REINTERPRETING THE DEBATE ON AUTONOMY IN PUBLIC SERVICE SCIENCE*

Abstract: The report of the Science Task Force of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration rekindled an old debate on autonomy versus accountability for government scientists. The rationale given there for allowing the natural science community great discretion in managing its own affairs while in receipt of very considerable public funds did not get much support in the debate. Unfortunately, the debate did little to illuminate the problems facing those charged with producing creative, but relevant research in public institutions. A more productive way of tackling the question of autonomy and accountability is to see whose interests are promoted by different stances on the issue. Some critics represent the quest for autonomy as simple power-seeking by professional elites. Yet the institutional setting for many supposedly autonomous scientists involved in successful innovation in industry often involves extensive interaction with non-scientists. User groups — such as the agricultural commodities research committees — influence scientists through a loosely coordinated network. In this situation a form of accountability exists, although it is not exerted through formal parliamentary mechanisms. The arrangements have some elements of corporatism. Autonomy is not prominent within this setting except elusively as a rationale used to blunt temporarily the impact of particular interest group demands that threaten the continuity required to realize investments in long-term research projects. In this case, autonomy is essentially a myth. However, to the extent that it allows scientific institutions to combine interaction in the practical world that their research must serve with some insulation from short-term political or interest group pressures, it may be valuable for successful research management. Science administrators sometimes regulate the research of their juniors quite closely, indicating that even individual “scientific autonomy” can be a very limited form of freedom. None the less, it can be managed in such a way as to allow creative talent to flourish within an accountable structure albeit one that departs from the conventional norms of responsible government.     

Cultural Challenges to Democratization in Russia

Three historical forces having shaped Russia—the Land, the Church, and the West. Fifteen years after the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia remains the largest country on earth, with geopolitical interests in virtually every nation on the Eurasian continent and a fast-growing economy. The Russian Orthodox Church has resumed its place at the center of Russian culture, a culture that must be considered when assessing Russia's prospects for democratization. Likewise, Russians’ understanding of the West and democracy often suffers from misapprehensions that must be overcome in order for it to be attractive to Russia to move toward its own form of democracy. For U.S.-Russian differences today are primarily cultural, not ideological.     

U.S. Aid for Foreign Justice and Police

The fundamental objective of the United States in its efforts to reform justice systems abroad has been to develop effective institutions of criminal justice that can support transitions to democratic government. Unfortunately, the United States has not been doing this as well as it might, Iraq being the most dramatic case. These efforts lack coherent Congressional oversight and strategic vision, neglect improving the normative quality of local justice systems and developing the capacity to manage by results, and subordinate local reform to the security needs of foreign countries. To remedy these shortcomings, the United States needs to develop and coordinate justice assistance programs that are context specific, recruit and deploy justice specialists from all sectors and levels of the American justice system, incorporate a developmental perspective in justice assistance programs, and formulate programs that are based on proven “best practices.”     

Making the World a Better and Safer Place: The Time for Action is Now

This article argues that the events of 11 September 2001, and their aftermath, have heightened the need both to confront terrorism directly, increase global security and enhance the structures of global governance. The article concentrates on measures to enhance global security and gover-nance. In particular, measures must be taken to address some of the root causes of terrorism: those of economic exclusion, poverty and under-development. The article argues that the World Bank, along with other international financial institutions and the UN system, have a central role to play. The article concludes by identifying four priority areas for international action.     

Learning to suck eggs,or is there a case for a postgraduate development studies benchmark?

Many academic disciplines in the UK have recently introduced subject benchmarks that specify core or minimum content for particular degrees. The article suggests that efficiency, quality, and transparency arguments in favour of such benchmarks may be undermined by problems in specification, identification, and implementation. By contrasting the programme specification for the Master's in development studies at Bath (overspecified) with the benchmark for Master's in management and business administration (underspecified), it suggests that an intermediate benchmark for development studies could usefully enhance transparency about what development studies is and what it has to offer. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A simulation model of pretrial felony case processing: A queuing system analysis

Case processing tends to be examined with data analysis or evaluation designs. Both limit our understanding of how case processing as a whole operates and how its parts relate to each other. This article suggests queue simulation modeling as a method for dealing with these issues. We report here the initial development and analysis of a queuing model of arraignment to trial assignment. Conceptualizing on the basis of court functions and empirical findings, rather than institutional structures, we conceive a five-stage pretrial process. Using case-level, rather than system-level data, we construct a single-server, multiphase queuing model and use the model to simulate the behavior of a pretrial case processing system. Simulations show the strong impact of the final phase (trial assignment) on the entire system and that most of this impact is delay rather than service. The system is then analyzed using a factorial design that systematically alters model parameters thought to be important determinants of performance. Simulations are run for each possibility in the design, and analysis of variance is used to examine results. Analysis confirms prior results concerning final phase impact and points specifically to the import of phase capacity and exit rate. The utility of modeling is considered by suggesting some policy implications of the results for judicial staffing and behavior.