Public contracting,policy preferences and minority business enterprises

About three years ago a Special Issue of the International Journal of Public Administration focused on the topic “Government Set-Asides, Minority Business Development, and Publi Contracting.”^(l) Much of the discussion in the issue addressed race conscious government set-aside programs in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co. ⁽²⁾ The decision declared unconstitutional a local government minority business set-aside provision designed to help minority business enterprises (MBEs) obtain government contracts. At the time, the decision was applicable only to state and local governmental jurisdictions.⁽³⁾ Government set-asides involve the practice of providing minority contractors and subcontracting a certain percentage of a public jurisdiction's contract dollars.

In 1995 the Supreme Court in Adarand v. Pena ⁽⁴⁾ extended the Croson ruling to include set-aside programs in federal agencies. This Special Issues examines and discusses the Adarand decision and the developments that have followed. The first article by Mitchell F. Rice, “Federal Set-Asides Policy and Minority Business Contracting: Understanding the Adarand Decision,” reviews the Adarand decision and discusses the implications of the decision for minority business development. The next article by Audrey L. Mathews and Mitchell F. Rice, “Adarand v. Pena: Turning Challenges Into Opportunities,” uses a case study of two public preference programs to suggest how Adarand requirements may be successfully utilized to maintain set-aside preference programs.

The third article by Shelton Rhodes, “Mirmative Action Review ‘Report’ to the Presidents: Implications of Military Affirmative Actions Programs to Current and New Millennium Affirmative Action Programs,” reviews the Affirmative Action Review: Report to the President which was ordered by President Clinton soon after the Adarand decision. Rhodes considers the implications of the possible applicability of the successes of affirmative action and equal opportunity in the military, which is highlighted in the Report, to other public and private organizations. The final article by Wilbur C., Rich, “Presidents and Minority Set-Aside Policy: Race, Gender and Small Opportunities,” analyzes the impact of presidential leadership on minority set-asides policy and shows how politicians use set-asides to facilitate exchanges and cooperation with the business elites.     

The Determinants of Collective Coproduction: The Case of Secondary Schools in Russia

ABSTRACT

This research focuses on parents’ participation in their children’s education via self-organizing through non-profit organizations (NPOs). The aim of this article is to uncover the factors which have an impact on Russian parenting organizations participating in collective coproduction in schooling. Quantitative analysis revealed three groups of explanatory variables: a) the “economic” variables, namely GRP per capita and poverty rate; b) a “high status” of a school; and c) variables capturing the “federal district effect” on the probability of collective coproduction. Results of the quantitative analysis highlight the significant discrepancies in regional conditions for emerging NPOs in coproduction in schooling.     

Dimock's philosophy of administration

Marshall E. Dimock was a self-confessed non-conformist who valued individualism and individual self-development above all other values. For him a philosophy of administration is more than a science or art and “must deal with institutional goals and objectives, with social values and individual growth, as well as with the paraphernalia of organizing and running things, which are only “incidental.^”(1) He warned that “over specialization of the individual makes him dull and lacking capacities for administrative growth^”(2)and decried the parochialism of behaviorists, logical positivists and other methodologists. At the core of his thinking about problems of administration, management and organization was what he regarded as the fundamental importance of “moral philosophy” although he recognized that “the political economist who epitomizes moral philosophy is regarded as a regrettably nonconformist and excessively individualistic relic of a past age.^”(3)     

The CLAS Challenge: Promoting Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health Care

Abstract

Vista Community Clinic's Cultural Awareness Program (CAP), funded by the US Office of Minority Health, aims to institutionalize culturally and linguistically appropriate services as outlined in the federal Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services (CLAS) Standards for the diverse San Diego County population through the promotion of organizational change at all levels of health care. The CAP program hopes to contribute to this end through offering educational sessions, aiding health care organizations in making changes to their structure in the areas of culture and language, as well as through the development of a website and a resource manual. Facilitating systems change in culturally and linguistically appropriate service delivery has proven to be the most challenging component of the CAP program. Based on seven years of experience in this area, CAP program staff proposes that the success of culturally and linguistically appropriate services depends on the degree to which organizational “buy-in” is achieved, the enforcement of the standards and the ability of health care organizations to work in collaboration with the community in which they serve.     

Organizational position and program implementation

Examples of policy implementation success suggest that organizational characteristics are important but policy researchers generally neglect the explicit study of organizational characteristics. Data from a mailed survey are used here to examine two organizational characteristics in one policy area in a single state. The advice of capacitybuilders' (federal and state agencies, municipal associations) about organizing local energy management programs through the appointment of “comprehensive local energy coordinators” is one concern. The other is the importance of the regular organizational position of the parttime community energy coordinators on the “comprehensiveness” of community energy programs.

The research develops a rudimentary methodology for studying program implementation which assesses organizational change by measuring differences among policies based on the dimensions of change embodied in a policy. Also devised are measures of program implementors' attitudes and perceptions in influencing program implementation. The findings demonstrate the usefulness of greater linkages of research across the organizational change and program implementation literatures.     

The special action office for drug abuse prevention : drug control during the nixon administration

The creation of the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention, during the Nixon Administration , provides a case study in presidential program management. Much has been said and written about the President-as-manager, especially in terms of hands-on program management. The Special Action Office, an outgrowth of the Nixon-Agnew “law and order” campaign, provided close proximity to the President and increased visibility for drug abuse prevention efforts.

The SAODAP utilized its focal position to coordinate the many and disparate drug abuse programs of the federal government. Many of these programs derived substantial financial as sistance from SAODAP efforts . However, President Nixon's counter-bureau-cracy philosophy caused the organization to become embroiled in controversy.

Although the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention eventually fell from presidential grace, the organization's creation and operation provide further insight into presidential management styles and the view of the President as a “general manager” of government.     

“Crossing the River by Feeling the Stones”: Vietnam's Experiment with Block Grant Budgeting

“We are crossing the river by feeling the stones.”

— attributed to Deng Xiaoping on economic reforms in China

Abstract

In December 1999, Vietnam's leaders granted Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC) powers to pilot a remarkable budget management reform. This small-scale but radical experiment, launched in January 2000, has involved allowing the provincial finance department to approve and control budgets for 10 pilot spending units as “block grants” or “lump sums.” This review of the first two years of the HCMC block grants experiment suggests that such mechanisms may be useful in the developing country context. It also explores why Vietnam's decision to continue with pilots on a larger scale, rather than move immediately to full-scale rollout, may be an optimal reform implementation approach.     

Public needs vs. private loss: land use regulation and property rights

Property rights and government regulation have been the subject of considerable discussion and controversy in recent years. The issue of “takings” has been raised in most of the state legislatures in the 1990s. Congress has considered legislation as well. Supreme Court decisions, in particular the Lucas and the Dolan cases, have focused judicial attention on the issue in recent years. Local elected officials, planners and local government administrators confront the issue increasingly as they attempt to respond to growth pressures and regulate land use. Unfortunately, a great deal the public's perception of property rights is myth or fable. This article addresses the issue of takings by putting it first into historical perspective. Thus, we see that regulation of private property by government is not new. The concern over “regulatory takings” is explored and traced briefly noting the entry of the federal government into the arena of land use regulation. Legislative responses are reviewed and finally the status of judicial consideration of the issue is brought up to date. The article closes with recommendations for those who confront the takings issue. While caution is indeed called for, regulation of private property is still a fact of life in American public administration and will be for some time to come.     

Decentralizing Governance within the European Union’s Framework: Evidence from Greece

ABSTRACT

The administrative reform launched in 2010 (“Kallikratis” programme) in Greece stands out as a major decentralization initiative. Notably, amalgamations at the local level were set at the forefront of the reform. This paper aims at shedding light on the issue of decentralizing governance by examining the implications of the “Kallikratis” reform programme on local authorities in terms of their domestic financial mobilization. Drawing empirical evidence from their implementation in European structural programmes, it is argued that the decentralization effort had an asymmetrical impact on local institutions, favouring principally the small-sized local authorities vis-à-vis the bigger in population local bodies.     

Thailand's Quest For Results-focused Budgeting

Abstract

Budgeting in Thailand is highly centralized. The powerful Bureau of the Budget (BOB) controls each agency's spending in detail through numerous separate budget allocations (detailed line itemizing). After a failed program budget reform in the late 1990s, the Thai Government attempted to introduce a performance-based reform into this centralized, controlled setting. The reform followed a “hurdle” whereby line entities could gain greater discretion over their budgets (and move towards a performance management approach) upon “clearance” of specific hurdles—achieving minimum levels in budget basics. This article examines why this approach did not work.     

Decisionism and action: changing perspectives in organization theory

The neglect of moral discourse in mainstream organization theory during the past four decades may be attributed to the dominance of the “decision,” popularized by Herbert Simon, as the field's primary unit of analysis. Underwritten by an epistemology derived from the logical positivists’ analytical distinction between value and fact, the idea of decision has come to be uncritically accepted as a morally neutral and empirically self-evident beginning point for organizational analysis. The ethnomethodological writings of Harold Garfinkel, coupled with insights from contemporary philosophy of language, radically challenge the value-fact distinction, pointing to an epistemology of everyday life in which value and fact are initially fused. The inherent fusion of value and fact provides the basis for an alternative epistemology for organization theory—termed the “action” or “process” perspective—which fundamentally alters the empirical understanding of organizational life and, consistent with the writings of Mary Parker Follett, enables the recovery of organization theory's moral center.

Commenting on the effects of technology on modern consciousness, Manfred Stanley has noted that:

Of all the upheavals of history and culture, it is difficult to imagine any of greater scope than the decline and fall not of some one vision of the good, but of the good itself. The rise of the notion that there is no such phenomenon as the good in the objective nature of things must be the most ironic anticlimax possible to centuries of bitter conflict between those who felt themselves empowered to define it.⁽¹⁾

For Stanley, the problem is not technology as such, but “technicism”: the implicit, even unconscious, belief that the humanly possible is synonymous with the technologically available. In technicist consciousness, technology is no longer a means for attaining the good, because “means” presupposes a prior moral or practical end in whose service that means is applied. Should any conception of the good be embraced at all, he argues, it ironically can merely be an artifact of what has been made available by technology.

Technicism has become the predominant attribute of modern consciousness, producing what William Barrett, speaking in a slightly different context, calls “the illusion of technique.”⁽²⁾

In the collective infatuation with technology, Barrett argues,

... we have come to regard it [technology] as the source for the discovery of human meaning. The tragic consequence of this is the inevitable alienation of man from himself and his estrangement from others. The irony of technicism to which Stanley alluded earlier may be summarized as a reversal of a familiar aphorism—invention has now become the mother of necessity—albeit one devoid of moral content.

Stanley sees the rise of technicism as concomitant with the emergence of liberal society, whose institutions have achieved coherence and legitimacy explainable in terms of three themes that have dominated Western thought since the seventeenth century. The first is the general desanctification or secularization of the political economy exemplified ... in the transformation of human skills and the earth itself into objective commodity resources for commercial production.⁽³⁾ The second theme is the ascendancy of the market principle as the chief basis of socioeconomic organization, wherein interests are privately held by individuals rather than shared by communities or other larger collectivities. Finally, there is the theme of pluralistic representation in political decision making, where the expression of individual (and group) interest is tolerated in the hope of achieving a balance among them.

Taken together these themes have produced a pervasive sense of nihilism in Western society insofar as they seem to exclude the possibility “of grounding collective standards of value priorities in anything more transcendent than the simplest shared utilities like power, wealth, and the security of one's immediate personal circumstances.”⁽⁴⁾

The consequence of the three themes of liberal society, profoundly abetted by technicist consciousness, is nothing less than the loss “of a sense of common human community in the West”⁽⁵⁾and also of the moral possibility of a common, transcendent good.     

From reorganizing to reinventing: sixty years and “we still don’t get it”

Sixty years ago the “Brownlow Committee Report” was written by some of the most prominent members of the emerging field of public administration. Its recommendations had serious consequences for the way both our democratic republic and the field of public administration have evolved. In developing principles in which to anchor the recommendations, Luther Gulick, who was both the intellectual and political force behind the committee, contributed to a confusion of the concepts of organizations and the polity and those of management and governance.

Some of the story of how the concepts promoted by Gulick and the Papers on the Science of Administration led to a misconception, which became public administration's living legacy is told in this article. We then discuss the Brownlow Committee Report as something which changed: our very conception of the Constitution; Gulick's rationale for cooperation with Franklin D. Roosevelt; the Report as a misplacement of organizational concepts upon a polity; the dimensions of constitutional change in the report; and the staying power of Gulick's and the Committee's ideas. In conclusion, we contend that if we are to move beyond Gulick's legacy, that the field must learn and act upon the distinctions between organizations and the polity and management and governance.

“The charge that the Brownlow Committee set in train the development of the “imperial presidency” can be advanced only by those who have not read the Committee's report.”

James Fesler, former staff member of the Brownlow Committee Public Administration Review (July/August, 1987)

“How interesting it is historically that we all assumed in the 1930s that all management, especially public management, flowed in a broad, strong stream of value-filled ethical performance. Were we blind or only naive until Nixon came along? Or were we so eager to ‘take politics out of administration’ that we threw the baby out with the bathwater?”

Luther Gulick, member of the Brownlow Committee From Stephen K. Blurnberg, “Seven Decades of Public Administration: A Tribute to Luther Gulick” Public Administration Review (March/April, 1981)

was as old in American politics as it was popular. Yet, before the end of his second term, Roosevelt, with the help of Charles Merriam, Herbert Brownlow, and Luther Gulick, would use such hoary symbolism towards ends that would fundamentally alter our perceptions of the constitutional order, the nature of the presidency, and public administration. How did this come to pass? Barry Karl says that “He (Roosevelt) had continued as President to look at reorganization through the eyes of those who saw in it a means of saving money, balancing the budget, and thereby giving security to the nation's economy.” But Karl adds, “By 1936, this viewpoint had undergone drastic revision.”⁽⁶⁾ The revision in his thinking replaced “saving money” with “managerial control” as the principal aim of reorganization. “Managerial control” by the president would enable him not only to manage New Deal programs but protect them against potential Republican counterattacks, i.e., in short, to strengthen his hand as president.

The impetus for this change apparently came directly from the President's experiences in seeking to administer the government's burgeoning and increasingly chaotic Executive Branch. Roosevelt was a skilled, intuitive, and flexible administrator. But, according to Karl, his experience in seeking to administer the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act with a loose arrangement, quickly dubbed “the five ring circus,” taught the President several lessons. First, “it demonstrated the growing dependence of the President on official staff, other than cabinet members, working exceedingly close to the President's own sphere of daily operation. “⁽⁷⁾ Second, the problems of administering the Act raised questions among the participants themselves as to whether or not the President could “administer and control so complex an operation as federal relief given the inadequate machinery in his possession.”⁽⁸⁾ In other words, the effort was not simply a “five ring circus” because of FDR's famed flexible and informal style, but also because of the inadequacy of the available structures. Karl notes that “despite the problems inherent in the fiscal machinery as it stood, a continued development of governments within governments could only lead to a dangerous chaos over which the President would have no control whatsoever.”⁽⁹⁾ The questions raised suggested to the President that perhaps there was some merit to the position of those urging that emergency agencies be absorbed into the existing framework. This could meet a very practical question by “placing agencies within the purview of budget and accounting procedures already in existence.”⁽¹⁰⁾

According to Gulick, FDR told Brownlow and him at a November 14, 1936, meeting “that, since the election, he had received a great many suggestions that he move for a constitutional convention for the United States” and observed that “with Coughlin and other crackpots about there was no way of keeping such an affair from getting out of hand. But,” he said, “there is more than one way of killing a cat, just as in this job I assigned you.”⁽¹¹⁾ Gulick also quotes FDR as specifically telling the Committee, “We have got to get over the notion that the purpose of reorganization is economy. . . . The reason for reorganization is good management.”⁽¹²⁾ Of course FDR meant management as in “presidential management.”

So it was that President Roosevelt by 1936 was prepared to do something quite beyond “abolishing useless offices” in the words of his 1932 speech--something significantly more constitutional in nature. His other aim was no doubt to strengthen his hand significantly to protect the New Deal programs from Republican counterattack. But whatever his aim, the practical effect was to treat the executive branch as a hierarchical organization headed by a chief executive of corporate or city management conception. In so doing, the delicate constitutional balance among branches was altered. Recommending the reorganization of the executive branch as they did inevitably led to reorganization of the larger whole, the government, which was not an organization, but something qualitatively different.⁽¹³⁾     

Adarand v. pena: turning challenges into opportunities

This article provides a historical and legal overview of preference and set-aside programs. Further, the barriers and driving forces that have influenced preference programs are discussed. Finally, the processes, strategies, programs, and criteria employed at the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority and Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, to meet the test of strict scrutiny in Adarand, will be explored and analyzed as alternatives for preference programs.     

Government set-asides,minority business development,and public contracting: introduction

Race-conscious affirmative action programs have been a part of American life for nearly three decades. Race-conscious set-asides are the latest government programs implemented to alleviate the adverse economic impact of racial discrimination and to foster minority business development. Minority business enterprises (MBEs) have been the specific targets of federal, state, and local government enacted set-aside programs with the principal purpose of overcoming the continuing effects of earlier discrimination. Government set-aside programs may be classified as “hard ball” affirmative action programs because they “provide absolute references to members of designated minority groups.⁽¹⁾     

Challenging the "Received View": De-demonizing Hamas

Abstract

Violence against abortion clinics and other activities directed toward patients and staff of abortion facilities have been termed terrorism by the pro‐choice movement. However, the Federal Bureau of Investigation denies that these actions are terrorism. Instances of abortion clinic violence for 1982–1987 were examined in order to determine whether there is a correspondence between these incidents and definitions or models of terrorism. It appears that these incidents do fit the classification of “limited political” or ‘subrevolutionary” terrorism. Reasons why the FBI has made the decision not to include these acts as forms of terrorism are entertained. One is that current international tensions have resulted in a preoccupation with only certain types of events which for administrative, i.e., juris‐dictional, reasons have come to essentialize terrorism. Another explanation, posited by pro‐choice activists, is that the FBI's decision is a consequence of political influence: the current administration is openly anti‐choice.     

Leadership and innovation in the administrative state

The field of public administration, as well as the social science upon which it is based, has given little serious attention to the importance of vigorous leadership by career as well as non-career public administrators. The field tends to focus on the rigidities of political behavior and the obstacles to change. To reclaim an understanding of the importance of individual leadership the author suggests the use of biography and life history. The behavior and personality of the entrepreneur is an especially helpful perspective on the connection between leadership and organizational or institutional innovation. The case of Julius Henry Cohen, who played a pivotal role in the development of the New York Port Authority, is used to illustrate the connection between the entrepreneurial personality or perspective and innovation.

In the social sciences—and especially in the study of American political institutions—primary attention is given to the role of interest groups and to bureaucratic routines and other institutional processes that shape the behavior of executive agencies and legislative bodies. In view of the powerful and sustained pressures from these forces, the opportunities for leadership—to create new programs, to redirect individual agencies and broad policies, and to make a measurable impact in meeting social problems—are very limited. At least this is the message, implicit and often explicit, in the literature that shapes the common understanding of the professional scholar and the educated layperson in public affairs.⁽¹⁾ For administrative officials, captured (or cocooned) in the middle—or even at the top—of large bureaucratic agencies, the prospects for “making a difference” seem particularly unpromising. In his recent study of federal bureau chiefs, Herbert Kaufman expresses this view with clarity:… The chiefs did not pour out important decisions in a steady stream. Days sometimes went by without any choice of this kind emerging from their offices … If you need assurance that you labors will work enduring changes on policy of administrative behavior, you would do well to look elsewhere. ⁽²⁾

There are, of course, exceptions to these dominant patterns in the literature. In particular, political scientists and other scholars who study the American presidency or the behavior of other national leaders often treat these executives and their aides as highly significant actors in creating and reshaping public programs and social priorities. ⁽³⁾ However, based on a review of the literature and discussions with more than a dozen colleagues who teach in political science and related fields, the themes sketched out above represent with reasonable accuracy the dominant view in the social sciences.

The scholarly field of public administration is part of the social sciences, and the generalizations set forth above apply to writings in that field as well.⁽⁴⁾ (Indeed, Kaufman's book on federal bureau chiefs won the Brownlow Award, as the most significant volume in public administration in the year it was published.) Similarly, the argument regarding scholarly writing in the social sciences can be extended to the texts and books of reading used in courses in political science and public administration; what is in the scholarly works and the textbooks influences how we design our courses and what messages we convey in class. The provisional conclusion here, then, is that in courses as well as in writings the public administration field gives little attention to the importance of vigorous leadership—by career as well as noncareer administrators. Neither does it give much attention to the strategies of leadership that are available to overcome intellectual and political obstacles which impede the development and maintenance of coalitions which support innovative policies and programs.⁽⁵⁾

The further implication is that students learn from what we teach, directly and indirectly. Students who might otherwise respond enthusiastically to the opportunities and challenges of working on important social programs learn mainly from educators that there are many obstacles to change and that innovations tend to go awry.⁽⁶⁾ And there the education often stops, and the students go elsewhere, to the challenges of business or of law. Those students who remain to listen seem to be those more attracted to the stability of a career in budgeting or personnel management. Public administration needs these people, but not them alone. If career officials should have an active role in governance and if the general quality of the public service is to be raised, does it not require a wider range of young people entering the service—including those who are risk-takers, those who seek in working with others the exercise of “large powers”?

Taken as a class, or at least in small and middle-sized groups, scholars in the fields of public administration and political science tend to be optimistic in their outlook on the world. Informally, in talking with their colleagues, they tend to convey a sense that public agencies can do things better than the private sector, and they sometimes serve (even without pay) on task forces and advisory bodies that attempt to improve the “output” of specific programs and agencies and that at times make some modest steps in that direction. Why, then, do public administration writings and courses tend to dwell so heavily on the rigidities of political behavior and the obstacles to change?

One reason may be our interest, as social scientists, in being “scientific.” We look for recurring patterns in the complex data of political and administrative life, and these regularities are more readily found in the behavior of interest groups and in the structures of bureaucratic cultures and routines. The role of specific leaders, and perhaps the role of leadership generally, do not as easily lend themselves to generalization and prediction.

Perhaps at some deeper level we are attracted to pathology, inclined to dwell on the negative messages of political life and to emphasize weakness and failures when the messages are mixed. Here, perhaps more than elsewhere, the evidence is impressionistic. ⁽⁷⁾

Some of the concerns noted above—about the messages conveyed to students and to others—have been expressed by James March in a recent essay on the role of leadership. He doubts that the talents of specific individual managers are the controlling influences in the way organizations behave. He, however, questions whether we should embrace an alternative view—a perspective that describes administrative action in terms of “loose coupling, organized anarchy, and garbage-can decision processes.” That theory, March argues, “appears to be uncomfortably pessimistic about the significance of administrators. Indeed, it seems potentially pernicious even if correct.” Pernicious, because the administrator who accepts that theory would be less inclined to try to “make a difference” and would thereby lose some actual opportunities to take constructive action.⁽⁸⁾

March does not, however, conclude that the “organized anarchy” theory is correct. He is now inclined to believe that a third theory is closer to the truth. Administrators do affect the ways in which organizations function. The key variable in an organization that functions well is having a “density of administrative competence” rather than “having an unusually gifted individual at the top.” How does an organization come to have a cluster of very able administrators—a density of competence—so that the team can reach out vigorously and break free from the web of loose coupling and organized anarchy? Here March provides only hints at the answer. It happens, he suggests, by selection procedures that bring in able people and by a structure of motivation “that leads all managers to push themselves to the limit. “⁽⁹⁾     

Ensuring Employment Equity: Are Federal Diversity Programs Making a Difference?

Abstract

In the last two decades, many public sector agencies have instituted a wide array of “managing diversity” programs designed to remove barriers to the full participation of women and people of color. Meanwhile, agencies are also increasingly responding to pressure to develop measures to monitor performance of all of their programs. Yet there have been few efforts in place to measure the effectiveness of diversity management programs. This article argues that such an evaluation is essential, and offers a preliminary governmentwide estimation of the success federal agencies have had in breaking down these barriers. We found, for the most part, that there is little evidence that broad‐based diversity programs, nor any of their programmatic components, have created a more equitable work environment for women or people of color. We then examine the programs at two federal agencies with significant diversity efforts, in depth, and find again that the results have been mixed. While not meant to be the final word, we suggest that these findings can serve as the basis for generating greater discussion and analysis of these important, but under‐evaluated, programs.     

APPLICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL-AGENT MODELS TO GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING AND ACCOUNTABILITY DECISION MAKING

ABSTRACT

This paper surveys literature from Economics, Accounting, and Management to address theoretical issues in Public Administration regarding government provided services in order to contribute to a formal connection between principal-agent models in these disciplines and public policy administration decision-making. In particular, it addresses the question: What theoretical properties of the services themselves might guide (a) the choice of producer of the services (government or outsourcing firm/contractor), and (b) the accountability imposed for the work produced. It is found that a theoretical framework of principal-agent models that includes the decision of whether to contract out can be useful as a first step in systematically formulating the government's decision for a variety of goods/services. This provides an alterative to the identification of key decision properties “from the ground up” for each good or service the government provides.     

Out with the Old and … In with the Old? A Critical Review of the Financial War on Terrorism on the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant

ABSTRACT

The aim of this article is to critically consider the effectiveness of the “Financial War on Terrorism” on the funding streams of the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL). The article begins by identifying that the origins of the “Financial War on Terrorism” can be found in the international efforts to tackle money laundering. It then moves on to consider if the “Financial War on Terrorism” is able to tackle the funding streams of ISIL. The article concludes that the “Financial War on Terrorism” is no longer fit for the purpose to tackle the funding streams of ISIL.