The Fair Housing Act Today: Current Context and Challenges at 50

ABSTRACT

As is true for most legislation, the Fair Housing Act (FHA) was a product of its time; the legislation’s content, and even passage, was formed by dominant issues in housing markets and the country at that time. The context shaped the goals of the FHA and the strategies and tools employed under its auspices. Fifty years after the passage of the FHA, much of that context has changed. This commentary argues that changes in the context not only raise new fair housing challenges and create new gaps in our knowledge, but also may necessitate a fresh look at fair housing strategies and tools if they are to be effective at achieving the goals of the act. This commentary begins with a brief background on the FHA itself, the social context at the time of its writing, and its main goals. Next it lays out a few key changes in housing markets relevant for fair housing, highlighting challenges they may create and where research could be of greatest value. It then considers challenges arising from threats to two specific U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) fair housing rules seen by many as critical fair housing tools. The commentary ends with two examples of a “refresh,” where current context has shaped, or reshaped, a strategy to address today’s fair housing challenges.     

Governance and Policing

The theme of this issue is governance, a term with multipleand often contested meanings. By governance, in its broadestsense, I mean those more or less systematic attempts to shapehuman conduct. In civil society, these can range from self-governancethrough prayer and exercise, family and commercial management,the organization of residential and religious communities, strugglesover turf by street gangs and organized crime networks, to paramilitaryand ‘terrorist’ networks. As radical feminists andevolutionary theorists argue, the core of collective governanceor state government is patriarchal. This is so whether or notthere is an effective sovereign     

Policing Uncertainty: Intelligence,Security and Risk

Today, the idea of risk is ubiquitous, a presence in debates across a range of fields, from investment banking to politics, from anthropology and sociology to health, environmental and cultural studies. While this ubiquity attests to the importance of the concept it is at the same time a potential weakness in that it injects the term into a wide range of debates in each of which its meaning can be subject to different emphases and meanings. The notion of risk is of obvious importance to security intelligence, but here too its ubiquity has had an impact on specificity of meaning. While the term is widely used in both the profession and study of intelligence, its usage can carry different meanings and it can be used interchangeably with linked terms. Given the importance of the idea of risk to intelligence, clarity of meaning is essential. This article sets out to consider the meaning of, and relationship between, uncertainty and risk in a security intelligence context, propose a framework on which a common understanding can be built, and illustrate how this can help in thinking about the nature and role of security intelligence.     

Policing the Bargain: Coalition Government and Parliamentary Scrutiny

Policymaking by coalition governments creates a classic principal‐agent problem. Coalitions are comprised of parties with divergent preferences who are forced to delegate important policymaking powers to individual cabinet ministers, thus raising the possibility that ministers will attempt to pursue policies favored by their own party at the expense of their coalition partners. What is going to keep ministers from attempting to move policy in directions they favor rather than sticking to the “coalition deal”? We argue that parties will make use of parliamentary scrutiny of “hostile” ministerial proposals to overcome the potential problems of delegation and enforce the coalition bargain. Statistical analysis of original data on government bills in Germany and the Netherlands supports this argument. Our findings suggest that parliaments play a central role in allowing multiparty governments to solve intracoalition conflicts.     

Special Edition on Governance and Policing

This edition has a strong focus on governance and policing.Governance has been interpreted here with a broad meaning. Inthe case of Fletcher and Stenson's article on governance inLondon, it encompasses the whole process of government rangingfrom the Metropolitan Police's relationship with national andlocal government, their ability to control and influence theMetropolitan Police and the consequent complexity. Both thetheme and the article are timely. Not only has the UK Governmentin a Green Paper (Home     

论法国警务情报工作体制及对我国公安情报教育的启示

法国的警务情报工作具有自身特色,通过学习和研究法国经验,可以给我们带来如下启示:加强合作与交流、注重情报信息系统建设、突出情报分析的核心地位、确保情报信息安全对我国公安情报工作的重要性;同时,通过加强与实战部门联系、加强情报信息系统建设类的课程教学、加强情报分析的研究和教学、加强情报安全类理论的研究与教学以及优化师资队伍结构有助于提高我国公安情报教育水平。     

Democracy Interrupted: The Anti-Social Side of Intensified Policing

In 2015 and 2016, France was hit by some severe terror attacks. Following these attacks, the country experienced increased xenophobia in the form of anti-Muslim actions (anti-social peer punishment), and the French government reacted by declaring a state of emergency and intensifying policing activities such as house searches and police stops. Here, I analyze these reactions and show that intensified policing, even though well intended, can be associated with considerable anti-social effects. Furthermore, I will show that the state of emergency was associated with some dynamics that are worrisome for a democracy. Lastly, I will situate the findings in the conceptual distinction between institutional and peer punishment of behavioral science.