Disaffected representation in the Netherlands: A nonaffected reappraisal

New data concerning negative orientations between voters and representatives in the Netherlands are presented in this article. These data are based on recent questionnaires among a representative sample of Dutch voters (1977), and nearly all Members of Parliament. It appears that the voters' data are more or less comparable to other countries. Because of the absence of research elsewhere, the representatives' data cannot be compared with other countries.We question, on the grounds of empirical research, the usual negative interpretation of political disaffection. Further, we distinguish five positive functions of political disaffection: more political competition, polemics, countervailing power, room for leadership, and more direct relationships. Finally, we consider seven structural causes of political disaffection: choice, competition, more secondary relationships, the growing public sector, the myth of rationality, the open society, and the discriminating responsiveness of pluralistic systems.     

Taxing the drug trade: Coercive exploitation and the financing of rule

Under the current prohibition regime fornarcotic drugs, taxing the illicit drugtrade appears a contradiction in terms.Nevertheless, a great variety of exactionsystems exist by which states, or fractionsof states, try to fiscalize resources fromparticipants in drug markets, and integratethis drug revenue into their system ofrule. Anti-money laundering legislationand new asset forfeiture laws are the morerecent examples of a much more extensivefiscal toolkit that is applied for thisgoal. This chapter tries to understand theunderlying dynamics of the war on drugs andits outcomes from this fiscal perspective.It looks at diverse modes of ``taxing' thedrug trade, in a variety of jurisdictions along theproduction-trafficking-consumption-investmenttrajectory of the international drugtrade, and tries to assess the implicationsof different fiscal regimes for the natureof rule. The general argument is that crimefighting and law enforcement are poorcategories to comprehend the much morefundamental question of social order thatunderlies these fiscal strategies. Theargument also suggests that criminalization could therefore be seen,not only as a qualitative change in theglobal political order, as Bayart wouldhave it in the citation below, but also asa political coercive strategy that aims tocreate the parameters of a new kind oforder through which power, wealth andsecurity can be accumulated andre-distributed.     

Red Tape: Developing and Validating a New Job‐Centered Measure

Red tape studies typically focus on burdensome rules that have negative effects on organizations, as perceived by managers. The one‐item general red tape scale is representative of this approach. However, scholars have called for improved measures that address the scale's shortcomings. This article introduces a new measurement scale that features (1) red tape as a two‐dimensional construct that includes compliance burden and lack of functionality and (2) a job‐centered approach that measures red tape as experienced by employees in their jobs rather than more generally in the organization. A set of survey questions derived from interviews with government employees was validated using data from 1,203 government employees. The findings indicate that the two‐dimensional job‐centered red tape scale is reliable and valid. The authors conclude that this measure can improve research and be used by managers for a “quick scan” to detect the location and severity of red tape.     

Five Ways to Make a Difference: Perceptions of Practitioners Working in Urban Neighborhoods

This article responds to and develops the fragmented literature exploring intermediation in public administration and urban governance. It uses Q‐methodology to provide a systematic comparative empirical analysis of practitioners who are perceived as making a difference in urban neighborhoods. Through this analysis, an original set of five profiles of practitioners—enduring, struggling, facilitating, organizing, and trailblazing—is identified and compared. This research challenges and advances the existing literature by emphasizing the multiplicity, complexity, and hybridity, rather than the singularity, of individuals perceived as making a difference, arguing that different practitioners make a difference in different ways. The authors set out a research agenda, overlooked in current theorization, that focuses on the relationships and transitions between the five profiles and the conditions that inform them, opening up new avenues for understanding and supporting practice.