Search

This paper examines the role that racial and ethnic diversity plays in improving the legislative success of minority interest groups. Relying on campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures to explain minority interest groups’ influence on legislators’ behavior is not sufficient, because most minority organizations are public charities, or 501(c)(3) organizations, and as such are both banned by federal law from making candidate contributions and limited in how much they can spend on federal lobbying. I argue, however, that the inclusion of more blacks and Latinos on congressional committees enhances the lobbying influence—and thus the legislative success—of civil rights organizations in Congress. Using data from lobbying disclosure reports on bills supported by black American and Latino civil rights groups in the 110th Congress (2007–2008) and 111th Congress (2009–2010), as well as House markup data, I find that National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (LCCR), and UnidosUS-supported bills referred to House committees with greater proportions of racial and ethnic minorities received more markups than did bills referred to House committees with less diversity. Diversity is significant in predicting committee attention even when accounting for possible confounding factors, including committee jurisdiction and the ideological composition of committee membership.

Despite claims by normative theorists that gender diversity in Congress leads to better representation of women’s interests, the results of empirical studies have been largely mixed. While some scholars have found positive effects of gender diversity, others have found very little impact. We argue that it is not the presence of White and minority women alone that makes political institutions more responsive to women’s issues, but rather it is the organizational presence of minority men along with minority women who make similar claims for inclusion, power, and organizational formation to achieve those goals that matters. We examine to what extent gender and racial diversity have led to more attention to issues that directly and indirectly impact women. Using congressional hearings data from 1951–2004, we find that the increased presence of minority men and women legislators in the House, but less so in the Senate, is responsible for keeping women’s interests on the congressional agenda. We demonstrate how an intersectional and additive approach can add both theoretical and empirical value to the study of political representation by demonstrating the impact of women and minorities in Congress.

In the Concept of Representation, Hanna Pitkin (1967) argues that legislators should be judged by their actions—substantive representation—and not just their closeness in characteristics to their constituents—descriptive representation. Pitkin's theoretical framework is the standard that political representation scholars use when evaluating whether the presence of women or racial and ethnic minorities in legislatures results in greater responsiveness to female or minority interests. Do female legislators better represent the interests of women in U.S. congressional committee hearings on domestic violence than male legislators? Are minority legislators more active in advocating for minority interests than white legislators in hearings relating to racial profiling? Although Pitkin is skeptical that descriptive representatives alone improve legislators' responsiveness to the interests of constituents that they descriptively represent, extensive normative and empirical analyses focusing on race and gender have demonstrated that it is not a question of whether descriptive representation matters, but rather when and how it matters to improving substantive representation (see, for example, Bratton 2005; Canon 1999; Casellas 2011; Gamble 2007; Gay 2001; Grose 2011; Haynie 2001; Lublin 1997; Mansbridge 1999; Tate 2003; Thomas 1994; Whitby 1997).

Despite claims that diversity benefits the democratic process, critics question whether increased diversity significantly improves government responsiveness and accountability beyond electoral competition and constituency influence. The authors advance a diversity infrastructure theory to explain why and how minority legislators have kept minority interests on the congressional agenda. Using data on congressional hearings held on civil rights and social welfare from 1951 to 2004, the authors find that despite the decline of national attention to civil rights and social welfare issues in general, increased diversity in the House and to a lesser extent in the Senate is responsible for keeping minority interests on the congressional agenda.

When determining whether or not legislators are representing their constituents' interests, scholars using voting studies may overstate the role of strategic factors, such as reelection goals and constituent influence, while understating the effect of descriptive characteristics. I argue that race and ethnicity matter in congressional oversight of bureaucratic policymaking. My examination of hearing transcripts from the 107th Congress indicates that minority legislators are more likely than white legislators to participate in racial-oversight hearings but not more likely than whites to participate in social welfare hearings. The results show that descriptive representation contributes to substantive representation, even if the costs of participating outweigh the electoral benefits.

SETTING: Drug resistance threatens tuberculosis (TB) control, particularly among human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infected persons.OBJECTIVE: To describe practices in the prevention and management of drug-resistant TB under antiretroviral therapy (ART) programs in lower-income countries.DESIGN: We used online questionnaires to collect program-level data on 47 ART programs in Southern Africa (n = 14), East Africa (n = 8), West Africa (n = 7), Central Africa (n = 5), Latin America (n = 7) and the Asia-Pacific (n = 6 programs) in 2012. Patient-level data were collected on 1002 adult TB patients seen at 40 of the participating ART programs.RESULTS: Phenotypic drug susceptibility testing (DST) was available in 36 (77%) ART programs, but was only used for 22% of all TB patients. Molecular DST was available in 33 (70%) programs and was used in 23% of all TB patients. Twenty ART programs (43%) provided directly observed therapy (DOT) during the entire course of treatment, 16 (34%) during the intensive phase only, and 11 (23%) did not follow DOT. Fourteen (30%) ART programs reported no access to second-line anti-tuberculosis regimens; 18 (38%) reported TB drug shortages.CONCLUSIONS: Capacity to diagnose and treat drug-resistant TB was limited across ART programs in lower-income countries. DOT was not always implemented and drug supplies were regularly interrupted, which may contribute to the global emergence of drug resistance.

Le syndrome d’hypertension portale (HTP) est frequemment rencontre dans les services de Medecine a Bamako. Cependant, aucune etude au Mali ne lui a ete consacree; d’ou l’interet de notre etude dont l’objectif etait de determiner la frequence de l’HTP et ses differentes etiologies.

A 2-month study was carried out in Mali to evaluate an immunofluorescent-antibody test (IFAT) using monoclonal probes specific for Enterocytozoon bieneusi or Encephalitozoon intestinalis . Sixty-one human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-seropositive adult patients and 71 immunocompetent children were enrolled. Microsporidia were detected in stools from 8 of 61 patients (13.1%) seropositive for HIV. A single species, E. bieneusi , was identified. All the children were negative for microsporidia. The sensitivity and specificity of IFAT were 100% compared with those of PCR, which was used as the “gold standard.” Moreover, species identification by IFAT was more rapid and less expensive than that by PCR. These results show the suitability of IFAT for detection of microsporidia in developing countries.

Resume Nous rapportons l'etude prospective de 13 patients seropositifs pour le VIH ayant consulte du 1 er decembre 1989 au 31 novembre 1992 pour une syphilis precoce. Il s'agit de 12 homosexuels et d'une toxicomane, d'âge median 33 ans (24–43 ans). La presentation clinique est evocatrice : chancre anal, chancre labial, roseole, syphilides papuleuses. L'examen au microscope a fond noir est positif chez 3 patients sur 5. Le TPHA ou l'immunofluorescence sont toujours positifs. Le titre median du VDRL est de 128 unites (16–512) chez 12 patients ; le VDRL apparait faussement negatif chez un patient, du fait d'un phenomene de zone. Une ponction lombaire, effectuee chez 10 patients sur 13, est normale chez 9. Un patient avec une neurosyphilis asymptomatique est traite par la penicilline G par voie intraveineuse ; les autres sont traites par doxycycline per os ou beneficient d'un traitement renforce par benzathine-penicilline par voie intramusculaire ou erythromycine per os. Tous les patients evaluables a un et deux ans ont gueri avec decroissance du titre du VDRL ou negativation.

This chapter examines the individual efforts of legislators to advocate for minority interests via the protection of civil rights. Specifically, it takes a closer look at how much time members of Congress spent in committee deliberations supporting minority interests during the 103rd Congress (1993–1995), years of Democratic control of both chambers of Congress; the 104th Congress (1995–1997), years when a Republican Congress opposed a Democratic president; and the 107th Congress (2001–2003), years of continued Republican control of Congress, now under a Republican president. It is argued that strategic group uplift produces systematic racial and ethnic differences between minority legislators and white legislators: black and minority legislators actively promote and defend minority interests through strategic participation in hearings.

This chapter examines the advocacy efforts of members of Congress for policies designed to help poor people. It investigates whether the differences that exist between black, Latino, and white legislators in racial and ethnic hearings also occur in social welfare hearings. It examine legislators' interventions in committee deliberations during part of the Clinton era (1993–1997) and the first term of the George W. Bush presidency (2001–2003). It focuses on how actively legislators engaged in the deliberations in terms of questioning witnesses and interacting with fellow members of Congress. It also examines other legislative interventions, such as testifying at hearings in favor of social welfare policies that benefit the poor and requesting hearings designed to help poor people, who are disproportionately minorities.