Allocations among programs having counteractive outcomes

Difficulties have been encountered in attempting to apply benefit-cost analysis to the problem of determining resource allocations among social programs, especially when there are multiple outcomes associated with each of the programs. Further complications result when program outcomes are characterized as counteractive: a specific allocation of resources to a program is likely to achieve a favorable impact regarding certain objectives while that allocation is also likely to have an unfavorable impact regarding other objectives. A model which promises to be useful in determining optimal resource allocations among programs having counteractive outcomes is presented. Two steps are required for the use of the model: (1) values, reflecting priorities, need to be assigned to the various objectives that programs are intended to accomplish and (2) an ensemble of probabilistic functions relating resources to program outcomes needs to be specified and combined to reflect the value of an ensemble of programs. In addition to determining optimal resource allocations, the model provides insights into the consequences of resource decisions based on noneconomic considerations. An example illustrates the major features of the model.     

When markets fail to deliver: An examination of the privatization and de‐privatization of water and wastewater services delivery in Hamilton,Canada

Abstract: The emergence of the “New Public Management” (NPM) and its faith in markets led governments to search for alternative methods in the delivery of public services. One of the most popular methods was privatization. The rationale behind the choice of privatization is based on what Charles Wolf describes as “non‐market failure.” This article argues that the market may not be as efficient as its proponents have asserted, especially when there is a monopoly over service delivery. This has been the case in many municipalities, in some developed countries, where privatization of water service delivery has reverted to public delivery. Using the City of Hamilton's experience with its water and wastewater services as an example, the authors' finding is that the nature of the good to be delivered is essential in determining whether the “market” or the “public” provides the best method of service delivery. Sommaire : L'émergence de la Nouvelle gestion publique (NGP) et sa foi dans les marchés ont conduit les gouvernements à rechercher des méthodes de rechange pour la prestation des services publics. L'une des méthodes les plus populaires est la privatisation. La justification du choix de la privatisation est fondée sur ce que Charles Wolf décrit comme un ≪“échec du non marché”≫. L'article fait valoir que le marché pourrait ne pas être aussi efficace que ses adeptes l'ont prétendu, en particulier lorsqu'il existe un monopole dans la prestation des services. Cela fut le cas dans de nombreuses municipalités de certains pays développés, où la privatisation de la prestation de leurs services en eau est repassée à la prestation publique. En prenant comme exemple l'expérience de la ville d'Hamilton concernant ses services d'approvisionnement en eau et d'évacuation des eaux usées, l'article conclut que la nature du produit à livrer est déterminante pour savoir si c'est le “marché” ou le “public” qui fournit la meilleure méthode de prestation de services.     

Morality, Identity and "Constitutional Patriotism"

In a modern, plural society, there can be no settled agreement on the concrete legal content of a country's constitution. The idea of the constitution is nonetheless pivotal in contemporary, liberal-minded theories of political justification, such as the ones advanced by Jürgen Habermas and John Rawls. Justification in these theories depends finally on "constitutional patriotism," a consciously shared sentiment arising from an ethical assessment of their country by the country's people, according to which the country credibly pursues a certain regulative political ideal for which the constitution stands.     

政治附庸还是忠诚公仆?——关于日本司法系统的两种看法

本文分析了二战后头五十年内关于日本司法系统的两种观点。一种观点认为日本法官自愿成为执政党的政治附庸,另一种则认为他们是世界上最独立和诚实的司法人员。双方都同意,作为日本司法系统的特征,对个体法官进行紧密的官僚制控制使得司法系统统一并且和谐运转,但这也导致了日本法官更趋向于服从重森严的等级,而非法律的教义。就这一点而言,日本司法系统可能成为其他国家,比如中国的可借鉴利用的模型,因为后者正在缺乏大量法律从业人员的情况下建设新的司法系统。必须注意的是,日本司法系统是在能够缓和极权倾向的有效民主制度中运行的。作为最终的结论,所有的司法系统都是极具政治性的,他们的所有工作都是以其自身所处的制度文化和政治文化为背景而展开的。本文也分析了各持上述一种观点的两位学者间互相冲突的方法论:马克·拉姆塞耶的回归分析和理性选择假说以及约翰·黑利的传统比较法制度历史分析。本文比较了两种方法论的强处和弱处,并体现了以下两点:第一,至少在这里,定量分析进路强调了个体选择的作用,而定性分析则强调了制度设置;第二,尽管定性分析能提供更为宽广的叙述,但也以故事中空白情节的人为虚构和因此造成的结果走样为代价。