The revolution next door.

This paper explores the cascading influence of revolutionary moments on democracy and inequality, not at home, but across borders. We use data on revolutions and other social upheavals over the past 120 years and examine their cross-national impact on a range of variables in neighboring countries. Engaging with debates on whether substantial democracy and equality increases require extraordinary circumstances, our research investigates whether revolutionary activities induce consequential spillovers, such as policy concessions from elites in neighboring contexts. In exploring spillover effects, the paper examines how significant events in one nation influence social life in adjacent ones. It encompasses an analysis of 171 countries over two centuries, connecting data on revolution with democracy and equality metrics, and hypothesizing that elite fear of revolutionary contagion may necessitate democracy and equality concessions to mitigate potential uprisings. Findings suggest neighboring revolutions positively impact domestic democracy and equality levels. We observe significant increases in an index of democracy and two indices of economic egalitarianism, although one of the egalitarianism measures is robust to all model specifications. Additionally, we find that isolated "protest-led ousters" can moderately increase suffrage and one of our indices of egalitarianism, while coups do not seem to impact democracy or inequality variables. By examining various upheaval types and outcomes across time and space, the study illuminates the causal relationship between global mobilizations and local changes, providing insights into how global events inform domestic outcomes.

Professional regulation, profession-state relations and the pandemic response: Australia, Canada, and the UK compared.

The COVID-19 pandemic provoked a surge in demand for health services. To help meet this demand, governments and health profession regulators implemented regulatory policy change to enhance professional availability and flexibility. Some nations may have been better positioned to make such changes due to their systems of healthcare profession regulation. More specifically, countries like Australia and the United Kingdom with their national regulatory structures could be more adaptable than Canada with its provincial system of regulation. To determine if this is the case, and guided by Abbott's (1988, 2005) ecological approach, we conducted a policy analysis. We find few differences in regulatory policy changes in terms of what was done, with the exception of scope of practice changes, which were implemented in Canadian provinces, but were not necessary in Australia and the United Kingdom. Instead, in the latter two countries practitioners were asked to bear responsibility for their own scopes. Additional content analysis of medical journals explored what professionals thought about policy responses, finding that Australian professionals were more positive than others. Moreover, government responses were regarded more favourably when they were perceived to be collaborative. Although there is little evidence that one regulatory system is better than another in facilitating crisis responses, regulatory structures do shape the nature of regulatory policy change.