After Number Ten: What Do Former Prime Ministers Do?

The article reviews the experience of former British prime ministers in the twentieth century. There is no fixed or predetermined role for former prime ministers. What they do after they leave office depends on personal choices and on circumstances. Some have largely disappeared from the political stage. Others have become active international 'elder statesmen'. A couple-Heath and Thatcher-were embittered 'models to avoid'. A quarter of the former prime ministers since 1900 have served in other government posts in their successors' Cabinets, while a handful have turned down such appointments. Most have gone to the Lords, which offers a political platform, but sometimes they do not think much of the quality of the second chamber. The retirements of some former prime ministers have been clouded by money worries, but they nowadays get substantial pensions and can make money from business directorships, international lectures and writing memoirs. The article concludes with speculation about what Tony Blair's post-premiership might hold.     

Do Ministers Do What They Say? Ministerial Unreliability, Collegial and Hierarchical Governments

This paper is concerned with the extent to which individual members of governments reliably implement the decisions of the governments to which they belong, a matter which is rarely discussed, if ever, and yet can be critical for the operation of national executives. After a general presentation of the problem, the paper examines the reasons why members of collegial governments are more likely to be reliable than members of hierarchical governments. As 'cabinet' governments tend to be more collegial while 'presidential' governments tend to be more hierarchical, unreliability seems also more likely to take place in presidential governments, to the extent that these are indeed hierarchical. Progress in this area has been hampered so far by the absence of a tight operational definition of collegial and hierarchical governments: such a definition is presented here, opening the way for the empirical testing of the impact which the distinction may have on the reliability of members of governments.     

Managing Networks: Propositions on What Managers Do and Why They Do It

Measuring management in networks is difficult because the allocation of managerial resources in network structures is fluid—that is, the utilization of management behaviors varies across time and space within a given program or project. As a means of focusing the network management research agenda, propositions based in contingency logic are suggested to test ideas regarding when, why, and how network managers undertake these behaviors. The propositions are intended to identify the vast inventory of network management behaviors and, most importantly, determine how the manager strategically matches behaviors with the governing context. Suggestions are also offered to help us understand how and why managerial resources are re allocated over time and space. The proposed research agenda is offered as a guide to help us determine which choices are most likely to be effective.     

When US Scholars Speak of 'Sovereignty', What Do They Mean?

The term 'sovereignty' figures prominently in international affairs and academic analysis. But does 'sovereignty' mean the same thing in different countries and political cultures? In this article, we examine conceptions of sovereignty as they appear in the writings of US scholars of international law and those international relations scholars who deal with international law, in order to obtain a clearer picture of what 'sovereignty' means in American academic discourse. At first glance, the US literature is dominated by two distinct conceptions of sovereignty: (1) a statist conception that privileges the territorial integrity and political independence of governments regardless of their democratic or undemocratic character; (2) a popular conception that privileges the rights of peoples rather than governments, especially when widespread human rights violations are committed by a totalitarian regime. On closer examination, what seem to be two conceptions are in fact different manifestations of a single, uniquely American conception of sovereignty which elevates the United States above other countries and protects it against outside influences while concurrently maximising its ability to intervene overseas.     

What Do We Mean by ‘Rethinking Regulation’?

This article identifies and discusses several different conceptions of regulatory reform. It subsequently looks at available evidence on trends in regulatory burdens and on the results of regulatory reform activity undertaken over the past 30 years. Thirdly, it identifies and briefly discusses the range of tools that are typically employed in implementing regulatory reform policies. It then examines some of the regulatory problems that implementation of the reform agenda has itself brought forth. It concludes with some comments which seek to assess the report of the Better Regulation Taskforce in the context of the broad overview of regulatory reform set out in the preceding sections of the article.     

浅论经济全球化对民族国家行政管理的影响及对策

经济全球化不会使国家和民族利益边界消失.经济全球化不是一个简单的经济问题,它涉及国家与民族利益、领土与主权等各方面问题.经济全球化对民族国家行政管理的影响日益增大.认真研究和把握经济全球化的社会发展趋势,探讨经济全球化我国行政管理应采取的对策是富有意义的.     

Affirmative Action and Its Alternatives in Public Universities: What Do We Know?

University administrators have made difficult choices in response to the changing policy context for the use of affirmative action in admissions. This paper synthesizes the empirical literature on affirmative action and evaluates the efficacy of alternative strategies, including top-percent programs, class-based affirmative action, and targeted recruiting. The analyses offer several findings of interest to officials who direct such programs: (1) Affirmative action preferences given by top-tier universities have been large; (2) affirmative action leads minorities to enroll in higher-quality institutions; and (3) affirmative action has mostly positive effects on minority students later in life. The evidence shows a decline in minorities' relative share of enrollment at flagship public universities after affirmative action was eliminated in several states, and the alternative strategies used by these universities have not offset these declines.     

Letter from North Haven … Or What the President Should Do Next

Letter from North Haven is an essay on American national identity that shows the depth of small town mentalities in American life—no matter that that life is mainly urban and industrial. We move from Chicago School sociology to the Catcher in the Rye; from Bob Dylan to Steven Spielberg; from Jacksonian Democracy to the Tea Party movement. The essay ends by using the example of politics in North Haven, Maine, to call upon the President to revive his campaign by explaining America's problems in the plain style and tangible context of small town USA.     

What do Australian Foundations Do – Who Knows and Who Cares?

This article explores governance and accountability demands on foundations in Australia and compares these with requirements in the US. The article begins by discussing the meaning of, and rise of concern with, governance and accountability, the nature and variety of foundations and their status as organisations in the public domain. The second and third sections compare the formal and informal requirements relating to governance and accountability of foundations in the US and Australia. It is suggested that US foundations are both more closely regulated and more concerned with issues of governance and accountability than Australian foundations. The fourth section identifies the drivers of demand for better governance and accountability of foundations in the US and their relevance in Australia. Finally, some possible explanations of the relative lack of concern with foundation governance in Australia are considered.     

Prime Ministers, Presidentialism and Westminster Smokescreens

This article asks, 'how do practitioners understand the relationship between the prime minister, ministers and the rest of Westminster and Whitehall?' We focus on three topics. First, we review tales of a Blair presidency. Second, we explore the governance paradox in which people tell tales of a Blair presidency as they recount stories of British governance that portray it as fragmented with several decision-makers. Finally, we argue that this paradox reveals the distorting influence the Westminster model still exerts on many accounts of British politics. It acts as a smokescreen for the changes in executive politics.     

What Do We Talk About? Publications in AJPA 1970–95

This survey looks at three key aspects of the AJPA — who publishes, what they talk about and how they approach their subject. The findings suggest a continuing responsiveness to trends in public administration and a broad inclusive definition of the field.     

Partisanship,Ministers, and Biotechnology Policy

Research in public policy and political economy has provided many insights in the evolution of public resistance against genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the last two decades. But how does the partisan composition of a government, its programmatic orientation and the allocation of cabinet offices affect policy making in this specific area? We argue that the regulation of GMOs is determined by the ideological orientation of governments and the presence of parties with a specific ideological background in the cabinet. In addition, we hypothesize that the parties' control over relevant cabinet posts matter for GMO regulation. We test our hypotheses by using an innovative dataset that contains information on biotechnology regulation outputs of European governments in the time period from 1996 until 2013, the partisan composition and policy‐area specific positions of governments, and the party affiliation of key cabinet actors. The results show that the presence of a Christian democratic party in a cabinet increases the chances of a ban on biotech crops, in particular if it controls the Ministry of the Environment.     

What They Do Does Matter: Incumbent Resource Allocations and the Individual House Vote

It is reasonable to presume that House incumbents through their behaviors and resource allocations (e.g., trips home, staff, etc.) are responsible for their electoral success. The empirical case for the resource allocation hypothesis, however, rests primarily upon the support of a few experimental design studies. The remainder of the evidence from 25 years of tests of this hypothesis, at the district and individual-levels, is littered with null findings. Scholars suggest two methodological obstructions hinder alternative hypothesis findings: simultaneity bias (in district and individual-level studies), and restricted variance on the allocation measures (in individual-level studies). In this investigation I apply methodological remedies for these hindrances-nonrecursive analyses on a pooled (1960–1976) NES elections data set. I uncover the strongest evidence yet that incumbents benefit electorally from their resource allocations (here: bills sponsored and cosponsored, staff, and district offices). In addition to this main result, I also discuss the influence generational replacement has on resource allocations and the vote.

How Conditioning on Posttreatment Variables Can Ruin Your Experiment and What to Do about It

In principle, experiments offer a straightforward method for social scientists to accurately estimate causal effects. However, scholars often unwittingly distort treatment effect estimates by conditioning on variables that could be affected by their experimental manipulation. Typical examples include controlling for posttreatment variables in statistical models, eliminating observations based on posttreatment criteria, or subsetting the data based on posttreatment variables. Though these modeling choices are intended to address common problems encountered when conducting experiments, they can bias estimates of causal effects. Moreover, problems associated with conditioning on posttreatment variables remain largely unrecognized in the field, which we show frequently publishes experimental studies using these practices in our discipline's most prestigious journals. We demonstrate the severity of experimental posttreatment bias analytically and document the magnitude of the potential distortions it induces using visualizations and reanalyses of real‐world data. We conclude by providing applied researchers with recommendations for best practice.