Regulation of Government: Has it Increased,is it Increasing,Should it be Diminished?

This article examines arms-length 'regulation' of UK government – the public-sector analogy to regulation of business firms — and assesses the precepts for public-sector regulation embodied in the Blair Labour government's official vision of public-man-agement reform, its Modernising Government White Paper of 1999. As a background to assessing the recipes for public-sector regulation in Modernising Government, the article shows that such regulation grew markedly both in the two decades up to 1997 and in the plans and activities of the Blair government from 1997 to 1999. Against that background, the design principles for public-sector regulation contained in Modernising Government are assessed. The White Paper was notable for embracing a doctrine of 'enforced self-regulation' for the public sector that involved aspirations to both more and less public-sector regulation in the future. It put its faith in a mixture of oversight and mutuality for 'regulating regulation'. But in spite of the radical-sounding tone of Modernising Government, the measures proposed appeared limited and half-hearted, and two well-known institutional design principles for regulation seemed to be missing altogether from the Blair government's view of administrative 'modernity'.     

The "AIDS and MDGs" approach: what is it, why does it matter, and how do we take it forward?

Progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) has been mixed, and many observers have noted the tendency for development actors to address individual MDGs largely in isolation from one another. This in turn has resulted in missed opportunities to catalyse greater interdisciplinary collaboration and innovation towards MDG achievement. The term 'AIDS and MDGs' is gaining currency as an approach that aims to explore, strengthen and leverage the links between AIDS and other health and development issues. Drawing from academic literature and from MDG country reports, this article sets out three important pillars to an AIDS and MDGs approach: 1) understanding how AIDS and the other MDGs affect one another; 2) documenting and exchanging lessons learned across MDGs; and 3) creating cross- MDG synergy. We propose broader policy level implications for this approach and how UNDP and other partners can take this agenda forward. Because the MDGs explicitly locate HIV within a broader international commitment to human development targets, they provide a critical platform for development partners to galvanise resources, political will and momentum behind a broader, systematic and structural approach to HIV, health and development.     

Why Give it Away When You Need it Yourself? Understanding Public Support for Foreign Aid in China

In this study we examine the determinants of public support for foreign aid in China. We find that while political ideology and sense of national identity are the most important determinants of support for foreign aid, several demographic characteristics, such as age, gender and income, are also important. We also find that those living in the lower income western provinces and in provinces with higher poverty rates express less support for giving foreign aid. We draw policy implications from the findings for better targeting engagement strategies designed to garner support for foreign aid.     

Whistleblowing: what does it mean in China?

In China, whistleblowing has both political and social functions. For the government, whistleblowing works as a social control mechanism, especially for containing corruption of its officials, while for ordinary citizens, whistleblowing provides then: with a legal weapon to fight against official malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance. This paper examines the causes, processes, and consequences of whistleblowing with an emphasis on the difficulties and dilemmas in blowing the whistle. It argues that given its important functions and implications, whistleblowing should be further legalized, encouraged, and protected to the largest possible extent in China.     

The Discourse of Development: has it reached maturity?

Like most other concepts in the social sciences, ‘development’ does not entail a commonly agreed upon meaning, context or programme of action. It is defined in different ways depending on the time, space, context, professional and organisational interests of the one who does the business of defining. The meaning of development has also undergone a remarkable transformation over the course of history from the Enlightenment concept of ‘Progress’ to encompass a great variety of human needs. This paper analyses how the contemporary discourse of development has reached a mature state and how it enables us to understand development in context- and culture-sensitive ways. It is now possible to determine what development means in different settings, and how to bring in material and non-material prosperity to people living in different contexts and cultures. After a theoretical discussion an empirical study in Sri Lanka is presented which attempts to arrive at a more refined context- and culture-sensitive definition of development. The paper argues that, in order to understand development at micro-settings, it is better to construct our own indexes of development rather than using global measures. It shows how the current state of the discourse of development can lend insights into construction of a development index.