Peak Car Travel in the United States: Two-Decade-Long Phenomenon at the State Level

2015 ◽  
Vol 2531 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy J. Garceau ◽  
Carol Atkinson-Palombo ◽  
Norman Garrick
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Economic Growth ◽  
State Level ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Economic Consequences ◽  
National Scale ◽  
Peak Car ◽  
Car Travel

Peak car travel is an international phenomenon that became evident in the United States on a national scale in 2004. Potentially related to peak car travel is the decoupling of economic growth from driving levels. A wealth of research has addressed these phenomena on a national scale in the United States and other developed countries. Yet few studies have been undertaken on other geographic scales, especially the statewide scale in the United States. This study investigated U.S. state-level driving and economic patterns from 1980 to 2011 to understand occurring changes. The research results showed that peak car travel first occurred at the state level as early as 1992 in Washington State, whereas another 10 states peaked in 2000. By 2011, 48 of the 50 states had peaked. The longevity of this phenomenon at the state level provided evidence that peak car travel in the United States was a more permanent phenomenon than previously thought. In addition, the decoupling of economic growth from driving was evident at the state level. In the 1980s, these indicators were positively correlated at the state level. A significant change occurred by the 2000s, however, when any significant connection ceased for most states. For four of the earliest peak car travel states, the relationship between economic growth and driving turned negative. This finding showed that decreases in driving were not associated with negative economic consequences. Rather, in several states, driving reductions were now associated with increased, rather than decreased, economic growth.

Governance models of public utility commissions in the United States

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 229-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas J. Howe
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Political Action ◽  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Legislature ◽  
The State ◽  
Public Utility ◽  
Political Action Committees ◽  
Special Interest Groups ◽  
Governance Model

Regulation of utilities at the state level in the United States is undertaken by a commission on which anywhere from three to seven commissioners sit and must vote on virtually all significant utility actions, including rate requests, resource plans, acquisitions and mergers, and financing mechanisms. Public utility commissions (PUCs) are, in a very real sense, courts with adjudicatory responsibility over the area of state utility laws. In hearing a utility case, they must follow the state’s statutes and court rules. The commissioners function as judges in this court of public utility law. In a majority of states, commissioners are appointed by the state’s governor with the advice and consent of the state legislature. In a significant minority of states, commissioners are elected by popular vote. However, recent changes in US election law have made it easier for corporations and special interest groups, called political action committees, to influence elections through donations targeting direct voter outreach on behalf of specific candidates. This chapter examines what the entry of political spending in PUC elections means, and whether elected commissioners can adjudicate in the public interest, or will adjudicate for special interests. The chapter concludes that while both the appointment and election governance model can produce both “good” and “bad” commissioners, it is the elected commission that is most at risk of selecting commissioners that will not be truly independent and objective arbiters of the law.

scholarly journals Crisis Standards of Care Implementation at the State Level in the United States

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 599-603 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colton Margus ◽  
Ritu R. Sarin ◽  
Michael Molloy ◽  
Gregory R. Ciottone
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Pediatric Care ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
Institute Of Medicine ◽  
Full Spectrum ◽  
The Us

AbstractIntroduction:In 2009, the Institute of Medicine published guidelines for implementation of Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) at the state level in the United States (US). Based in part on the then concern for H1N1 pandemic, there was a recognized need for additional planning at the state level to maintain health system preparedness and conventional care standards when available resources become scarce. Despite the availability of this framework, in the years since and despite repeated large-scale domestic events, implementation remains mixed.Problem:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) rejuvenates concern for how health systems can maintain quality care when faced with unrelenting burden. This study seeks to outline which states in the US have developed CSC and which areas of care have thus far been addressed.Methods:An online search was conducted for all 50 states in 2015 and again in 2020. For states without CSC plans online, state officials were contacted by email and phone. Public protocols were reviewed to assess for operational implementation capabilities, specifically highlighting guidance on ventilator use, burn management, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, pediatric standards, and reliance on influenza planning.Results:Thirty-six states in the US were actively developing (17) or had already developed (19) official CSC guidance. Fourteen states had no publicly acknowledged effort. Eleven of the 17 public plans had updated within five years, with a majority addressing ventilator usage (16/17), influenza planning (14/17), and pediatric care (15/17), but substantially fewer addressing care for burn patients (9/17).Conclusion:Many states lacked publicly available guidance on maintaining standards of care during disasters, and many states with specific care guidelines had not sufficiently addressed the full spectrum of hazard to which their health care systems remain vulnerable.

Inequality and growth in the United States: is there asymmetric response at the state level?

2017 ◽  
Vol 50 (10) ◽  
pp. 1074-1092 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohsen Bahmani-Oskooee ◽  
Amid Motavallizadeh-Ardakani
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Asymmetric Response

Causal Relationship between Asset Prices and Output in the United States: Evidence from the State-Level Panel Granger Causality Test

2015 ◽  
Vol 50 (10) ◽  
pp. 1728-1741 ◽  
Author(s):  
Furkan Emirmahmutoglu ◽  
Mehmet Balcilar ◽  
Nicholas Apergis ◽  
Beatrice D. Simo-Kengne ◽  
Tsangyao Chang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Causal Relationship ◽  
Granger Causality ◽  
Asset Prices ◽  
State Level ◽  
Granger Causality Test ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Causality Test ◽  
Panel Granger Causality

The Generalized System of Preferences of the United States: Does It Promote Industrialization and Economic Growth in Least Developed Countries?

2008 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Caf Dowlah
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Economic Growth ◽  
Market Access ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
The United States ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Less Developed Countries ◽  
Least Developed Countries ◽  
Generalized System ◽  
Generalized System Of Preferences

The Generalized System of Preferences (GSP)—a system of differential and favorable trade arrangements toward less developed countries, adopted by the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT)—has been around since the early 1970s. A primary objective of these schemes has been to promote industrialization and economic growth in less developed countries through trade rather than aid. The outcome of such programs has, however, been mixed. This paper identifies some of the underlying political and economic dynamics which led to the dismal performance of the GSP schemes of the United States in respect to the industrialization and economic growth of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs). The paper suggests that the effectiveness of GSP schemes could be significantly improved if they were brought under the binding WTO rules, if greater resources were directed to removing supply constraints in the LDCs, and if developed countries granted unwavering market access to LDC exports.

scholarly journals Exploring Women's Entrepreneurship and Poverty: Necessity versus Opportunity Motivations

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Hall
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Economic Growth ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
The United States ◽  
New Venture ◽  
Opportunity Entrepreneurship ◽  
Business Opportunity ◽  
Necessity Entrepreneurship ◽  
Entrepreneurial Activities ◽  
The Relationship

What is the relationship between entrepreneurship, economic growth, and poverty? Women choose to become entrepreneurs or self-employed for different reasons in developed countries such as the United States and Sweden, with varying effects on poverty and economic growth. This paper explores the motivations behind entering the entrepreneurial space for women, differentiating between opportunity (taking actions to create a new venture following a perceived business opportunity despite other options to earn a living) and necessity (becoming involved in entrepreneurial activities due to a lack of other options to earn a living) motivations. It also highlights entrepreneurship's relationship with poverty and economic growth, while providing recommendations on how to encourage opportunity entrepreneurship and reduce poverty while discouraging necessity entrepreneurship.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document