Electoral turnout and income redistribution by the state: A cross-national analysis of the developed democracies

Abstract.  This article explores the sources of variation in state redistribution across 13 developed democracies over the period 1979–2000, drawing upon data from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, the Luxembourg Income Study and the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. The discussion begins with the median voter hypothesis, which predicts that the extent of state redistribution in a country will be positively related to the degree of pre-government inequality. In seeking to extend the median voter approach, the article takes into account two additional variables: the level of electoral turnout and the degree to which turnout is skewed by income. The analysis confirms that pre-government inequality is indeed positively related to state redistribution. However, the predictive power of the median voter approach is significantly improved when account is taken of the level of electoral turnout and the extent to which the turnout rate reflects an income skew – variables that are themselves related. The link between turnout and redistribution is especially strong for social transfers as opposed to taxes, and for the lower and middle, as opposed to the upper, part of the income spectrum.     

SUICIDE AS MURDER AT COMMON LAW: Another Chapter in the Falsification of Consensus Theory

The debate among advocates of consensus, pluralist. and Marxist views of the origins of criminal law continues to occupy a central position in contemporary theoretical criminology. This article assesses these positions through a historical inquiry into the law-making and-enforcing processes surrounding self-murder or suicide. Historical data on the criminalization and depenalization of suicide indicate that economic and fiscal interests shaped suicide laws, but these laws were unenforceable because of popular resistance. The significance of these findings for criminological theory is that laws generally thought to be based on consensus were instead grounded in conflict and struggle.     

Explaining non‐participation in deliberative mini‐publics

This article investigates citizens’ refusal to take part in participatory and deliberative mechanisms. An increasing number of scholars and political actors support the development of mini‐publics – that is, deliberative forums with randomly selected lay citizens. It is often argued that such innovations are a key ingredient to curing the democratic malaise of contemporary political regimes because they provide an appropriate means to achieve inclusiveness and well considered judgment. Nevertheless, real‐life experience shows that the majority of citizens refuse the invitation when they are recruited. This raises a challenging question for the development of a more inclusive democracy: Why do citizens decline to participate in mini‐publics? This article addresses this issue through a qualitative analysis of the perspectives of those who have declined to participate in three mini‐publics: the G1000, the G100 and the Climate Citizens Parliament. Drawing on in‐depth interviews, six explanatory logics of non‐participation are distinguished: concentration on the private sphere; internal political inefficacy; public meeting avoidance; conflict of schedule; political alienation; and mini‐public's lack of impact on the political system. This shows that the reluctance to take part in mini‐publics is rooted in the way individuals conceive their own roles, abilities and capacities in the public sphere, as well as in the perceived output of such democratic innovations.     

East African Development

This article represents the bulk of the speech by the Kenyapolitician now member of the E. African Central Assembly, toa joint meeting with the Royal Empire Society, under the Chairmanshipof Roger Norton, C.M.G., O.B.E., the East African Commissionerin London.     

Ideology and the University

Ideology underpins recent transformations of British universities; it forms an unquestioned backdrop to policy‐making. The ideology at issue is a market‐based neo‐liberalism—accompanied by a doctrinaire private‐sector managerialism. Universities employing this ideology envision it as common sense. The ideology is thus not proselytised, but rather structures the vernacular of university speech. In reality it is a highly politicised ideology masquerading as a managerial reality. Its effect on universities has been profoundly destructive. The dignified public good of higher education has now become a huckstering marketised mechanism. What is so perplexing is the quiescence of universities. The ideology is so hegemonic that it appears exempt from criticism. University administrators are now quite unapologetic ideological functionaries and we need to relearn how to criticise those who manage us. Ultimately no ideology lasts, this present one will be supplanted, the question is what level of damage to civil and intellectual life will it inflict?