EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING POLICY AND AMERICAN IDEAS: OLD PROBLEMS AND EMERGING PROGRAMS

The federal government has, relative to other areas of social welfare program activity, been especially slow in the development of employment and training policy. The reasons for this can be found in terms of an understanding of the most basic American political and economic ideas. The history of federal initiatives in employment and training policy is traced briefly and the impact of certain American political ideas on this pattern of development is analyzed. Particular attention is given to the issues of coordinating of employment and training programs and the increased role of the state and private sector in designing and managing such programs. It is suggested that in light of certain historic American political patterns, there might be costs to moving in commonly sought after ways that are not readily evident.     

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING POLICY AND FEDERALISM

There are widespread misperceptions about the way in which American federalism has worked in the past and is working now. One is the belief that since the 1930s, the federal government has engaged in many new activities. Another misperception is that liberals support centralization and conservatives, decentralization. Actually, most Americans tend to be pragmatic. The vitality of this American pragmatism is seen in state economic development policies. States have provided leadership in initiating new economic development programs in such areas as foreign trade and enterprise zones. Four major patterns in American federalism characterize the emergence and development of most of these programs: responsiveness, elitism, pluralism, and experimentation. Implications for employment and training policy are examined.     

SUBGOVERNMENTS AND THE IMPACT OF POLICY FRAGMENTATION AND ACCOMMODATION

For many years political scientists have utilized the subgovernment model of policy-making to explain certain types of policy output. Recently a number of scholars have argued that the traditional conceptualization of subgovernments was simplistic and incomplete. They view subgovernments as a complex and integral part of the larger policy-making environment. This paper examines this “new” subgovernment by analyzing its role in contemporary public policy-making. If subgovernments have lost their autonomy and been exposed to the complex demands of the larger political system, what impact does this have on policy outputs? Relying upon the literature on subgovernments and their principal components, the paper offers an interpretation of how subgovernments have potentially expanded their influence on public policy as a result of two contemporary developments: policy-making fragmentation, and the accommodation of policy outputs.     

THE MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF GOVERNMENT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

One of the minor curiosities of public sector analysis in Australia is that rather little attention has been paid to the tools and instruments that could provide a more effective management of government research and development. Once government R & D is mentioned, we immediately think of the large statutory bodies such as CSIRO or the Atomic Energy Commission, but the subject extends widely beyond these two bodies. The Australian Government, federal and states, provides 70% of all the funds for Australian R & D, and the government itself performs, in its own laboratories and statutory authorities, 54% of the total R & D carried out in Australia Of OECD countries, these percentages of government activity are exceeded only by Iceland, New Zealand, Portugal and Turkey. Virtually every federal department and every department of each state government performs R&D. Apart from the "big two" of CSIRO and Atomic Energy, the Post Office, Defence, Health, Housing, and Minerals and Energy all have research laboratories, and the last major survey of Australian R & D in 1973 listed 22 federal departments and 130 organizations in the State Governments performing R & D. A recent article in this journal correctly noted a shift from "ends to means" in Australian science policy. The present article proposes a specific means of managing this almost unique public involvement in R & D in Australia.     

NATIONAL SETTINGS AND PUBLIC ENTERPRISE: AUSTRALIA AND ISRAEL

Abstract: There are sharp differences between the public enterprises of Australia and Israel. Australia relies on the structure of statutory authorities for enterprises of the Commonwealth and the States; managers express a narrow view of what is permitted to them; and tend to spend their careers within single firms. "Public" enterprise in Israel reflects a complex amalgam of three public sectors, with Arms owned wholly or in part by the State, the labour federation, and institutions of the international Jewish community. Israel emphasizes the more flexible structure of public sector holdings in limited liability companies. Entrepreneurialism is more apparent in the public enterprises of Israel than Australia, but problems of service delivery are also more apparent in Israel. This article relates national differences in enterprise traits of control by government, styles of management, career patterns and service delivery to the national settings of government structure, economics, and political culture.     

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ORDERS AND THE PROCESS AND POLITICS OF SELF-REGULATION

Agricultural marketing orders, put into operation with the initiative and approval of affected producers, are a form of supervised self-regulation. The 47 orders in effect variously authorize quantity controls, quality controls, and market support activities for fruits, vegetables, and specialty crops. Administered by producer committees under the supervision of the Agricultural Marketing Service, for most of their history they produced l i t t l e controversy. In recent years they have been attacked as anticompetitive. The impact of orders on prices, however, seems limited at best. Orderly marketing has largely replaced concern for "parity prices" as the goal of marketing orders.