An indirect legitimacy argument for a directly elected European Parliament

Can a directly elected European Parliament help deliver standards by which the European Union can be indirectly legitimated through its component national democracies? This article argues that the Union can be indirectly legitimate where it helps member state democracies meet their own obligations to their own publics. The Union can do just that by managing externalities in ways needed to secure core values of justice, democracy and freedom from arbitrary domination within member states. Yet that poses a predicament: for if any one member state has an interest in imposing negative externalities or in freeriding on positive externalities provided by another, then so may its voters and democratic institutions. The article argues a directly elected European Parliament can help manage that predicament both by identifying externalities and by ensuring their regulation meets standards of public control, political equality and justification owed to individual national democracies.     

THE SHIFTING STATE: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN A TIME OF CHANGE

This is the keynote address given by the Right Hon The Lord Scarman, OBE, Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and the RIPA's President, at the Institute's Conference on'The Shifting State: Rules, Roles and Boundaries in the 198s', held at the University of Aston, 14–15 September 1984.     

Dueling Revenue Caps and Municipal Bond Yields: The Case of Houston,Texas

Two competing revenue cap proposals, one from a citizen's group and the other proposed by the mayor, were on the November 2004, election ballot of the City of Houston, Texas. Both propositions passed, yet the citizen's group had to sue to have their initiative enforced. This study examines the effect on Houston bond yields of the series of events (from June 2004 through March 2006) surrounding these dueling revenue cap propositions. The empirical findings suggest that the budget‐related events can have a significant effect on yields demanded by investors in the secondary market for outstanding uninsured tax‐exempt general obligation debt.     

Bringing the Sociology of Media Back In

In political communication research, news media tend to be studied more as a dependent than independent variable. That is, few studies link structural characteristics of media systems to the production of journalistic discourse about politics. One reason for this relative silence is the inadequacy of prevalent theories. Influential scholars in sociology and political communication such as Jürgen Habermas, Manuel Castells, and William Gamson provide only sketchy, institutionally underspecified accounts of media systems. Likewise, models in the sociology of news have tended to either aggregate societal level influences (chiefly political and economic) that are analytically and often empirically quite distinct or overemphasize micro-level influences (news routines, bureaucratic pressures). In between such micro- and macro-influences, the mezzo-level "journalistic field" represents an important shaping factor heretofore largely ignored. As path-dependent institutional logics, fields help ground cultural analysis; as interorganizational spatial environments varying in their level of concentration, they explain heretofore undertheorized aspects of news production. Drawing on the sociology of news and field theory (Bourdieu and American new institutionalism), this essay offers a series of hypotheses about how variable characteristics of media systems shape news discourse. Since variation at the system level is most clearly seen via cross-national comparative studies, international research is best positioned to build more generalizable theory about the production of journalistically mediated political discourse.