The unintended consequences of New Zealand's primary health care reforms

In 2001, the New Zealand government commenced a program to reform the organization of publicly funded primary care services. While there have been several positive results of this reform, including the reduction of patient co-payments and the extension of the range of primary care services, the government's program was a hastily implemented attempt to place primary care, the delivery of which is dominated by private doctors, under firm state control. It was also an attempt to override preexisting arrangements. As such, the government succeeded in its goal of establishing new primary health organizations (PHOs), but there were also significant unintended consequences. As detailed in this article, these consequences include (1) the creation of a labyrinthine funding and organizational system with a variable capacity to deliver on the government's reform objectives, (2) an increase in the power and scope of preexisting doctor organizations combined with a government unable to wrest control over the setting of patient co-payment levels, and (3) an emerging lack of clarity about future directions for the primary health care sector.     

From Dignified Burial to ‘Terrorist Mausoleum’: Exhumations,Moral Panic and Mourning Policies in Peru

In this article, we examine mourning policies with respect to exhumations of mass graves from the Peruvian armed conflict. By reflecting on a case in which the exhumed dead, and their relatives, do not conform to the model of legitimate victims, we explore the limits of reparation policies and their effect on reconciliation. We investigate how the ‘terrorist mausoleum’ led to a significant episode of ‘moral panic’. We then analyse the normative perspective on mourning, as implemented in the public sphere, and how mourning, citizenship and nation are related when burying unwelcome dead associated with the figure of the ‘terrorist’.     

Toward a better understanding of racial and ethnic disparities in search and seizure rates

Recent studies demonstrated a consistent research finding that compared to Caucasian motorists, Black and Hispanic motorists were significantly more likely to be subjected to personal and/or vehicle searches during traffic stops, but significantly less likely to be found in possession of contraband. Explanations for these findings were typically based on speculation regarding officers' racial animus, bias, and discrimination. Unfortunately, very little is truly known about the reasons for these disparate patterns in police behavior. This article presents an alternative explanation for the reoccurring findings of racial/ethnic disparities in searches and seizures, based on research findings regarding the accuracy of clues of deception and suspicious behavior taught to officers through highway criminal interdiction training. These research findings are used to develop a hypothesis that could account for the patterns of racial/ethnic disparities in search rates. The implications for future research and policing policies based on this hypothesis are discussed.     

Redefining American Security Interests in Europe

Despite sometimes promiscuous claims by President Trump's critics, controversy about America's commitment under Article 5 dates back seven decades. If largely quiescent through the Soviet Union's collapse, it was because the core Article 5 commitment thankfully went untested. Controversy reemerged with NATO enlargement eastward. In a strange inversion, what c.1949 was a prime objection to its commitment to use force—what Senator Forrest Donnell called the illusory discretion of the “such action as it deems necessary” condition added by George Kennan and other proponents to rescue the Washington Treaty in the Senate—is now embraced, ahistorically, by Article 5 hawks: that the commitment is mechanical, not discretionary. It is substantially a unilateral American one, too. Chronic European underspending and anemic public support across the continent challenge whether most NATO countries could—or would—rally to an ally's defense.