International Peacekeeping: The Disputants' View

International disputants often have reservations about inviting a peacekeeping body to help them contain or settle their conflict. Either or both sides might worry about certain international consequences of this course. Thus, one side might want to refrain from implying that an international issue really exists; both disputants might be concerned that a peacekeeping body could interfere with their freedom of action; and also that it could furnish critical reports about their behaviour. Then, too, there are certain adverse international possibilities which are special to potential host states. They might be conscious that having a peacekeeping body on their soil could give an impression of weakness or doubtful probity, and also of being less than fully sovereign. There are, additionally, certain domestic complications which might ensue for a host state. It could be concerned about the relations of the peacekeepers with its people, about the presence of such a group becoming a controversial political issue, and about the danger of a peacekeeping force ignoring the ground rules of peacekeeping and behaving in a manner which threatened the government's interests.     

THE IDEA BROKERS: THE IMPACT OF THINK TANKS ON BRITISH GOVERNMENT

Although there are few think tanks in Britain they have been credited with considerable influence on government policies since the late 1970s. This article charts their recent history, distinguishing between larger, 'establishment' bodies like the Policy Studies Institute and smaller, more politically partisan bodies such as the Centre for Policy Studies; generally the latter have enjoyed greater influence. It identifies the distinctive characteristics of these bodies–their ideological orientation, their concentration on élite opinion formers, their short to medium-term horizons, their emphasis on originality and publicity. Think tanks face tactical dilemmas when pressing their views on Britain's comparatively closed system of government, in particular their choice between insider and outsider forms of persuasion; the tension between proximity to ministers and intellectual autonomy; and their advantages to politicians as deniable sources that can float new ideas, which can be counter-balanced by politicians' fluctuating appetite for radical ideas. As a case study the article examines the relations enjoyed by the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Centre for Policy Studies with Mrs Thatcher's government, and particularly the evolution of a potent network of influence embracing ministers, special advisers and backbenchers. Finally it considers the dangers of an overemphasis on novelty at the expense of feasibility, and the danger of burnout in the smaller think tanks dangers mitigated by the continuous turnover that operates in the world of think tanks.     

PROMOTING CIVIC CULTURE BY SUPPORTING CITIZENSHIP: WHAT DIFFERENCE CAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT MAKE?

Scholars and policy‐makers alike argue that government efforts to empower citizens and build cohesive communities are integral to the development of a flourishing civic culture, especially within disadvantaged areas. In this paper, we explore this assumption by analysing the impact of different approaches to supporting citizenship in English urban local authorities on levels of political efficacy and social cohesion. Support for citizenship is modelled using primary data drawn from a large‐scale national survey as well as in‐depth case studies, supplemented with relevant secondary data. The findings suggest that local authorities that seek to promote greater understanding of citizenship and democracy can enhance citizens' perceived influence over local decisions, and that this effect is particularly marked in deprived areas. Citizens experiencing high levels of social harmony tend to reside in areas where councils actively seek to reduce disaffection.     

NOT EVEN OUR OWN FACTS: CRIMINOLOGY IN THE ERA OF BIG DATA

Criminology is an applied discipline where the findings from the data collected and analyses conducted inform debates about policy and practice. For this to happen, a discipline must have an agreed‐upon set of facts to define the problem and suggest solutions. We can debate the soundness of fundamental data series, but these debates must take place within the confines of scientific inquiry and all data must be subjected to the same scrutiny. Data sources must comprise agreed‐upon standards for collection and be accessible for replication. The increasing use of “big data” has frayed this agreement about quality and accessibility and has made it more difficult for criminology to have its own facts. In this presentation, I define the term “big data” and argue it will be difficult for big data to replace traditional data sources and to live up to their potential for knowledge building. Finally, I suggest a few things that the discipline might do to address these problems of access and quality.