REGULATION OF ASBESTOS THE MICROANA1YTICS OF GOVERNMENT FAILURE

This article analyzes the government's role in regulating asbestos-related health hazards in the United States. The U.S. government has served as both promoter and regulator of the U.S. asbestos industry, and this article examines the extent to which—in both capacities—it has hindered rather than facilitated the information dissemination essential to voluntary assumption of asbestos related risks. In documenting the behavior of the major government actors, this paper investigates the political and economic forces that have shaped U.S. asbestos policy. It shows how the Congressional transition from promoter to regulator of the asbestos industry can be explained by the susceptibility of political processes to transaction-cost augmentation by the bureaucracy.     

STATE LEGISLATORS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY RELATIONSHIPS AND THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN BIOTECHNOLOGY

This article presents a detailed examination of some key political dimen- sions underlying cooperative research in agricultural biotechnology among state land-grant universities, state legislatures, and biotechnology corpora- tions. Factor analysis and path analysis methods are employed to assess differences in the perceptions of university administrators, biotechnology corporation researchers, and state legislators, using national and state survey data. Two attitudinal dimensions, one regarding cooperation among university and corporate researchers, and the other regarding barriers to joint research, are extracted. Generally similar attitudes are shared by university and legislative respondents, who are concerned over the prospects of market-oriented university research. In contrast, corporate respondents are more concerned with reducing barriers to cooperative research and the need for more open communication between academia and industry, and with issues of patent rights. Extensions of this work to other states and to other high-technology industries are considered.     

THE ROLES OF GOVERNMENT A PARTICIPANT'S PERSECTIVE*

Hasluck is unusual in the lengths he went to the define the responsibilities of the various offices in which he was involved. Many of the functions and processes of government have changed since Hasluck was an active participant in the political process. Interest groups have increasingly influenced political decision-making, organisations external to the public service now play a greater role in influencing the development of public policy, the operation of a number of areas of the public service has become more visible and open to external scrutiny, there has been a constant trend towards political appointments within the public service, and it appears unlikely that the emphasis on public relations and marketing techniques as an integral feature of government communication will diminish. Likewise, the demands on ministers' time have increased and, while it is questionable whether ministers now handle a larger ministerial workload than Hasluck did, it is doubtful whether very many then or since have had his capacity for hard work or for handing the matters which cross their desk without the support of a professional advisory staff. The functions and operations of government evolve and the adaptation of roles and functions may not necessarily weaken the effectiveness of government administration. However, the fundamental tenet of Hasluck's writings on the roles of government remains compelling: the participants in the various areas of government should have an appreciation of the constitutional responsibilities of their position, its relationship to other areas of government and the fundamental principles which are required to maintain the credentials of the office into the future.