This paper explores how the use of emergency powers by the US and Puerto Rican governments exacerbated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and manufactured the conditions for furthering the multilayered economic, legal, political, and humanitarian crisis affecting Puerto Rico since 2006. The paper discusses three cases. First, it examines how the multiple declarations of the state of emergency, and its constant renewals, produced contradictory public health policies. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, the Puerto Rican government has issued over 90 executive orders aimed at addressing the emergency, producing an unclear, contradictory, and unequal emergency management policy. Second, the paper focuses on the impact of the passing of Law 35 on April 5, 2020, which imposed severe penalties on those who disobeyed executive orders. As a result, hundreds of Puerto Ricans were arrested, fined, and incarcerated for violating the issued order. Third, the paper studies how, citing the presence of corruption, the Puerto Rican government implemented anti-corruption and anti-fraud policies that made it more difficult for those most in need of it-mainly poor and racialized individuals, as well as immigrants and working women-to access Pandemic Unemployment Assistance. Thus, the paper argues that emergency policies designed to address the pandemic, punitive governance, and anti-corruption and anti-fraud policies undermined Puerto Rico's capacity to handle the pandemic, exacerbated its impact, and created an unequal recovery scenario.

In times of crisis, emerging technology can pose major challenges for regulators. They must deal with great uncertainty and urgency related to both the crisis and the technology. To understand such situations, this article studies the revelatory case of privacy regulation of a contact-tracing application called Smittestopp, created in Norway during the COVID-19 crisis. Based on public and organizational documents and 48 interviews, the analysis shows that the Norwegian Data Protection Authority faced several options for regulatory intervention throughout the crisis, and adapted its approach based on intra-crisis experience, regulatees' responses, and different levels of uncertainty and urgency. Building on these findings, the study formulates propositions regarding the regulation of emerging technology during a crisis and regulatory agencies' use of rule-based, idea-based, and norm-based interventions. This study provides insight into how these three types of intervention relate to different aspects of a crisis situation. Furthermore, it stresses the importance of idea-based intervention as a key site of analysis in studying technology that emerges during a crisis.

When supervising emerging technologies, regulators are more effective when they collaborate with business. Yet, innovative businesses are often small, inexperienced, and mistrustful. How can regulators motivate them to collaborate? This study examines this question by applying responsive regulation theory to a case study of the United Kingdom's regulatory sandbox for financial technology. This study illustrates how frontline regulatory interactions foster regulator-innovator collaboration, in ways that differ from how these interactions foster collaboration between regulators and the mature industries upon whose study responsive regulation is based. As one of the first academic studies to collect data from sandbox participants, this article offers unique insights into "what works" about the United Kingdom's much-imitated model.

In this article, we advance the concept of legal-spatial consciousness-an individual's awareness of how law and space are mutually formed and influential on their lives. Through this concept, we explore how undocumented youth in a variety of American destinations understand and experience migrant illegality. By examining how immigration law and local places are imbricated, we demonstrate how immigrant illegality is defined not only by a patchwork of municipal, state, and federal laws, but also by how undocumented people move through these differently il/legal spaces in their everyday lives. Illegality is thus continually reproduced through individuals' im/mobility through space.

Both coercion, such as strict auditing and the use of fines, and legitimate procedures, such as assistance by tax authorities, are often discussed as means of enhancing tax compliance. However, the psychological mechanisms that determine the effectiveness of each strategy are not clear. Although highly relevant, there is rare empirical literature examining the effects of both strategies applied in combination. It is assumed that coercion decreases implicit trust in tax authorities, leading to the perception of a hostile antagonistic tax climate and enforced tax compliance. Conversely, it is suggested that legitimate power increases reason-based trust in the tax authorities, leading to the perception of a service climate and eventually to voluntary cooperation. The combination of both strategies is assumed to cause greater levels of intended compliance than each strategy alone. We conducted two experimental studies with convenience samples of 261 taxpayers overall. The studies describe tax authorities as having low or high coercive power (e.g., imposing lenient or severe sanctions) and/or low or high legitimate power (e.g., having nontransparent or transparent procedures). Data analyses provide supportive evidence for the assumptions regarding the impact on intended tax compliance. Coercive power did not reduce implicit trust in tax authorities; however, it had an effect on reason-based trust, interaction climate, and intended tax compliance if applied solely. When wielded in combination with legitimate power, it had no effect.

In a representative UK study (N = 1000) the link between distributive fairness perceptions, outcome favorability, identity, and tax compliance was researched in the context of European transfer payments. Results showed that both forms of tax compliance (i.e., individual and collective EU-tax compliance) were influenced by perceived distributive fairness judgments of EU transfer payments. Fairness itself was related to perceived outcome favorability (i.e., whether their own nation benefits from the EU in financial as well as socio-political terms). Additionally, national identifiers (i.e., people identifying with their own nation, but not with Europe) perceived EU membership as unbeneficial in financial as well as in socio-political terms and thus considered the transfer payments as less fair. Dual identifiers (i.e., people identifying with their own nation and with Europe) perceived the socio-political outcomes from EU membership as more beneficial and thus evaluated the transfer payments as fairer.

A simulation study demonstrates the influence of perceived justice of a tax amnesty on subsequent tax compliance. In addition, it investigates how the amnesty is perceived to serve the punishment objectives retribution (i.e., giving offenders what they "deserve") and value restoration (i.e., restoring the values violated by tax evasion). Hierarchical regression analysis revealed the expected positive influence of justice on subsequent tax compliance. However, when the influence of punishment objectives was controlled for, the influence of justice disappeared, while retribution and value restoration showed positive effects on post-amnesty tax compliance.

After four decades of steady growth, U.S. states' prison populations finally appear to be declining, driven by a range of sentencing and policy reforms. One of the most popular reform suggestions is to expand probation supervision in lieu of incarceration. However, the classic socio-legal literature suggests that expansions of probation instead widen the net of penal control and lead to higher incarceration rates. This article reconsiders probation in the era of mass incarceration, providing the first comprehensive evaluation of the role of probation in the build-up of the criminal justice system. The results suggest that probation was not the primary driver of mass incarceration in most states, nor is it likely to be a simple panacea to mass incarceration. Rather, probation serves both capacities, acting as an alternative and as a net-widener, to varying degrees across time and place. Moving beyond the question of diversion versus net widening, this article presents a new theoretical model of the probation-prison link that examines the mechanisms underlying this dynamic. Using regression models and case studies, I analyze how states can modify the relationship between probation and imprisonment by changing sentencing outcomes and the practices of probation supervision. When combined with other key efforts, reforms to probation can be part of the movement to reverse mass incarceration.