The study of Western European cabinets

Abstract. We are still relatively unfamiliar with the structures and modes of behaviour of Western European cabinets and we need first to identify the range of the differences which exist with respect to two major dimensions along which cabinet governments can be located (collective v. hierarchical decision-making and political representation v. administrative and/or specialist skills). A valuable test can be obtained by considering in detail the cases of a number of countries in which the traditions of cabinet government are known to be different from those of the British model, both because of the existence of coalitions and because of specific traditions of 'administrative' and even 'bureaucratic' government. Marked variations emerge with respect to four elements: ministerial expertise, the large autonomy of ministers, the authority of the prime minister or chancellor, and the relatively limited influence of the council of ministers as a deliberative body. Cabinet government is a flexible machinery which has given rise to a number of different models corresponding to different traditions and to different conditions in which the political system operates.     

ORGANIZATIONAL STATUS AND PERFORMANCE: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR TESTING PUBLIC CHOICE THEORIES

Popular belief is that ownership change (from public to private) brings about improved performance. But (i) ownership displays a spectrum, not an either/or; (ii) degree of competition is conceptually and often actually independent of ownership; and (iii) so is change-of-ownership's assumed instruments for improving performance, change in managerial incentive structures and reporting structures. The article surveys the relevant theories, popular and scholarly, and develops models for testing the relationships between status change (ownership) and performance (indices of productivity, profitability etc.), and between status change and internal organizational change (indices of reorganization and of linkage), in a small number of British organizations which underwent change in recent decades. Preliminary results of one or two analyses illustrate the methods and the possibilities.     

DIFFERENTIAL SUSCEPTIBILITY? IMMIGRANT YOUTH AND PEER INFLUENCE*

There is reason to suspect that lower levels of exposure to criminogenic peer‐based risks help explain why immigrant youth are less involved in crime and violence. However, it also is possible that if and when they do encounter these risks, immigrant youth are more vulnerable to them than are native‐born youth. Drawing from literature on the adaptation experiences of immigrant adolescents, we hypothesize that immigrant youth will be relatively more susceptible to the effects of both 1) exposure to deviant peers and 2) unstructured and unsupervised socializing with peers when compared with their nonimmigrant counterparts. Using a sample of approximately 1,800 adolescents from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) study, we find support for our first hypothesis but not the second. Specifically, in both cross‐sectional and longitudinal models, we find that exposure to deviant peers has a greater impact on violence among immigrant youth than it does for native‐born youth. Furthermore, this pattern of results is supported with supplemental, sensitivity analysis using the AddHealth data. In contrast, there are no statistically significant differences across immigrant generation status with regard to the effect of informal socializing with peers on violence.     

DELINQUENCY BALANCE: REVISITING PEER INFLUENCE*

An impressive number of inquiries across an array of methodological specifications has demonstrated that deviant peers are an important correlate of various criminological outcomes, which include within‐ individual change and stability in offending behavior. Still, the causal mechanisms of peer influence arguably remain underdeveloped (Giordano, 2003; Warr, 2002). In an attempt to expand the dialogue on the nature of peer influence, this inquiry proposes that scholars would benefit from considering relative peer deviance in addition to exposure to deviant peers. Specifically, it argues that an imbalance in delinquency between friends helps to explain delinquency change/stability; therefore, exposure to deviant peers is not always risky and exposure to less deviant peers is not always protective. The analysis uses the Add Health data to construct within‐individual and across‐individual (delinquency) difference scores and relies on self‐reports rather than on perceptions for the best friends' delinquency. The results provide support for the premise that adolescents attempt to achieve delinquency “balance” with their best friend by changing behavior, net of raw peer deviance levels (i.e., objective exposure). The findings also suggest that balance is not achieved through selection, given that the deviance gap between the respondent and his or her best friend does not predict friendship stability. The discussion considers these results from a theoretical and empirical perspective and offers several avenues for future research.