The Irish hospitals sweepstake in the United States of America, 1930-1939

The Irish hospitals sweepstake was established by statute in the Irish Free State in 1930 to fund the state’s hospital service. The vast majority of tickets were sold outside Ireland, particularly in countries where such gambling was illegal at the time. Initially the largest market was in the United Kingdom, but following the introduction of restrictive legislation there in 1934, the promoters of the sweepstake turned their attentions to North America and after 1936 the United States became the largest source of contributions to the Irish sweep. This article examines a number of factors concerning the relationship of the Irish sweep with the USA, including: an effort to estimate the amount of money contributed to the sweep by Americans; the role of the Irish diaspora and of prominent republicans, including Joseph McGarrity and Connie Neenan, in the illegal ticket distribution network; the efforts of American Federal agencies and government departments to disrupt the sweepstake organisation in America; how the sweep was used by those who sought to legalise gambling in the USA; the attitudes of both the Irish and American governments to the sweep’s activities in America; and how the legalisation of gambling in America brought about the demise of the Irish sweep.

The United States and trade disputes in the World Trade Organization: Hegemony constrained or confirmed?

Does the World Trade Organization function to reinforce American dominance (or hegemony) of the world economy? We examine this question via an analysis of trade disputes involving the United States. This allows us to assess whether the US does better than other countries in this judicialised forum: and in so doing enhance the competitive prospects of their firms. The results are equivocal. The United States does best in the early phases of a dispute, where political power is important. It does less well as the process develops.

A Firm Perspective of Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duty Cases in the United States

The role played by firms in the prosecution of anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases in the United States is understudied. This article provides greater understanding of the challenges faced by firms during the process of prosecuting anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases in the United States. This is achieved by applying a theoretical model of corporate political activity to data collected through interviews with 24 trade attorneys in Washington, D.C., practising in the area of antidumping and countervailing duty law. Anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases are found to require significant resource commitments from firms in the participating industries, as well as requiring individual firms to make a number of strategic decisions. The value of an affirmative decision and imposition of duties to the domestic and foreign industry is found to be more nuanced than previous studies have suggested. Non-duty effects of AD and CVD cases are also confirmed. Finally a clearer understanding of the role of individual firms in anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases is shown to have the potential to improve how industry influence is taken account of in future research.