics have trumped the political arena and national conversation.
Board composition is broad challenge felt across the nonprofit sector and overarching literature points to a myriad of “must haves” for successful nonprofit organization (NPO) boards. Among these key elements is diversity and loyalty to the organization’s mission. Constructing a board that is both diverse in skill and loyal to an organization’s mission to ensure highly effective leadership is a challenge that most NPOs face.
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?