Melody and Law's Mindfulness of Time

Abstract. A structured awareness of time lies at the core of the law's distinctive normativity. Melody is offered as a rough model of this mindfulness of time, since some important features of this awareness are also present in a hearer's grasp of melody. The model of melody is used, first, to identify some temporal dimensions of intentional action and then to highlight law's mindfulness of time. Its role in the structure of legal thinking, and especially in precedent‐sensitive legal reasoning, is explored. This article argues further that melody‐modeled mindfulness of time is evident also at a deeper and more pervasive level, giving structure to the distinctive mode of law's normative guidance. The article draws one important theoretical consequence from this exploration, namely, that the normative coherence of momentary legal systems depends conceptually on their coherence over time.     

Book review

The Making of the New Japan: Reclaiming the Political Mainstream by Yasuhiro Nakasone. Translated and annotated by Lesley Connors Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press, 1999. ISBN: 0–7007–1246–1, xii + 256 pp. Hardcover, £30.00     

Crafting the language of consensus

Conclusion In summary, the consensus process provides a necessary set of procedures and standards that provide the essential foundation for reaching mutually supported settlement of disputes. Adjudicatory or voting processes are antithetical to the very nature of the consensus process. When voting takes place, winners and losers are explicitly defined. This can lead to lessened support for implementation of solutions—and even to the losers preferring that implementation fail.As with any other processes, consensus-based processes can—and, at times, should—fail. Where consensus fails, participants will have recourse to other alternatives for making decisions, including administrative, legal, and political forums, the alternative forums which provided the impetus for disputing parties to seek mutually agreeable solutions through a consensus process. Gerald W. Cormick is a mediator specializing in public policy dispute settlement and a Senior Lecturer in the Graduate school of Public Affairs at the University of Washington. His mailing address is 15629 Cascadian Way, Mill Creek, Wash. 98102.This column is based on materials developed by the author for the British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, 8 April 1991.     

What will work? the Costa Rican experience using silos in achieving universal health care 2000

The study of comparative and development administration frees governments from their parochial confines. It opens vistas onto global experiences of what has worked well for others elsewhere and enlarges the range of possible choices that might be made to improve domestic performance. After the World Health Organization in 1977 had adopted the goal “Health for All in the Year 2000,” the Pan American Health Organization opted for the strategy of achieving it though local health systems (SILOS). Costa Rica, the most likely candidate for successful implementation, adopted SILOS in the late 1980s but has run into many difficulties in making SILOS a reality. The difficulties and the impact that SILOS have made on the national health service of Costa Rica are examined and several lessons are drawn to illustrate once again how difficult comparative and development administration are in practice.     

Administrative reform -- proceed with caution

The past decade has seen an acceleration in administrative reform. All around the world, the administrative state is being reexamined and reshaped. As a result, government is being transformed and reinvented, bureaucratic centralism is being abandoned, the welfare state is being downsized, the public sector is being reduced, public organizations are being reengineered, and public management is being reinvigorated. This all sounds familiar. Governments have promised as much before but they have too often failed to improve their performance simply because many reforms have proved disappointing. Reforms have failed to make any significant impact; they have gone wrong; they have been overtaken by events. The reformers have been too optimistic and often unrealistic; they have fallen into the many traps of implementation. Magical keys to reform success are few and far between. Reforms need strong political backing, mass support, and competent inside facilitation. Reformers need to take their time and accept what they can achieve even if the results fall short of their intentions. Above all, they must not give up when the going gets tough; persistence will eventually succeed.