Two Decades of Change: A Ranking of Key Issues Affecting Intergovernmental Relations

This article describes the results of a 1981 survey of 1,000randomly selected scholars of American government and politicswho were asked to rank the most significant intergovernmentalevents and trends of the past twenty years. Responses were receivedfrom almost 40 percent of these scholars; no significant returnbiases were detected. These scholars ranked civil rights andvoting rights acts as the most significant events of these decades.General Revenue Sharing and the reapportionment cases were rankedsecond and third in importance. The increased flow of federaldollars to states and local governments was ranked the mostimportant trend affecting intergovernmental relations, followedby the increased public disaffection with government and thegrowing dependence of local governments on state and federalaid. The Vietnam War and the inflationary spiral it initiatedwas ranked as the most significant social event affecting thecourse of intergovernmental relations, followed closely by theenergy crisis and the beginnings of the "Great Society." Thearticle also examines the effects of party identification, age,year of degree, government experience, region, and city sizeon scholarly attitudes toward these events and trends. Whilethe overall rankings were not dramatically altered, partisanship,region, and city size all were factors found to be noticeablyrelated to scholarly rankings of these important events andtrends.     

Anarchism, Internationalism and Nationalism in Europe, 1860–1939

This article is part of a broader project on the social history or histories of anarchism. The standard accounts of anarchism (Nettlau, Joll, Woodcock, Marshall etc.) have been combinations of the histories of ideas and political/social movements. A larger project I am engaged in uses another methodology and is reliant upon the vast outpouring of published and unpublished academic writing on social history that has been produced since the 1960s. I will cover only several interconnected themes here: anarchism, internationalism and nationalism in Europe. This article will give a synoptic overview of the internationalism of the European anarchist and syndicalist movements during the “classical” period of anarchism (1860–1939). It focuses on the First and Second Internationals and the birth of the Third. It examines the ideology and culture of Internationalism, which was the nursery of the modern anarchist movement. The linkage between federalist and regionalist republicanism is stressed and the legacy of the Paris Commune of 1871 is highlighted. The desire to secure a global level playing field in labour markets promoted labour internationalism during the First International and a revival of this strategy by anarchists and syndicalists during the era of the Second International. The mismatch of industrial development and union density between industrialised Britain or Germany and artisanal and industrialising France and southern Europe limited internationalism in the 1860s and the 1900s. Equally the patriotic legacy of the Commune of Paris undermined the internationalism of anarchists and syndicalists when war broke out in 1914. In 1917–1918 anarchist and syndicalist internationalism seemed to be revived as Europe entered a period of revolutionary discontent. But very quickly the Bolsheviks and the Soviet Union channelled this wave into the Third International and ultimately the interests of the newly born Soviet State. Anarchist and syndicalist internationalism had little effect on the fortunes of the anarchists in the Spanish Civil War in a world of nation‐states and state‐centric political parties and movements.     

Competition and service quality: Evidence from Swedish residential care homes

Against a backdrop of increased levels of marketization of welfare services in OECD countries, this article aims to shed light on the separate effects of private ownership and competition for the market on service quality. Using residential elder care homes in Sweden as our case, we leverage unique panel data of ownership and competition against a set of indicators, pertaining to the structure, process, and outcome dimensions of care quality. The main finding of our analyses is that competition for the market does surprisingly little for quality: private entrepreneurs perform neither better nor worse under stiff competition and the quality of care is approximately the same in those nursing homes that are exposed to the market as in those that are not.