Analogical reasoning and policymaking: Where and when is it used?

A steadily growing literature has emerged in recent years on the role of analogical reasoning in policymaking contexts. However, there has so far been little attempt to anwer the question of where and when analogical reasoning tends to be used. Using Yaacov Vertzberger's situational-motivational nexus framework as starting point, the article examines the decision of the Kennedy administration to wait it out during the substantial stock market crash of 1962. Little evidence is uncovered that the Kennedy and his advisers relied on analogical reasoning to reach this decision, a finding which is surprising given the number of situational and motivational inducements present in the case. The article concludes that a high degree of perceived risk and uncertainty – noticeably absent from the stock market case – is the key situational inducement to analogizing, but suggests that the case tells us something important about the prevalence of rule- as opposed to case-based reasoning.     

Social indicators for health planning and policy analysis

The concept of health involves two dimensions: The level of function at a point in time and the probability of transition to other levels at future times. By applying measured social values to the distribution of the population among a set of levels, a Function Status Index aptly summarizes the Level-of-Well-Being of a population at a point in time. By incorporating empirically determined transition probabilities into a simple stochastic model, a Quality-Adjusted Life Expectancy can be computed that approximates a comprehensive social indicator for health. The indicators possess the statistical properties required for time series and interpopulation comparisons, for studying outcomes and quality of medical care, and for health system optimization in planning and policy analysis.     

Constraining war: Human security and the Human right to peace

Conclusion The explicit articulation of a cosmopolitan conception of human security and a corresponding right to peace is a positive development in global politics, inasmuch as it decenters the state in our understanding of the human community and delegitimizes organized violence as the generally accepted means for the “continuation” of realist politics. I have argued that just war theory, when defined in suitably narrow fashion, helps to contribute to our thinking on issues of human security in several ways. First, it provides a stringent normative framework for a reasonable humanitarian justification of the resort to force. Second, it enables us to conceptualize significant moral and legal constraints on war and thus on the powers of states to wage war, thereby displacing the use of force from the statist paradigm of security. Third, it contributes to the delegitimation of unjust wars, that is, military actions undertaken for any purposes other than human security. Fourth, insofar as it provides a justificatory basis for the increasing demilitarization of society, it may influence the progressive and just pacification of global politics. As long as the types of human wrongs that present the gravest threats to human security continue to haunt the global community, there remains a need to be able to respond effectively so as to protect the rights and well-being of individuals. This need poses a genuine dilemma for humanitarian morality and politics, insofar as many of the military capabilities required to defend and to aid vulnerable persons can also be the source of threats to human life and welfare. Yet the existence of this dilemma need not lead us either to apathy or to cynicism. The nexus of human security, the right to peace, and just war theory offers a resolution to the traditional security dilemma by challenging the realist rationale for aggressive militarism, and by supporting the emergence of global security structures and processes guided by the humanitarian norms of just peace. *** DIRECT SUPPORT *** A28BB021 00002     

Structural Power and Public Policy: A Signaling Model of Business Lobbying in Democratic Capitalism

This paper develops a signaling model of corporate lobbying in democratic capitalist societies to analyze the conditions that lead to a powerful political position of business. Proceeding from the traditional dichotomy of structural economic determinants versus business' political action, our model predicts the conditions under which elected political decisionmakers modify their policy pledges to accommodate business' political preferences, or override business' lobbying messages and honor their pledges. Our results show that the structural power of business over public policy is contingent on two variables: the size of reputation costs of business in relation to its material costs of lobbying; and the ratio of the policymaker's reputation constraints from policy commitments and campaign pledges to the electoral costs arising from adverse effects of policy. We evaluate our model using case studies of business lobbying on environmental and financial services regulation in Britain and Germany.     

The Role of Philanthropy in Local Government Finance

Nonprofit organizations thrive on the altruism of citizens, and actively court donors for major gifts. Yet individual gifts to government agencies are often unexpected, sporadic, and initiated by the donor. This article introduces the phenomenon of private giving to local governments and tests hypotheses regarding the expected forms of giving to public agencies. Results indicate that philanthropy is and will likely remain a minor and highly variable source of revenue, making it an ill‐suited replacement for broad‐based tax revenue. However, deliberate government efforts to provide a suitable environment for private donations appear to succeed in attracting more gifts per capita.     

The End of the Beginning? The Freedom of Information Bill 1999

With the publication of its plans for a Bill on Freedom of Information, the new Labour government has been accused of abandoning its promise of greater openness in the way government is conducted in this country and its proposals are seen as a departure from the highly applauded contents of the White Paper published in December 1997. The draft Bill has been pilloried by friend and foe alike. It is seen as a litmus test of Blair's government and where it really stands on the citizen/state relationship and how the future balance will lie between the executive and Parliament. The authors examine the events surrounding the publication of the Bill and its scrutiny by the pre-legislative select committees in the Commons and Lords. The Home Secretary has hinted at possible concessions in the light of fierce criticism. Is this a Bill worth saving and how can it be improved to capture a more appropriate balance between confidentiality, secrecy, and openness in the conduct of modern governance?