Toward a Refinement of Purpose in Comparative Criminological Research: Research Site Selection in Focus

This paper draws on a distinction between two purposes of comparative research: (1) testing the universality of a proposition (theory testing) and (2) specification of a proposition (theory construction). These two distinct activities have been inadvertently mixed in comparative criminology thereby causing a great deal of confusion. The present paper argues that attention by comparative researchers to this distinction between theory testing and theory construction will contribute to the resolution of one major methodological problem: that of research site selection. We suggest that in light of the distinction drawn, the testing of the universality of a proposition is most appropriately done in research comparing Western and non-Western nations (“dissimilar design”). But comparative research aimed at the specification of a proposition is best conducted by comparing Western nations (“similar design”).     

The Leaderless Nexus: When Crime and Terror Converge

This article argues that the breakdown of hierarchical structures in illicit organizations is creating new opportunities for criminals and terrorists to collaborate. The rise of networked organizations has given greater independence to criminals and terrorists who previously answered to a clear chain of command. These members are now willing to engage in operations that before had been off-limits because the leadership believed the activity would hurt the organization's broader mandate. The result is that a “leaderless nexus” is beginning to emerge between criminals and terrorists. The phenomenon has far-reaching and dangerous implications for U.S. security, and should be thoughtfully considered as lawmakers debate homeland security reform.     

The Value of Majority Status: The Effect of Jeffords's Switch on Asset Prices of Republican and Democratic Firms

Using the change in party control of the Senate that resulted from Jim Jeffords's 2001 change in party affiliation, we compare competing partisan and partyless legislative theories. We offer a reconceptualization of agenda control that provides a new and promising basis for studying parties and policymaking in the Senate. Also, we present a novel methodology—an “event study”—to test partisan and partyless hypotheses. Our results show that, when Jeffords switched, the stock prices of Republican‐supported energy firms dropped and prices for Democrat‐supported firms rose, supporting the hypothesis that the majority party influences Senate decisions.     

DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE NETWORKS: COMPATIBLE OR NOT?

This paper investigates the relationship between representative democracy and governance networks at a theoretical level. It does so by offering four conjectures and their implications for theory and practice. The incompatibility conjectures rests on the primacy of politics and sees governance networks as a threat. The complementarity conjecture presents governance networks as a means of enabling greater participation in the policy process and sensitivity in programme implementation. The transitional conjecture posits a wider evolution of governance forms towards network relationships. The instrumental conjecture views governance networks as a powerful means through which dominant interests can achieve their goals. Illustrative implications for theory and practice are identified, in relation to power in the policy process, the public interest, and the role of public managers. The heuristic potential of the conjectures is demonstrated through the identification of an outline research agenda.