Who Gets What, When, and How? The Contested Conceptual and Disciplinary Nature of Governance and Policy-Making in the European Union

The present essay seeks to review state of the art literature in the field of European Union (EU) policy-making and governance. In studying the nature of governance in the contemporary Union disciplinary parsimony is of limited utility. Increasingly, disparate disciplines employ different models in order to describe, explain, and hopefully understand the nature of governance and policy-making in the EU. To arrive at 'one' model for studying the EU implies both disciplinary formalism and the fruition of an intellectual 'endgame'. Alternative 'views' of EU governance – in the form of disparate models – are presented and critiqued. The essay begins with an assessment of policy networks, garbage can models, advocacy coalitions and epistemic communities. It sets out the main components of each model; then goes on to critique each model, and finally, makes a considered conclusion on the utility of each model as a tool for understanding the EU's policy process.     

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.     

A Priori Voting Power: What Is It All About?

We explain the meaning of a priori voting power and outline how it is measured. We distinguish two intuitive notions as to what voting power means, leading to two approaches to measuring it. One conception, I-power, focuses on a voter's potential influence over the outcome of decisions by a voting body. The second conception, P-power, focuses on voters' payoff, their expected share of a fixed winning 'prize'. We discuss and rebut some philosophical and pragmatic objections, according to which a priori (as distinct from actual) voting power is worthless or inapplicable.     

Varieties of Participation in Public Services: The Who, When, and What of Coproduction

Despite an international resurgence of interest in coproduction, confusion about the concept remains. This article attempts to make sense of the disparate literature and clarify the concept of coproduction in public administration. Based on some definitional distinctions and considerations about who is involved in coproduction, when in the service cycle it occurs, and what is generated in the process, the article offers and develops a typology of coproduction that includes three levels (individual, group, collective) and four phases (commissioning, design, delivery, assessment). The levels, phases, and typology as a whole are illustrated with several examples. The article concludes with a discussion of implications for research and practice.     

From the politics of lying to the farce at Suez: What the US knew

This article seeks to establish, in a definitive manner, what the US knew about the Suez invasion plan of 1956.

With the benefit of the CIA's U‐2 reconnaissance plane, the US was able to pinpoint, as of mid‐October, the existence of nearly three times the number of Mystère fighters in Israel than had previously been notified to Washington by the French government. That plus an information blackout on the part of the British and the French, and the breakdown of negotiations with the Egyptians at the UN, roused Washington's apprehensions that a military option was being considered. However, though there was suspicion on the part of the US that an Israeli‐French operation might be in the offing, Washington never seriously focused on the possibility of a tripartite operation involving the British, the French, and the Israelis. President Eisenhower and Secretary of State Dulles relied on the Anglo‐American special relationship and on British good sense not to get involved. In particular, Washington completely missed the fact of the British‐French‐Israeli meeting at Sèvres, at which time (24 October), the decision was taken to launch the operation five days later. The transparent nature of the British‐French announced decision, after the Israeli attack, to ‘separate’ the Egyptian and Israeli forces doomed the operation from the start before the court of world opinion. In this manner, Operation ‘Separation of Forces’ was transformed into a force.     

哲学价值论:形式之维与实质之维

哲学价值范畴特指人的价值,论及价值必须联系人的存在,即价值是以人的存在为其本体论前提。而人的存在又包括现实的存在和“类”存在两种样态,相形之下,价值也具二维性:形式之维与实质之维。二者旨趣与言说层次的不同本身明证着哲学价值的二维性。     

Recognition and Social Justice: What Critical Theory Can Learn From Paid Domestic Laborers in the United States

Working in private homes, often isolated from the community and denied the legal rights and protections that most other workers enjoy, paid domestic laborers make up some of the most socially marginalized, vulnerable, and exploited workers in the United States today. This article explores the theoretical possibilities for an account of justice, based on the concept of recognition, to critique their work experiences, legal exclusion, and social status. To do so, it draws on the contrasting accounts of recognition advanced by Axel Honneth and Nancy Fraser, which focus on the psychological and the socio-structural dimensions of recognition respectively. While both theories generate compelling critiques of the conditions of domestic laborers, it is shown that neither one alone can capture the full range of injustices experienced, and that each can in fact complement the other. The article thus sketches an account of justice based on both the psychological and socio-structural dimensions of recognition.     

Ideocracy and Totalitarianism: A Formal Analysis Incorporating Ideology

In the present paper it is shown how totalitarianregimes can arise or be averted depending on theconditions described by the parameters and the initialvalues of the system. The main reason for theevolution of totalitarian regimes is the presence ofbelievers who are convinced that others have to beconverted to the supreme values of their ideology fortheir well-being and, possibly, that there existinconvertible enemies of their creed whose presence isobnoxious to them and to the absolute truths of theirideology. Believers are thus prepared to spendresources on winning new converts and to win thesecular power of the state. Whether they succeed inthis endeavour depends on the costs of converting newbelievers and on the amount of resources they areprepared to spend for this purpose, given theiravailable incomes and their propensity to consume.Their chances to succeed are greater if a crisisoccurs, an event which is usually outside of theircontrol. Once secular power has been secured, theresources of the state can be used to win moreconverts, to drive into exile or to killinconvertibles and to try to reach the imperialisticaims implied by the ideology. If the latter is not thecase, the regime may turn into a mature ideocracyafter having reached its domestic aims. This would forinstance be the case, if all inconvertibles had beenremoved and all the other population been converted. Inthis case no further terror and (or) repressionscharacteristic of totalitarian regimes are required. If the ideology implies ambitious imperialistic aims,for instance the conversion of all people on earth(except for inconvertibles) or the domination of thewhole globe by the believers, it is highly probablethat these aims cannot be reached. As a consequenceeither a war is lost and leads to the removal of thetotalitarian regime, or the ends have to be adapted tomaintain the credibility of the ideology. But then thetotalitarian state may again turn into a matureideocracy, if the ideology has been reinterpreted toremove its unrealistic imperialistic aims. Or thechange of the ideology weakens the regime in a waythat it loses its proselytizing character altogether,and turns into an ordinary autocratic regime.     

权力制约的权力配置维度:从思想的成长到原则的设计

权力配置作为党的十九届四中全会在阐发完善权力制约机制时正式使用的一个概念,主要是指权力的结构安排。从权力配置的思想脉络来看,大致分为非马克思主义和马克思主义两大流派。非马克思主义权力配置思想大都包含对权力进行分解并彼此形成一定制约关系的理论逻辑。其最终以分权制衡思想模型而相对固定下来并被部分西方国家付诸实践,但其既存在固有的阶级局限性,又存在无法确保权力运行高效化的弊病。与权力配置的分权制衡模型不同,马克思主义权力配置思想更青睐"权力属于人民"原则,主张实现代议民主与人民主权的辩证统一,从而为新时代中国的权力制约实践拓宽了理论视野。就权力配置的原则设定而言,虽然马克思主义权力配置思想和非马克思主义权力配置思想存在理论分殊,不同国家的权力配置实践也无法简单移植,但是权力受限、权力法定和权力效能则是在以权力的科学配置来推进权力的有效制约时应当遵循的三个原则。     

"Mad" About Mandates: The Issue of Who Should Pay for What Resurfaces in the 1990s

In 1990, constitutional amendment proposals were put beforethe voters in Florida and Wisconsin (nonbinding) to limit unfundedstate mandates. This brought the number of states with constitutionallybased mandate-reimbursement requirements to fifteen. Voter supportwas garnered by attributing local property-tax increasesandloss oflocalcontrol over spending priorities to unfundedstatemandates. The Florida and Wisconsin efforts came close on theheels of stale mandate studies by the U.S. General AccountingOffice, National Conference of State Legislatures, Urban Institute,and U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.Fifty-two hypotheses are generatedfrom these studies and theFlorida and Wisconsin cases to help structure future research.As the mandate limitation movement spreads, larger data baseswill be available with which to test these propositions. Inthe states that already have limits on unfunded state mandates,research will shift to the policy consequences of these restrictions.     

Local Economic Development: What is Proposed, What is Done, and What Difference Does it Make?

This paper assesses the comparative policy insights gained from the articles in the symposium in terms of three dimensions: policies proposed, actions taken, and impacts scored. Local economic development interventions are classified in terms of a five-way categorization in terms of geographic breadth of action and reliance on complementary private action as a prerequisite to lasting impact. The nine symposium cases are then examined for their evidence on development efforts' accountability to the public and lessons about efficient use of public funds. The paper concludes that the cases demonstrate that most development efforts have wasted public funds, offering at best the limited success resulting from efforts to beggar neighboring local economics with which competition for development continues.