Fortitude,ultra and the ‘need to know’

E.T. Layton with R Pinneau and J. Costello, And I Was There. Pearl Harbor and Midway (New York: William Morrow), pp. 596, $19.95.

Donald A. Torres, Handbook of Federal Police and Investigative Agencies (Westport, Conn., and London: Greenwood Press, 1985), pp. 411, £49.95.

Ernest R. May (ed.), Knowing One's Enemies. Intelligence Assessment Before the Two World Wars (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), pp. 561, $29.50 or £19.80 (cloth); $14.50 or £9.70 (paper).     

Whither Individualism?

Peter Lawler intelligently challenges conservatives to make the best of Lockean individualism, to recognize its natural limits and its debt to Christianity, and he downplays Tocqueville’s concern that a loss of virtue must lead to a rise in statism. But he does not see clearly enough that individualism and statism have always been two sides of the same coin, or that the Christian pedigree of Lockean individualism is not necessarily good news. It is true enough that individual liberty will always depend upon virtue, but it does not follow that liberty will always generate virtue. If the failure of virtue does not lead to statism, then where it does lead may still not be very pretty.     

Thinking about the future in criminal justice administration: Trends and implications

This paper utilizes the technology of Futures Research to discuss issues that may confront the criminal justice system in the year 2000. Conceptually, the criminal justice agencies are viewed as a social system which is open to external influence both in terms of organizational design and operation. The specific model of criminal justice agencies is based on the work of Lyman Porter and recognizes three primary factors: 1) contextual factors; 2) structural factors; and 3) behavioral consequences. The specific administrative issues discussed are derived from a series of long term social trends identified by futurist Herman Kahn of the Hudson Institute.     

THE TASMANIAN PUBLIC SERVICE AND THE FUTURE

Abstract: State governments in Australia have been regarded essentially as service deliverers, with the result that the specialist heads of public organizations, although technically competent, have rarely questioned the need for their activities. Nor does the argument that such questioning is the responsibility of the politician take account of the inertia of the existing system; an analysis of the activities which the Tasmanian government has undertaken over the past six years—including those of statutory authorities—shows a fair degree of stability. Thus we should consider building into the State's existing organizational arrangements some means of evaluating existing programs and new proposals. Such policy analysis should widen the narrow focus of the advice currently offered by public servants. Although there have been some moves in this direction in Tasmania (particularly in the Premier's Department), it has not been reflected in the structures of the public service generally. A survey of 22 government departments showed that only eight had officers concerned with evaluatory planning, and only three departments were engaged in innovative and initiatory planning. Other directions in which Tasmania's public organizations could move with benefit include an increase in lateral recruitment; breaking down the rigidity of the promotion appeals and classification systems; introducing flexible management and budgeting procedures throughout the service as a whole; and continually reviewing the structure and functions of public organizations. The questions that have been raised by recent inquiries into State and Federal government administration, namely coordination, efficiency, economy, effectiveness, decentralization and participation, have not stressed sufficiently the key issue for the public services of the 1980s, which is the nature of the relationship between the politician, the public service and the community.