Reflections on helping I: sustainable development,capacity building and participation

This selection focuses on the useful sense of what “help” means in development context. “Sustainable development is the goal, in sum; this requires the building of both individual and group capabilities; and broad participation is the major vehicle underlying the formation of solid capabilities.

“If you have come to help me you can go home again. But if you see my struggle as part of your own survival then perhaps we can work together.”

-Australian Aborigine Woman⁽¹⁾ (Manila 1991, p. 217)

What does it mean to “help” a person like this Aborigine woman in Australia, -- or a community, or line agency in Nepal, the Philippines, Thailand, or here in Calgary? One response to this question might be in terms of the intended outcomes of my “helping”. A second response could be to consider the means I use to help the other move in the direction of their intended outcomes. A third view is to include the concerns for outcomes and process with an interest in the mutual influence of the helper and the helpee on each other during the life of the dialogue.

What are some important influences that shape my view of “helping” at this point, that is, in November 1992? Four forces immediately come to mind: 1) my training in the planned change of human systems, 2) my recently completed involvement for five years with colleagues associated with the Health Development Project in Nepal as we struggled to strengthen the capacity of the government's health-related institutions and rural communities to improve the quality of life of the rural poor; 3) conversations with colleagues at the International Centre like Sheila Robinson and Tim Pyrch who are passionate (and articulate) in their views about development and participation, and 4) my relationship with my wife, Tana, which provides an experiential context for struggling with the issues embedded in the Aborigine woman's comment which introduces these reflections. These forces -- and others which will go unmentioned but are known to those who wrestle with the mysterious undercurrents of life -- have led me to increasingly think of “helping” in terms of three ideas: sustainable development as the ultimate goal of development; capacity building as the appropriate vehicle for pursuing sustainable development; and participation of all appropriate stakeholder groups as partners in the pursuit of sustainable development.

This reflection will clarify several features of my emerging theory of development by getting the jumbled and often incoherent whispers of suggested ideas in my head down on paper.     

From public action to public administration: where does it lead?

Minnowbrook I and Minnowbrook II differ in one important way. Minnowbrook I involved mostly scholars who came to the field primarily through formal academic training. Several of those who participated in Minnowbrook II are products of comrnunity-based applied revisions of so-called new public administration in the 1960s. Radin served as a union employee and then a staff member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Cooper worked as a minister at several inner-city churches. Both Radin and Cooper took their doctorates later in their careers, after extensive street level experience. From this perspective they focus on the unique political setting of public administration, on the field's publicness, on the salience of theories of change, on a process perspective, and on “soft” research methodologies.

Through much of its history, the field of public administration in the United States has been punctuated by figures who moved from the arena of action to opportunities for reflection, either through writing or teaching or both. A review of the literature of the field up to the 1960s provides strong evidence of this pattern and is particularly illustrated by two important eras of public administration—the municipal reform period and the post-New Deal period.⁽¹⁾ The decade of he 1960s was one of the few periods of the twentieth century in which action was not the predominant pathway to concern about administrative issues. In contrast to this earlier pattern, the generation of public administration academics in the 1960s focused on writing and teaching as a goal unto itself, rather than as a way of searching for the meaning of action in which one was previously engaged.

Indeed, the original group of participants in the Minnowbrook conference came to the field of public administration through formal academic training; their quest for values, relevancy, and meaning developed as they looked out of the windows of the academy to the turbulent society of which they were a part.⁽²⁾

While some were on the inside looking out during the 1960s, others were attempting to define meaning and relevancy within the world of action rather than the world of the academy. This paper is an attempt to explore the influence of that action experience on the public administration field. The authors of this paper spent the 1960s engaged in a part of the social action that spawned the “new” public administration movement.

We believe that our involvements in the 1960s led to the development of perspectives on public administration which are somewhat different from those of individuals who were primarily involved in academe during those turbulent times. This paper begins with a short autobiographical account which provides the personal context for our perspectives. It then contrasts our views with those of the Minnowbrook group and focuses on those elements that make up our perspective on the field.     

Minnowbrook: the search for a new reality

The search for a public administration reality begins with issues of theory as a substitute for reality. These illusions of theoretical construct have not corrupted public administration, in part because of Minnowbrook I. In a time of national crisis the papers of Minnowbrook I set out an ethic and perspective seriously informed by the reality of the 1968 National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (the Kerner Commission) and in 1988, Minnowbrook II is informed by the Commission on the Cities (a twenty year update of the Kerner Commission Report). The Minnowbrook I papers are an example of the whole being more important than the sum of its parts. Both conferences as well as the papers they produced are grounded in reality, in a shared commitment to making democratic self-government work, and in achieving sensible notions of effectiveness, equity, human dignity, and trust free from the corrupting effects of theory.

What can we possibly say that would in any pertinent way bridge the gap of time that would persuasively relate 1968 to the present day? The kindest comment would seem to be that, thus far at least, compared to 1968, we enjoy a degree of relative tranquility. Consider for a moment the sequence of spasmodic convulsions which relentlessly shocked virtually all segments of our society in 1968 with such numbing intensity that even the gentle September solitude of the Adirondacks could only soothe but not erase the emotional impulses that were generated by those who attended the 1968 Minnowbrook Conference in upstate New York.

To mention just a few of the traumatic events of that fateful year one might begin in February when the Kerner Commission report was released. The tone of the report was as bleak as its temper; America faced a domestic crisis situation of major proportions. In March, the political system was given a severe jolt when Lyndon Johnson announced that he would not seek reelection as President in the November 1968 general election. This set into motion multiple political machinations within the Democratic party, all of which seemed to blur into a surrealistic nightmare as a result of the assassinations of, first, Martin Luther King in April, and then, Robert F. Kennedy in June. But the real shock waves were yet to come. Hardly thirty days had passed following the assassination of Robert Kennedy when the nation and the world were hit with the debacle of the Democratic Convention in Chicago, the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia, and the release of the Papal encyclical, Humane Vitae.

It was within this context that a group of conferees gathered together at Minnowbrook in September to discuss and reflect on, figuratively speaking, what it meant to be a democrat in a global society in which the party of Jefferson, the followers of Marx, and the apostles of Christ all seemed to embrace the “Iron Law of Oligarchy” as a categorical imperative of the first magnitude. Whatever the original intention of those who planned the 1968 Minnowbrook conference, the tone and temper which surfaced at the onset, and never receded, were a seemingly unconscious testimonial to the German sociologist, Robert Michaels. Writing in the last 1920s, Michaels argued that,

It is organization which gives birth to the domination of the elected over the electors, of the mandatories over the mandators, of the delegates over the delegators. Who says organization says oligarchy.⁽¹⁾

Michaels concluded that all existing organizations, when faced with the demands for bold, aggressive innovations, must respond with defensive, even reactionary decisions to retain their power. “That which is oppresses that which ought to be.” But this time-worn trope is much too simplistic to explain the complex intricacies of the current public policy process and organizational behavior. Certainly no one was more aware of this than the conferees at Minnowbrook in 1968, as well as anyone else who has followed the ebb and flow of our political and policy systems to the present day.     

Conclusion: exploring the heart of civic darkness

This article is a synthesis of Volume II of Public Policy and Administration: The Minnowbrook Perspective and an extension of the arguments found herein. And, it is an application of issues of ethics and morality to this volume. The author calls for a return to civility in public discourse and to Plato's conception of virtue, and particularly public virtue. New versions of civic space are important. The American emphasis on individualism must be tempered by a greater concern for the common good and the public interest. To achieve this public administrators must be both examples and representative citizens.

Cyrano: Perhaps I do exaggerate—a little.

Le Bret: You see!

Cyrano: But for the sake of principle.

Also in practice I have often found Exaggeration works extremely well.

—Edmund Rostand

Cyrano de Bergerac

And sin, when it is full grown, brings forth death.

—James 1:15

“Civic darkness” and “sin” are offputting words. “Offputting” is also an offputting word, but we must do what we can to follow Cyrano's advice to the Count de Guiche and color our discourse as but we can. Actually, sin is quite a useful word, meaning, as it does, transgression of a moral principle. Those whose sensibilities are offended when words such as sin are introduced, or react in anger at remembrances of the excesses of evangelical piety, would do well to revisit the idea of separation from the moral good and the consequences such separatilon has for persons and for societies. Such is the case with what I will call the sin of incivility, which I believe leads us into a civic heart of darkness, which is the deathtrap of American democracy. I will exaggerate—a little.

The word “moral” is also an attenuated word. It tends to conjure personal identity material and prejudgments about the authority, associations, and intent of the preacher or philosopher using the term. Fresh in my memory after twelve years is the aftermath of the publication of my article, “The Problem of Moral Reasoning in American Public Administration: The Case for a Code of Ethics,” in the Public Administration Review of January/February 1983. Of the nineteen letters I received about the article, five came from academic public administrationists wondering why a person of my background should now be joining the Moral Majority. I sent each of them a copy of my work exposing Jerry Falwell's problems with the Federal Trade Commission.

We have before us thirteen papers and twelve responses, each dealing with an important aspect of public policy. Are there common threads running through them? Do they highlight recurring themes in American public administration? Since they were written just before the collapse of the Soviet Empire in 1989, was there anything prescient about them, or are they just historical artifacts, interesting enough in themselves but now overtaken by events?

There is a common thread, and that is a continuing commitment to the legacy of Mimowbrook I, understood as a post-positivist concern with social values. The most prophetic and, I believe, relevant statements of Minnowbrook I1 extended that understanding to the societal, organizational, and personal dimensions of communicative ethics, including the problem of the alienation of the self. I will elaborate that interest in my discussion of incivility below.

The old controversies were also there: in Willa Bruce's demand that Cynthia McSwain and Orion White translate their exercise in analytic psychology “into a practical application to real world problems,” for example, and in Gary Wamsley's passionate belief that public administrationists should “unmask the norms economists camouflage as science.” Complementarities were there, too, as when real world public administrator, Ray Pethtel, Virginia Commissioner of Transportation, said hurrah for egghead John J. DeIulio, describing him as “a scholar who recognizes the value of the public manager!” A pernicious theme that continued at Minnowbrook II, despite the efforts of conference organizers to diminish it through representation and structured dialogue, was that those who live more contemplative lives do not live in the real world. The truth is that most academic public administrationists are or have been heavily involved in workaday policy formulation and execution and that most civil servants reflect profoundly on what they do. Why, then, do we continue to use the language of separation?

Although there were arguments at Minnowbrook II, and I well remember the tension in the room after Bruce and Wamsley spoke, as on other occasions, we stayed well within the bounds of civility. That is what democracy does. It roughs and tumbles and postures and threatens and in the end stays within the bounds of civility. It finds a way we can live together. Minnowbrook II did not anticipate the degree to which incivility, manifested as displaced anger, separatist politics, and cultural isolation, would come to characterize public discourse in America in the 1990s and threaten the continued existence of democracy itself. Such a development demands careful analysis.

Plato would not have been surprised at any of this, as Dorothy Robyn pointed out in her paper about using cases for teaching public management. Since cases focus on how a process affected substantive policy questions, it is easy to ignore the inherent merits of the policy. Thus induction from fact replaces deduction from theory and leaves a large potential for casuistry and the justification of moral laxity. When discussion of a case begins with the postulate that at least one of the protagonists was unethical, the opportunities for recognizing moral ambiguity in the situation itself are limited. The temptation to reduce moral reasoning to laws and regulations tends to replace the abstraction of the public manager as a political being deducing his or her strategies from whatever ideal is being served. Deontological ethics become the analytical norm.⁽¹⁾

Plato's impatience with deontological ethics means that he is not a popular theorist among democrats today. Yet his critique of democracy remains the most powerful in philosophic literature, and I believe his analysis is particularly relevant for an American political environment of electronic sound bites and bored ignorance about the processes of government. There is a paradoxical way in which Plato's explication can deliver those of us who care too much.

The rhetoricians have their way in a democracy, Plato says. As they pursue their enthusiasms, trying to persuade the inattentive public here and there, misleading the people when necessary, they devise temporary solutions to fundamental problems. They consume as they encourage others to consume, leaving nothing in store. They live transient lives in mortal bodies. The worst thing about rhetoricians such as Gorgias, Plato believes, is that they misuse words. They often invert their meaning. Words are the vehicle of the dialectic that can lead us to transcendent truth, but in the hands of Gorgias, they produce only chaos and discord. In Plato's terms, the rhetoricians

once they have emptied and purged [the good] from the soul of the man whom they are seizing … they proceed to return insolence, anarchy, wastefulness, and shamelessness from exile, in a blaze of light, crowned and accompanied by a numerous chorus, extolling and flattering them by calling insolence good education; anarchy, freedom; wastefulness, magnificence; and shamelessness, courage.⁽²⁾

The deliverance inherent in Plato is the sure knowledge that virtue does not lie finally in what one can achieve in the political world, including the public good served in feeding the poor and bringing social justice to the disinherited. We work to achieve the good, yes; indeed, we may pour out our lives in service to democratic ideals. But virtue is a personal condition of the mind and spirit. In a calculous of inherent worth, prostitutes may be more virtuous than virgins. Virtue may be present in me while I endure any physical or temporal condition, including slavery, the dissolution of the Roman Empire, the trivialization of the Christian Church, or the collapse of the American Republic. Authentic freedom, and whatever wisdom has been given to me, exists in my being and only there. I can enslave myself, of course, and that includes slavery to any appetite, including the passion to be or do good.

Such reasoning is a useful antilogistic ingredient in dealing with the cascading series of manifestos in American public life telling us that we cannot live together; we cannot work together; we are not in this together; we are not Americans who have something in common, but racial, ethnic, gender, or sexually identified groups who demand to be recognized only or exclusively as different. I require that you recognize that we have nothing in common with one another. If goodness or greatness of soul is a capacity that each man and woman has, as Plato argued, then it is also true that each of us has a similar capacity for evil. The theologians of the Middle Ages called that capacity sin and defined it as separation from God, moral principle, and each other.     

Introduction

This introduction to this issue of the International Journal of Public Administration describes the origins of the original Minnowbrook Conference and the so-called new public administration. It then treats the origins and development of Minnowbrook II. It covers changes in culture and values between 1968 and 1988 and the changes in government and public administration. The participants in Minnowbrook II are listed and the decision to publish the conference proceedings in two volumes, this one presenting the Minnowbrook II papers dealing with issues of democracy and public administration. The second volume of IJPA dealing with Minnowbrook II will present the conference papers dealing with policy, management, and public administration.     

What I Have Learned About Countering Terrorismϕ

As a counterterrorism officer of thirty years, I have a healthy respect for history. Yet I also know that hindsight changes what you think about what you once thought. My observations about terrorism trends and counterterrorism strategies over the years are not what they once were. What I think now is more aligned with how I feel, and therefore, much clearer. Until recently, I had always based my observations about national security in my experiences as a counterterrorism analyst. I have come to realize that the lessons I believe are the most valid are not a result of my career experiences but from allowing the rest of my life to shed light on my career.     

THINKING ON: A CAREER IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

This article provides a brief intellectual history of my journey from traditional public administration through modernist‐empiricism to an interpretive approach and its associated research themes; a story of how I got to where I am. I do so to provide the context for a statement of where I stand now and key themes in my research; a story of where I go from here. I have a vaulting ambition: to establish an interpretive approach and narrative explanations in political science, so redefining public policy analysis.     

The ethics of managing scarcity: approaches to economy and prudence in a consuming society

This essay analyzes our character as a people, and its interplay with dramatic changes in our society before and after the formal close of the American frontier in 1890. Many of our prized character traits actually work against the prosperity we seek in the current day. We have not yet come to terms with the greed that contaminates every level of social analysis in American history. Nor have we moderated our individualism, entrepreneurialism, and anti-statism, even as we lose the promise of an expanding and vibrant middle class. Our faith in a great destiny must now embrace public purposes, plans, and management as necessary and desirable facets of ordered liberty.

I brought you into a plentiful land to enjoy its fruits and its good things. But when you came in you defiled my land, and made my heritage an abomination. Jeremiah 2:7     

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AS STORYTELLING

相似文献   

The new public personnel and the new public service

The New Public Administration sought a public service whose legitimacy would be based, in part, on its promotion of “social equity.” Since 1968, several personnel changes congruent with the New Public Administration have occurred: traditional managerial authority over public employees has been reduced through collective bargaining and changes in constitutional doctrines; the public service has become more socially representative; establishing a representative bureaucracy has become an important policy goal; more emphasis is now placed on employee participation in the work place; and legal changes regarding public administrators’ liability have promoted an “inner check” on their behavior. At the same time, however, broad systemic changes involving decentralization and the relationship between political officials and career civil servants have tended to undercut the impact of those changes in personnel. The theories of Minnowbrook I, therefore, have proven insufficient as a foundation for a new public service. Grounding the public service's legitimacy in the U.S. Constitution is a more promising alternative and is strongly recommended.

The New Public Administration, like other historical calls for drastic administrative change in the United States, sought to develop a new basis for public administrative legitimacy. Earlier successful movements grounded the legitimacy of the public service in high social standing and leadership, representativeness and close relationship to political parties, or in putative political neutrality and scientific managerial and technical expertise. To these bases, the New Public Administration sought to add “social equity.” As George Frederickson explained, “Administrators are not neutral. They should be committed to both good management and social equity as values, things to be achieved, or rationales. “⁽¹⁾ Social equity was defined as “includ[ing] activities designed to enhance the political power and economic well being of … [disadvantaged] minorities.” It was necessary because “the procedures of representative democracy presently operate in a way that either fails or only very gradually attempts to reverse systematic discrimination against” these groups.⁽²⁾

Like the Federalists, the Jacksonians, and the civil service reformers and progressives before it, the New Public Administration focused upon administrative reform as a means of redistributing political power.⁽³⁾ Also, like these earlier movements, the New Public Administration included a model of a new type of public servant. This article sets forth that new model and considers the extent to which the major changes that have actually taken place in public personnel administration since 1968 are congruent with it. We find that while contemporary public personnel reflects many of the values and concerns advanced by the New Public Administration, substantial changes in the political environment of public administration have frustrated the development of a new public service that would encompass the larger goals and ideals expressed at Minnowbrook I. Building on the trends of the past two decades, this article also speculates about the future. Our conclusion is that ultimately the public service's legitimacy must be grounded in the Constitution. Although its focus is on macro-level political and administrative developments, the broad changes it discusses provide the framework from which many contemporary personnel work-life issues, such as pay equity and flexitime, have emerged.     

Turks and Tatars in Bulgaria and the Balkans

Generosity is the thought that comes to mind after hearing and later reading the five studies first presented at a symposium in Toronto (2 October 2008) and published here in this issue of Nationalities Papers. My colleagues, who span the disciplines of history, literary criticism, and political science, have been generous with the time they spent in composing their essays and then traveling to Toronto to deliver them in person, and they have been particularly generous in conveying a spirit of constructive criticism and self-reflection that represent the best aspects of our common intellectual enterprise. To each of you – George G. Grabowicz, Taras Kuzio (who initiated this symposium), Serhii Plokhy, Alexender J. Motyl, and Dominique Arel – I express my deep appreciation for your generosity of mind and spirit.     

The Potency of the State: Logics of Informality and Subalternity

Abstract

This article serves as an epilogue to the special issue curated by Claire Bénit-Gbaffou and Sarah Charlton with a focus on state power and the concept of informality. In my reflection, I examine the specificity of statecraft in the context of postcolonial government. In particular, I analyse political potency as a relationship between the state and subaltern subjects. Also at stake in this paper is the question of comparative and transnational analysis. In what ways can concepts generated through the study of processes of urban informality in India speak to the production of illegality and the reproduction of rule in South Africa?     

Foreword papers in honor of chester I. Barnard

I hope that I will not be regarded as demeaning either myself or my fellow contributors to these papers in honor of Chester Barnard if I suggest that the most valuable product of this exercise may be to cause some readers who have never done so to read The Functions of the Executive, and some others who have done so in the distant past, to read it again.⁽¹⁾ Barnard's book is often referred to as "hard," both in the senses of hard to read and rigorous; no one is likely to recommend if for bedtime or ocean beach reading. But I believe that its "hardness" is closely related to the depth and rigor of its ideas, and that it is written about as clearly and simply as the nature of these ideas will admit. Barnard does not use long words where short words will do, nor many words where few will do. For anyone who devotes thought to organizations, its messages are pretty clear, and refreshingly creative. When read attentively, it can be read with enjoyment.     

Understanding chester I. Barnard

Chester I. Barnard is an example of a manager-participant-observer whose concepts and theories have a major impact on managerial thought and practice in both the public and private sectors.

I am greatly honored to be here and to participate in the first meeting of the Chester I. Barnard Society (U.S.A.). It seems only fitting that we make every effort to bring Barnard, the man, and Barnard's thinking to public attention. In this modern age where computers and rapidly advancing technology seem to be dominating our world, we need to find focus and balance in dealing with the eternal paradoxes and conflicts of a managerial society. Chester I. Barnard more than any other person in the field of management provides perspective for this challenge.

Accordingly, I wish to discuss my perception of Chester I. Barnard and some of the key concepts found in his philosophy and his theory of management. However, before doing so I wish to summarize comments about Chester I. Barnard by a few outstanding persons. These will serve to give a feel for the breadth of Barnard's activities and the significance of his work.

Barnard's thinking has been praised by outstanding men of science. Many see in the work of Herbert Simon, the Nobel Prize recipient, a significant shadow of Barnard. In Simon's book, Administrative Behavior, a number of ideas are traceable to Barnard: composite decision processes, bounded rationality, opportunism in decision processes, and so forth. Simon himself states that “The Functions of the Executive [Barnard's major publication]⁽¹⁾ was a major influence upon my thinking about administration.⁽²⁾ The eminent economist, Kenneth Boulding, states in his book, The Image, that one of the books which influenced him the most is the “pioneering work of Chester I. Barnard.”⁽³⁾

The famous American philosopher, John Dewey, stated: “In the main I believe the great value of Barnard's discussion is that it is one of those rare cases in which a man of affairs, an experienced executive, also has genuine intellectual curiosity and wisdom.”⁽⁴⁾

Bertrand de Jeuvenel, the distinguished French political scientist, wrote to Barnard: “Your thinking is political philosophy of the highest order...As one speaks of Keynesian revolution in economics, I feel one should speak of a Barnardian revolution in political science.”⁽⁵⁾

Fortune Magazine,one of the renown American business periodicals, states:

Chester I. Barnard possibly possesses the most capacious intellect of any business executive in the U.S.⁽⁶⁾     

The Royal Commission on Australian Government and Administration: 1974–76

The following summary of the major themes and recommendations of the Report does not follow the exact order of the chapters of the Report itself (reference to the appropriate chapters is made in brackets by each heading), but groups topics around the following major areas of concern.     

A million little ways: racism and everyday performances of blackness in Buenos Aires

In spite of the reality of racism in Argentina, dominant Argentine society holds class as the most important factor in explaining social inequalities. I analyze everyday performances of blackness in Buenos Aires, Argentina and how these both corroborate with and contest dominant ideas about race. Even attitudes and behaviors that appear to uphold the racial hierarchy are, often upon deeper analysis, complex mechanisms of negotiation within a racist society. These performances range from very casual encounters on the street to literal interpretations including an audition for a TV commercial. I detail incidents of blacks who counter racist assumptions through their performance of identity as well as how racism influences and shapes these performances among Africans and Afro-descendants. The ethnographic evidence I gathered from my own exchanges as well as those of my research consultants challenges the notion of Argentina as a nation devoid of antiblack racism.     

The overloaded state

The conditions that produced Israel's strong state and the implications of that state are not likely to be replicated elsewhere, exactly. However, Israel's case offers some general lessons that ought to be considered by advocates of a strong bureaucratic state, as suggested by the New Public Administration of the 1968 Min-nowbrook Conference. These include: poor management of public enterprises and social services; high inflation; politicization of public sector employment; a plethora of centrally defined rules, many of which are evaded in the interests of flexible administration; lack of moderation in policy demands; and perpetuation of the state's dominance of the economy as it becomes the first resort of groups in distress.

This essay explores conditions in Israel for a movement in the academic profession of public administration whose roots and principal focus have been in the United States.

The self-proclaimed New Public Administration in the United States began with the Minnowbrook Conference in New York in September 1968. The mood of many conferees was antagonistic to the political establishment that seemed more intent on pursuing an unpopular war and maintaining law and order than in responding to demands for domestic social services. Several papers and much of the discussion stressed the need for public administrators to take upon themselves the articulation of, and response to, demands that had not found effective representation among the elective legislators and chief executive.⁽¹⁾

Here the concern is with those aspects of the Minnowbrook perspective that imply both more responsibility and more power for government bureaucrats.

Israel has what may be the most powerful bureaucracy in all of the democracies. Israel's special history and circumstances make its details unlikely to be replicated elsewhere. Nonetheless, it suggests lessons for those who would strengthen the bureaucracies of other countries.

There are positive and negative features of a powerful state. In a society that is relatively homogeneous, feels beselt by outsiders, and whose cultural and religious values shape the character of public policy, as in the Israeli case, the balance of a powerful state may be positive. Even in such a case, however, there are negative features of the strong state. Those who do not feel themselves in tune with the majority of the moment may pay a great price in the sacrifice of what they feel are their legitimate rights. In a heterogeneous country that is divided by a great plurality of world views, and where a individualistic, free-market tradition is prominent, as in the American case, the consequences of a powerful state may be severe.⁽²⁾

There may be no lessons in the Israeli case that are simple and direct. Yet the weight of the more general warnings may justify this exercise.     

The Entitlement Approach – A Case for Framework Development Rather than Demolition: A Reply to Rubin

Abstract

This is my response to Olivier Rubin's critique of my paper ‘Entitlement failure and deprivation: a critique of Sen's famine philosophy’. I have examined his criticisms in the light of Hume's philosophy of human knowledge and consider them weak in logical content.     

Terminating the oldest living regulator: the death of the interstate commerce commission

This paper examines the termination of the oldest federal regulatory agency, in light of existing policy termination theories. The need for the ICC was severely reduced by major deregulation of railroads and trucking in 1980, changes from which also reduced the ICC's ability to maintain external interest group support. Still, although its budget and staff were cut, the ICC survived intact for 15 more years, until budgetary politics found it to be a useful symbolic target for termination. We also argue that this case shows the utility of putting termination theory into the larger framework of policy change, a literature that itself has largely ignored the critical element of policy and organizational termination.

”Once you establish a commission … you have the devil's own time passing an act abolishing it.”⁽¹⁾.