SNAKES AND LADDERS: UPPER‐MIDDLE CLASS MALE OFFENDERS TALK ABOUT ECONOMIC CRIME*

This paper explores the ways in which male offenders in professional‐status occupations prior to conviction construct and justify money‐related crime. We report a detailed analysis, based in grounded theory and critical social‐psychological discourse analysis, of a loosely‐structured group interview with four offenders. The men constructed justifications for their offenses in terms of “breadwinning” for their immediate family and economic responsibility toward their extended “family” of employees and creditors. They represented their post‐conviction decline in social status as being “dragged down” by envious “boys” in the state apparatus. They positioned themselves on moral high ground, despite having been inappropriately sent to the working class world of prison (“Dante's Inferno”). We contrast these accounts with those of less privileged male offenders.     

Regional development policies and the constructions of gender equality: The Swedish case

Abstract.  This article uses a discursive approach to analyze how gender equality has and is being constructed and given meaning in the context of Swedish regional policy. Drawing on Carole Bacchi's 'What's the Problem? Approach', we explore how arguments concerning the new forms of regional policy are assigning different categories of people different subject positions and, in particular, we focus on the kind of subject positions that are being given to women as a group in this context. The discourse being shaped in national policy is, however, interpreted in specific contexts. Accordingly, we compare the way this new discourse is being (re)interpreted and (re)constructed and the subject positions being ascribed to women in the regional development partnerships and growth strategies in two Swedish regions: Västerbotten and Jönköping. Finally, we draw attention to how both the form and the content of Swedish regional development policies create great difficulties for politicizing gender as a power dimension in society. We suggest that regional politics has become de-politicized and argue for the need for it to be re-politicized with gender included as a conflict dimension.     

FISCAL DECENTRALIZATION: AN EFFECTIVE TOOL FOR GOVERNMENT REFORM?

The theory of fiscal federalism asserts that fiscal decentralization increases government effectiveness, reduces government budgets, and reduces corruption when used as a means of government reform. However, counter‐arguments have been made that such an approach has diverging effects according to the level of national development. We have attempted herein to carry out an empirical analysis to examine these theories. Data from 17 developed and 17 developing states were obtained in order to conduct a regression analysis of various indicators. The results revealed that fiscal decentralization reduced government effectiveness in developed countries. Important determinants for government effectiveness were the quality of regulation and the rule of law. When responsibility for expenditure and revenue were devolved, budgets expanded in both developed and developing countries. Fiscal decentralization deterred corruption in advanced states, whereas greater autonomy in spending increased malfeasance in the developing world.     

INFORMATION‐SHARING AND CONFIDENTIALITY IN SOCIAL POLICY: REGULATING MULTI‐AGENCY WORKING

In recent years, there has been growing concern in the UK that local services aimed at risky or vulnerable people are ineffective, because of agencies’ persistent failure to share information about their clients. Despite considerable national policy effort to encourage better information‐sharing, previous research indicates that there are many cases where information is still not shared when it should be, or where it is shared when it should not be, with potentially devastating results. This article uses data from the largest empirical study of local information‐sharing yet undertaken to examine four policy sectors where multi‐agency working has come to the fore. It shows that variations in their information‐sharing and confidentiality practices can be explained by neo‐Durkheimian institutional theory and uses insights from this theory to argue that current policy tools, which emphasize formal regulation, are unlikely to lead to consistent and acceptable outcomes, not least because of unresolved conflicts in values and aims.     

THE WHITEHALL PROGRAMME AND AFTER: RESEARCHING GOVERNMENT IN TIME OF GOVERNANCE

This article revisits the Whitehall Programme and Rod Rhodes' crucial role in setting it up. It examines the research commissioned for the Programme and how research in this field has changed since the mid 1990s. It confirms that research on Whitehall has become more diverse and specialist – reflecting its apparent hollowing‐out – but that research employing a longer historical perspective does not support an interpretation that government in the UK was ever strongly filled‐in. It also suggests that the study of Whitehall now demonstrates more theoretical ambition than hitherto, and, in the light of the dominance of qualitative research in this field, calls for a more sophisticated methodological debate about qualitative approaches to the study of government and especially their potential contribution to theory‐building.     

Regulatory Reform: Creating Gaps and Making Markets

This article argues that dispute processing reform, such as regulatory negotiation, plays a role in constructing a "crisis" in regulatory litigation and defining a new partnership between regulated interests and the state. Unlike traditional studies of regulatory reform, which tend to evaluate the behavioral impact of legal reform on policy, I argue that reforms themselves play a constitutive role in politics. The article examines the ideology of regulatory negotiation and presents empirical data on federal regulatory litigation in the U.S. Courts of Appeals (1940–1985), to demonstrate that this legal reform is part of a general drive toward a minimalist state.     

SYMPOSIUM ON CHANGING MODES OF GOVERNANCE IN PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS: ACTION AND RHETORIC

This symposium grew out of the sub‐theme, ‘New Modes of Governance in Public Sector Organizations’, of the European Group for Organizational Studies (EGOS) Conference held in Ljubljana in July 2004. Our aim was to provide a forum to discuss the policy and practice and the space between in public sector management and governance within Europe.