Chester barnard's concept of responsibility

This article discusses what Chester Barnard meant by responsibility, what he presupposed in his definition, and how it differed from his more general idea of morality. For Barnard, the delegation of responsibility was more important than the issue of authority, and, as he says, must precede it. The article attempts to explain why Barnard thought this, and what exactly he meant by it. In Barnard's mind the concept of authority was quite secondary to the importance of responsibility.     

You gotta move: advancing the debate on the record of dispersal

This paper summarizes the social science research on the record of housing dispersal programs since 1995. The research shows a consistently disappointing record of benefits to low-income households. Households moved out of high-poverty neighborhoods, voluntarily and involuntarily, show few or no beneficial effects in terms of economic self-sufficiency, health benefits, or social integration. The benefits of dispersal are confined to feelings of greater safety and satisfaction with neighborhood environmental conditions. We offer a framework for understanding the disappointing record of dispersal, highlighting its translation from social science diagnosis to policy, problems in the policy's implementation, its underlying theory of poverty, and the political context within which dispersal has been applied.     

Action in adversity: Responses to unemployment in Britain and Germany

A ‘satisficing’ model of response to adversity is used to compare the reaction of Britain and Germany to the common stimulus of large and visible increases in structural unemployment since the mid‐1970s. Initially, both countries responded similarly, spending lots more money on existing programmes. However, as dissatisfaction persisted, responses differed: British governments sought to achieve satisfaction by a trial‐and‐error search, introducing (and repealing) many programmes. By contrast, Germany tried virtually no new measures. The conclusion considers why the two governments should respond differently. It rejects explanations of economic differences or party differences. Institutional differences linked to legal requirements and budgets ‐ reducing flexibility in Germany and facilitating it in Britain ‐provide a better explanation, indicating that state structure is an important independent influence on the capacity of a government to respond to signals of dissatisfaction.     

An Operational Code Analysis of China’s National Defense White Papers: 1998-2015

Journal of Chinese Political Science - Scholarly efforts to predict the future character of the U.S.-China relationship abound. Few however looks to leaders’ beliefs as valid explanatory...