FIGHTING OVER TRIVIAL THINGS: EXPLAINING THE ISSUE OF CONTENTION IN VIOLENT ALTERCATIONS*

Violent altercations can lead to serious injury and death, and yet some interpersonal disputes that prompt physical violence originate over what are seemingly trivial issues. This study evaluates the theoretical premise that violence stemming from what typically are defined as trivial altercations can be explained by what is at stake in these conflicts; trivial altercations, or fights about “nothing,” actually represent symbolic contests of dominance and deference. These status contests are necessary primarily when the social relationship between opponents is symmetrical—when a dominance hierarchy is not clearly established. Data from interviews with incarcerated women in Ontario, Canada, show that relationship symmetry strongly predicts the issue of contention in their physically violent altercations. These findings suggest that, when violence erupts over trivial issues, both parties to the altercation essentially are locked in a battle for social rank.     

Intergovernmental Innovation and the Administrative State in Canada

Canadian federalism has experienced considerable pressure for change and innovation in recent years. There have been calls for more collaborative federalism and demands for public sector reforms consistent with the precepts of New Public Management. This article examines the hypothesis that these pressures might be expected to have resulted in some intergovernmental institutional innovation in the arena of federal–provincial–territorial relations. Using a conceptual distinction between federalism, intergovernmental relations, and intergovernmental management (IGM) as the basis of analyzing institutional innovation at six levels in the Canadian intergovernmental administrative state, the authors find a differentiated impact with more institutional innovation evident at the micro levels of IGM and innovation more constrained at the macro levels of the administrative state by the traditional institutional infrastructure of executive federalism.     

The Democratic Soup: Mixed Meanings of Political Representation in Governance Networks

This article explores how political representation is enacted in governance networks, where interdependent actors from government, business, and civil society coproduce public policy. A combined dramaturgical and discourse analysis considers how representation is staged, performed, and articulated in a case study of recent Dutch energy reforms. The findings suggest that networks produce a kind of "democratic soup" where actors and institutions enact alternative meanings of representation that sit uncomfortably alongside representative democracy's emphasis on political authorization, accountability, and responsiveness. These democratic attributes appear to be decoupled from representation in governance networks and thus need to be secured through other means.     

COLLECTIVE EFFICACY,AUTHORITATIVE PARENTING AND DELINQUENCY: A LONGITUDINAL TEST OF A MODEL INTEGRATING COMMUNITY‐AND FAMILY‐LEVEL PROCESSES*

In this paper, we develop and test hypotheses on how authoritative parenting and collective efficacy combine to increase a child's risk of affiliating with deviant peers and engaging in delinquent behavior. Analyses using two waves of data from a sample of several hundred African American caregivers and their children largely supported the predictions. Over time, increases in collective efficacy within a community were associated with increases in authoritative parenting. Further, both authoritative parenting and collective efficacy served to deter affiliation with deviant peers and involvement in delinquent behavior. Finally, there was evidence of an amplification process whereby the deterrent effect of authoritative parenting on affiliation with deviant peers and delinquency was enhanced when it was administered within a community with high collective efficacy.     

Procedural Rationality and Regulatory Decision-Making: A Decision Framework Approach

This paper presents the methodology and some preliminary findings from an ongoing study of the procedural rationality of regulatory decisionmaking in the occupational health arena. The author employs the concept of procedural rationality in the sense used by Herbert Simon to refer to the logic of decision-making as it is shaped by institutional constraints. Of particular interest here is the impact of provisions for the involvement of affected interests in and public scrutiny of the regulatory process. The methodology presented involves a charting of the "decision frameworks" adopted by participants in the process at various stages. The methodology is illustrated through its application to the particular case of the development of a regulation governing occupational exposure to inorganic lead in the Canadian province of Ontario.