How bad is the federal budget deficit?

This paper describes two views on the economic effects of government budget deficits. According to the traditional view, deficits have a variety of adverse economic consequences. In particular, they cause domestic residents to save less and eventually to have a lower standard of living than would have occurred if the same level of government spending had been financed entirely with current taxes. A competing view, known as the Ricardian view, holds that the economy is little affected by whether a given level of government spending is financed entirely by current taxes or by some feasible combination of taxes and borrowing. Most of the empirical research on the economic consequences of deficits has failed to isolate the effects predicted by the traditional view. The paper also discusses why the conventional methods of measuring the government budget deficit are not the most economically meaningful ones.     

Critical reactions to the japanese management model: A public sector perspective

Because there has been considerable interest in the Japanese management model, this study explores its limitations for the American setting and particularly the American public sector. These limitations include (1) cultural barriers, (2) the incompleteness of the model, and (3) undesirable elements in the model. This analysis concludes that there is little new in humanistic or participative terms to be found in the Japanese approach. Despite several objectionable elements in the model, some of its devices are instructive and may be carefully adapted to public sector use, but adoption of the whole model is unlikely and undesirable.     

Relativistic Justifications

Law and Philosophy -     

Interdisciplinarity and the Discipline of Law

This article concerns the effects of interdisciplinary research conducted by academic lawyers on the legal discipline itself. It discusses the intellectual tension between the modes of legal analysis traditionally used by academic lawyers and the approach taken by interdisciplinary scholars, and how this tension is rooted in the challenges interdisciplinarity poses to widely-accepted notions about the purposes of legal scholarship and the relationship between academic lawyers and the legal profession. The article considers the implications of legal interdisciplinarity in light of the cultural context from which legal interdisciplinarians emerge and how the relationship between legal scholarship and legal practice ultimately guarantees the continued existence of a distinct and coherent disciplinary identity for law.     

Issues in Higher Education Quality Assurance

This article examines a range of policy issues which concern the quality assurance of higher education by regulatory bodies. There is a widespread consensus that the benefits of at least some forms of external quality assurance of higher education exceed the costs. This is probably a matter of faith more than the outcome of a considered analysis, but public policy in several countries has accepted it nevertheless.
There are important questions regarding the manner in which such quality assurance should be conducted. Issues to do with self-regulation, the use of independent ratings agencies, the role of the courts, the establishment of a government agency, and the public funding of private quality assurance bodies all deserve consideration.
Process matters become important once structural issues have been decided. These include quality assurance principles, internationalisation and national jurisdiction; the role of a quality assurance system in qualifications' design and development; what precisely is to be 'quality assured' in higher education; the standards to be used in quality assurance; linkages between quality assurance and public funding of higher education; compliance costs; and the utility of a National Qualifications Framework (NQF).
This article places considerable emphasis on a discussion of the deficiencies of the NQF approach. It argues that the emphasis placed on the development of an NQF in several systems of educational quality assurance is misplaced: an NQF cannot embrace the complexity of contemporary qualifications systems.
Claims to the effect that an NQF is a valuable addition to the sources of information available to national and international labour markets must be treated with scepticism. There are logical and practical issues to be considered in this regard. An NQF is arguably likely to mislead labour markets seriously under existing circumstances.