Victims justice preferences in a collectivist,informal setting: The case of Bhutanese refugees in Nepal

An abundance of research has emerged in the last 30 years focusing on justice preferences for victims of crime. In general, findings indicate that victims are interested in aspects of procedural justice, interactional justice, restorative justice, retributive justice and behavior control. Under certain conditions, however, these preferences may vary. One dimension that may lead to individuals diverging in their justice preferences is that of culture. The large majority of victimological research on victim legal preferences has been conducted in western jurisdictions. The current research adds to that body of knowledge by examining a different group: Bhutanese refugees residing in refugee camps in Nepal. This examination focuses on their collectivist status and how such cultural differences lead to different styles and characteristics of conflict resolution. It is hypothesized that victims in a collectivist society will primarily be interested in restoration, while voice to the decision maker, voice to the other party and retribution will not be important in predicting overall satisfaction. A multiple regression analysis confirms the hypotheses regarding voice toward the offender, restoration and retribution. Possible reasons for the remaining findings are discussed.     

Strength in diversity: multiple memories of the Soviet past in the Russian Communist Party (CPRF), 1993–2004

This paper investigates collective memory of the Soviet experiment in the narratives of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF), in the period of 1993–2004. My research finds that ideological differences within the CPRF led to the creation of multiple and contrasting depictions of the Soviet past in the discourse of its leaders. Challenging dominant assumptions, I argue that these differences did not conflict and undermine one another, but were structured to strengthen the public appeal of the CPRF. The paper adds empirical findings to the study of the CPRF and of collective memory at the (so far underdeveloped) level of public organizations. The paper also challenges the prevailing assumption that diverging historical narratives necessarily imply conflict and contestation.     

What Works and Why? Lessons from Public Management Reform in Malaysia

This article examines the Malaysian experience with public management reform to verify arguments about various reform models. Drawing on empirical data, it investigates reforms that have worked and those that have had limited impacts on public service improvements. It identifies critical success factors that determine reform outcomes and concludes that for reforms to succeed a combined top–down and bottom–up approach is crucial. It argues that while diagnostic and problem-oriented reforms have a better chance of being successful, the value of best-practice reforms should not be discounted. The cumulative impact of such reforms can be significant, as the Malaysian case demonstrates.     

Budget reform—the Malaysian experience

Budget reform had been on the Malaysian government agenda for over two decades. The first major effort at budget reform was the introduction of the Malaysian version of Programme and Performance Budgeting System (MPPB) in 1969. Another major restructuring of the budget process took place in 1989 to modify MPPB. The package of modifications was titled the Modified Budgeting System (MBS). This article reviews the development of budget reform over the past decades. It documents the modest progress of MPPB and examines the rationale of the recent reform. The article then surveys the objectives and elements of the latest initiative in greater depth to assess the extent of its improvement over the previous effort. The article also illustrates, based on the lessons learnt from the implementation of MPPB, that an appropriate administrative structure, culture and implementation strategy are all-important for reform success.