Does Democratization Alter the Policy Process? Trade Policymaking in Brazil

This article explores the implications of transitions to democracy for the economic policymaking process in developing countries. Democracy is supposed to give citizens oversight of their political leaders, while providing leaders with electoral incentives to respect citizens' preferences. Consequently, a shift from authoritarian to democratic rule ought to alter policymaking. Using the case of Brazilian trade policy, this article examines changed versus consistent patterns of post-transition interest aggregation, political participation, and economic goal-setting. Contrary to expectations of a notably enlarged role for the legislative houses, the study finds that Brazil's executive still dominates trade policymaking. However, significant and increasingly transparent interest aggregation occurs within the federal executive. Moreover, policy capture by sectoral special interests has decreased, while non-traditional civil society participants have gained some influence, and trade policy outcomes now are arguably more public-regarding. We find that Brazil's trade policy process has been incrementally democratized.     

Althusser's solitude ∗

Noting the prevalence of the theme of ‘solitude’ in the writings of Louis Althusser, this paper aims to capture something of Althusser's own theoretical solitude as a Communist philosopher intent upon renovating Marxist theory in order to ‘help put some substance back into the revolutionary project . . . in the West’. It argues that Althusser's singularity within the Marxist tradition consists in his effective rupture not only with orthodox dialectical and historical materialism and heterodox western Marxism, but with central tenets of classical Marxism itself; that this break derives from his utilization of key non-Marxist discourses (Spinozism, conventionalist philosophy of science, and aspects of structuralism); and that the resulting reconstruction of Marxism was highly original, yet seriously flawed. It concludes that, despite the resonance of his work in the 1960s and 1970s, for theoretical and political reasons Althusser is today once again condemned to solitude. “Communists, when they are Marxists, and Marxists when they are Communists, never cry in the wilderness. Even when they are practically alone.” (Louis Althusser, Reply to John Lewis)     

TO RECOMMEND OR NOT TO RECOMMEND: THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION

Tippins and Wittmann provide a cogent argument for custody evaluators not to make recommendations to the court. From their forensic and scientific perspectives, they have identified some important issues, which will certainly stimulate interesting discussion among custody evaluators. In response to their article, it is my view that public sector custody evaluations offer a philosophical and procedural alternative to forensic evaluations. This article proposes that recommendations should be viewed as part of the process of evaluations rather than the outcome. Based on a qualitative and interpretive model, recommendations are judged based on their applicability, transferability, and transparency. Recommendations viewed in qualitative terms provide parents with opportunities to step out of litigation and provide guidance for parents' ongoing roles postseparation.     

The spatial distribution of random gunfire: A block-level investigation of physical and social structural conditions

This paper examines the environmental and social structural correlates associated with random gunfire incidents. The study group consists of 273 face blocks and intersections in a selected portion of Dallas, Texas. The data show some locations routinely generate random gunfire, while others remain gunshot-free. The analysis suggests environmental factors are not sufficient to explain random gunfire. Implications for future inquiries are offered. The research for this paper was supported by Grant No. DOJ-OH-6-8971 from the National Institute of Justice. Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. The authors are indebted to the support from the Dallas Police Department with special appreciation to Sgt. Mark Stallo, Sgt. Bruce McDonald, and Southwest Crime Analyst Mike Edgar. Thanks also go to James Frank from the University of Cincinnati and Kasaundra Tomlin from the University of Central Florida.     

Differences That Matter: Overcoming Methodological Nationalism in Comparative Social Policy Research

Abstract

Welfare states are often discussed as if they were territorially homogeneous state-wide institutions measurable by state-wide expenditure averages and explained by country-level variables. It is rare in comparative policy studies to investigate the role of territorial politics in the outcomes of even federal countries. This article argues, using social policy examples in the UK and US, that the impact of intergovernmental finance and division of labour profoundly shapes social investment and redistribution – producing almost as much expenditure variance within the US as within the OECD. The findings show the importance of incorporating territorial politics and intergovernmental arrangements into comparative welfare state and policy analysis.