Introduction to Jesse Burkhead Symposium

Government budgeting is one of the major processes by which the use of public resources is planned and controlled. To the extent that this is done well, governmental programs are brought increasingly to the service of its citizens, enhancing their material and cultural status.
The study of government budgeting is a study in applied economics—in the allocation of scarce resources. This study must look at operations and begin with organization and procedure, the routines which have been established for decision–making in government. It should extend to an examination of the influences, governmental and nongovernmental, that come to bear on the decision-making process.
Ours is both an organized society and a society of organizations. The significance of organization is nowhere more evident than in the public sector. Here organizational arrangements bring together the learning of all social scientists. The patterns for decision-making do not provide separate compartments for economic knowledge, for political knowledge, for social knowledge. These are merged in the organizational arrangements which have been established for the conduct of governmental affairs.1     

Introduction to the Symposium: Socialism and Ecology

Okay if you are worried about the greenhouse effect, if you want us to be responsible corporate citizens of the world, you must also understand we are a Third World nation and need the money. Give us 200 million PGK a year for our budget and you can be in charge of our forests.     

Assessing Integrity Systems: Introduction to the Symposium

The following Symposium on Australia's national integrity systems, drawn from an Australian Research Council‐funded project conducted in 2002‐2004 by researchers from Griffith University, Charles Sturt University, University of Sydney, RMIT University, Monash University and the Australian National University, together with Transparency International Australia. The first three papers examine the public integrity regimes at federal, state (NSW) and local levels. The remaining four papers develop three themes as a framework for assessing strengths and weaknesses in Australia's major integrity regimes: consequences, capacity and coherence. The papers were originally presented in sessions of the Australasian Political Studies Association (University of Adelaide, September 2004) and the 5th National Investigation Symposium (NSW Ombudsman, Independent Commission Against Corruption and Institute of Public Administration Australia NSW, Sydney, November 2004).     

Building Capacity in Election Administration: Local Responses to Complexity and Interdependence

Public administration research has identified networks, professionalization, and collaboration with community interests as potential principles by which public organizations can enhance their capacity and effectiveness. This article explores the implementation of these principles by election administrators at the local level, where their ability to conduct elections is the subject of current scrutiny. Findings indicate that election administrators established networks, professional organizations, professionalization requirements and community collaborations prior to the passage of the Help America Vote Act of 2002. Findings also suggest that local election efforts may become more effective as a result of certain provisions of the act that promote centralization and information dissemination. Local election administrators may also continue to build capacity by applying these public administration principles.     

Introduction to the Special Issue on Comparative Chinese/American Public Administration

In the field of public administration practice, China has a history of several thousand years, whereas the United States has a much shorter history of hundreds of years of governance. In terms of the scholarly development of public administration in China, the roots of those intellectual resources can be traced far back, to Confucius’s ideology of governance and the ancient development of a civil service system some 2,000 years ago. In terms of the systematic development of public administration as an independent subject of learning, however, the United States has been a leader worldwide. Public administration as a discipline in the United States dates back to the late nineteenth century, with extensive scholarly research and publications in the early twentieth century ( Follett 1926 ; Goodnow 1900 ; Taylor 1912 ; Weber 1922 ; White 1926 ). In the Chinese context, although there were occasional studies of public administration in the first half of the twentieth century, systematic study was deferred until the middle of the 1980s. They were only truly continued following the official launch of master of public administration degree programs at the beginning of the twenty‐first century. In this respect, China was a latecomer, and Chinese scholars almost always date the study and scholarship in this field to about 1980. Over the past eighty years or so, the United States has established more than 200 MPA and related programs, while China has founded 100 MPA programs in just the past eight years. Recognizing the urgent need for MPA training, China is trying to catch up to the demand for social development and societal transition. Considering that China has a population of 1.3 billion, compared to a population of 300 million in the United States, it looks as if there is great potential for China to expand its MPA programs.     

Introduction to the Special Issue on Comparative Chinese/American Public Administration

In the field of public administration practice, China has a history of several thousand years, whereas the United States has a much shorter history of hundreds of years of governance. In terms of the scholarly development of public administration in China, the roots of those intellectual resources can be traced far back, to Confucius's ideology of governance and the ancient development of a civil service system some 2,000 years ago. In terms of the systematic development of public administration as an independent subject of learning, however, the United States has been a leader worldwide. Public administration as a discipline in the United States dates back to the late nineteenth century, with extensive scholarly research and publications in the early twentieth century ( Follett 1926 ; Goodnow 1900 ; Taylor 1912 ; Weber 1922 ; White 1926 ). In the Chinese context, although there were occasional studies of public administration in the first half of the twentieth century, systematic study was deferred until the middle of the 1980s. They were only truly continued following the official launch of master of public administration degree programs at the beginning of the twenty-first century. In this respect, China was a latecomer, and Chinese scholars almost always date the study and scholarship in this field to about 1980. Over the past eighty years or so, the United States has established more than 200 MPA and related programs, while China has founded 100 MPA programs in just the past eight years. Recognizing the urgent need for MPA training, China is trying to catch up to the demand for social development and societal transition. Considering that China has a population of 1.3 billion, compared to a population of 300 million in the United States, it looks as if there is great potential for China to expand its MPA programs .     

Capitalism,Socialism and the Challenge of Degrowth: Introduction to the Symposium

This is an overview of a symposium on degrowth centred on Giorgos Kallis’ call for a socialism without growth, which insists on the need to be mindful of throughputs and the ecological consequences of any socialist project. Summarising and critically evaluating the various positions expressed by all the symposium participants, we find that Kallis’ ideas can be promising in drawing closer different Green Left perspectives, including ecosocialist, ecofeminist, and eco-Marxist. This complementarity is possible provided that degrowth proponents clearly align themselves politically on the side of the broad anti-capitalist Left and that the critiques expressed by the other symposium participants-especially with respect to Indigenous Peoples’ worldviews and practices and the dynamics that subtend the capitalist mode of production—become essential to degrowth platforms. We find already enough overlap among the diverse leftist positions represented in this Symposium for, at a minimum, continuing dialogue and, hopefully, politically beneficial mutual transformation and unification.