Finance,technology transfer,and national security: A preliminary survey

Concern has been expressed within and outside the United States government about the implications for national security of foreign ownership of and control over aspects of the US defense industrial base and the transfer of militarily sensitive technology to other countries. The focus has rightly been placed on direct contact, through over or clandestine means, between US organizations that are engaged in the development or manufacture of such technology and foreign countries. Avenues of indirect contact and/or access have, however, received less attention. This survey is a review of the various elements of one such avenue-foreign control over or presence in the US financial community. Since finance is an essential element of economic activity and US policy strongly endorses the unfettered freedom of movement of all aspects of economic activity across national borders, a strong foreign presence in the American financial sector is expected and welcomed. Yet the obvious use of finance to control and channel production and distribution leads to consideration of the ways in which foreign interests in acquiring or affecting sensitive technologies can be advanced through financial means.     

The Distribution of Political Participation in Norway: Alternative Perspectives on a Problem of Democratic Theory*

How citizen participation is distributed within the population is one of several fundamental questions of general significance to democratic theorists. This article briefly reviews some of the most salient normative arguments regarding the distribution of democratic citizen participation and then turns to the principal conceptual-methodological issues to be encountered when considering the basic empirical question. Against this background the Norwegian case is discussed in detail, first in light of prior synchronic investigations, then by means of a diachronic analysis of panel study data from the 1965, 1969 and 1973 national election surveys. These analyses document more broadly based citizen participation in Norway than might otherwise be anticipated and discredit the idea of a cumulative hierarchical overlap pattern of political involvement. The article concludes with a discussion of several considerations relating to these findings, all of which suggest the need for greater sensitivity and explicitness among those who would advance claims or comparisons regarding the distribution of citizen participation in modern democracies.     

Mediating public disputes: A response to the skeptics

Conclusions There are more than 75 well-documented cases of successful dispute resolution in the public sector (and a great many more that are less well-documented). The evidence attesting to the merits of non-adjudicatory approaches to dispute resolution is mounting rapidly.While there are some public disputes that do not lend themselves to informal resolution (i.e., disputes involving fundamental freedoms or rights), many involving conflicting interests and values have proven resolvable in a win-win fashion. The most important preconditions for success have been the presence of a credible nonpartisan facilitator or mediator, parties in an undeniably interdependent situation and pressure created by a decision maker who has promised to act (using traditional decision-making methods) in the absence of a consensus. In short, given these preconditions, there are a number of good reasons to forge ahead with efforts to employ mediation and other forms of dispute resolution on a more regular basis. Lawrence Susskind is Professor of Urban Studies and Planning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Executive Director of the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass. 02138. Co-author ofResolving Environmental Regulatory Disputes (Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman, 1984), he has served as a mediator of public disputes at the local, state and federal levels.     

Gratuitous language in appellate cases involving gay people: “Queer bating” from the bench

An examination of appellate cases—state and federal—where homosexual behavior is under judicial scrutiny suggests that gay litigants are frequently the targets of gratuitous asides. Such language takes various forms. It also occurs with varying frequency depending on the type of case (criminal, employment discrimination, immigration and naturalization, licensing and incorporation, marriage, or child custody) under examination. The incidence of such language also varies with the level of the court involved (state vs. federal), and it also varies temporally, showing a general decline with the advance of time. The presence of such language is employed as an indicator of the legitimacy accorded gay litigants in the courtroom. Within this context, the impact and efficacy of litigation on behalf of gay people is also assessed.