A non-profit accountability framework

Abstract: A non-profit accountability framework is developed from the broader academic literature, both within non-profit studies and beyond. The framework includes a comprehensive set of stakeholders that non-profits need to be accountable to, as well as resources to be accountable for. These stakeholders and resources are then contrasted on a matrix. Sommaire : Un cadre d'imputabilité pour le secteur à but non lucratif est élaboréà partir de la documentation. Le cadre inclut un ensemble exhaustif de parties prenantes auxquelles le secteur à but non lucratif doit rendre des comptes, ainsi que des ressources pour lesquelles il est imputable. Ces parties prenantes et les ressources sont alors mises en contraste sur un tableau.     

Minority Political Inclusion in Mikheil Saakashvili's Georgia

Georgia's Rose Revolution promised sweeping economic and political reforms, designed in part to enhance the livelihoods of ethnic and religious minority populations. The Rose events, however, occurred concomitantly with a surge in ethnic unrest. This article examines this paradox, arguing that the three major policy goals of the Saakashvili regime: the devolution of power to minorities, anti-corruption reform and state capacity building, have resulted in contradictory policy outcomes that have disproportionately hurt ethnic and religious minority enclaves.     

Responding to my interlocutors: a subject in the making...

In this response to Ronnie Lippens’ and Erik Claes’ critiques of a paper entitled ‘The Lore of Criminal accusation,’ Pavlich notes the ways in which his work might be compared to, yet differentiated from, abolitionist approaches to crime. Working through Lippens’ comments, he notes a possible way to understand the analysis and politics of crime (through accusation). Pavlich challenges Claes’ optimistic hypostatization of ‘criminal law’, idiosyncratic understandings of deconstruction and refocuses attention on the centrality of accusation to creating criminal subjects.     

Reflections on CIA Analysis: Is it Finished?

Despite the CIA's improved analytical tradecraft and increased resources, the future of its analytic mission remains in doubt. Post-9/11 improvements have been coupled with a continued focus on current intelligence priorities that minimize attention to the development of strategic research and deeper knowledge. Simply increasing the number of analysts has not produced deeper expertise. The CIA's traditional recruitment and training methods, as well as its rewards and promotion system, encourage analysts to avoid concentrating on any single area of regional or functional expertise in favor of moving around the agency to build a successful career. A continued reliance on risk-avoidance security practices also restricts analysts' contact with non-government and foreign experts who often have needed political and cultural knowledge of intelligence topics. To rectify these inadequacies, the CIA's analytic directorate needs to develop incentives for analysts who wish to develop more strategic analysis and remove the security barriers to closer collaboration with experts outside the US government. Developing cross-agency analytic collaboration would also maximize expertise and would benefit from intelligence community-wide training programs similar to what the US military does at its senior service colleges.     

The Seventeenth-Century Origins of Modern Salvage Law

Reginald Marsden argued that Sir Henry Marten, while judge of the High Court of Admiralty, had in 1633 entertained the first action for civil salvage ‘in the modern sense’. But Marsden could find little evidence among the formal Admiralty decrees of the seventeenth century that sea-coasters or mariners had regularly used this new plea in the central court to seek rewards for saving ships and cargoes. A sampling of the court's Act Books, however, reveals that Admiralty judges may well have ruled in more than 200 salvage cases from the time of Sir Henry's innovation until the end of the century. In some of these cases, moreover, Sir Richard Lloyd, a late-Stuart judge, abandoned the ancient custom of rewarding salvors with half of what was saved and developed instead the modern and equitable practice of adjusting awards according to what salvors had done and risked in rescuing the property of others.