A mesolevel comparative approach to maxi and mini strategies of public enterprise reform

Large-scale privatization is an unfamiliar area of public policy. The practice and study of property reforms and privatization needs to include mesolvel phenomena such as laws, regulations, institutions and standard operating procedures. There has been little comparative analysis of privatization programs around the world. The author argues that analysts should compare the most immediately relevant institutional environment of the enterprise. Conceptually, this mesolevel system is situated between the firm and the macroeconomy. This system of action is especially fruitful for cross-national comparisons of privatization programs because it is at this level that privatization strategies are designed. The problem for Eastern Europe and for less-developed countries is lack of experience with the relatively light economic regulation that characterizes industrial countries. Government leaders must also decide how much effort to devote to privatization of state-owned enterprises and how much to fostering private sector investment in new firms. Ernest J. Wilson, III is affiliated with the National Security Council, Washington, D.C.     

Scales for perceived risk of student-on-student victimization in grades 7 through 10: A psychometric analysis of the adolescent index on school safety

Although past research has developed scales for the incidence, prevalence, and fear of student-on-student victimization (SSV), little is known about the scaling of perceived risk (i.e., the cognitive appraisal of the chances of experiencing SSV). Hence, this study examined self-report survey data for the perceived risk of SSV as measured in the Adolescent Index for School Safety (AISS). Children in grades 7 through 10 (n=337) in a single Florida public school completed the AISS. Factor analyses using Maximum Likelihood Estimation with Oblimin Rotation identified nine unique factors for perceived risk. Reliability analyses found standardized Cronbach Alphas that ranged from .64 to .91, and seven out of the nine identified scales were above .80, which suggested good to excellent internal consistency. Future research should examine the content validity, construct validity, and predictive validity for the AISS and other self-report surveys of SSV dynamics. This publication was made possible by a grant [#97-MU-FX-KO12 (S-l)] from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (O.J.J.D.P.), United States Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.). This grant is administered through the Hamilton Fish National Institute on School and Community Violence at George Washington University. This specific study was developed and implemented by staff at: 1) East Carolina University’s Department of Criminal Justice; and 2) Florida State University’s Center for Educational Research and Policy Studies. All points of view and opinions in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of East Carolina University, Florida State University, the Hamilton Fish National Institute on School and Community Violence, the O.J.J.D.P., or the U.S.D.OJ. The authors would also like to thank Dr. Bill Doerner and Jennifer Jolley for their support, editorial feedback, and insightful comments regarding earlier drafts of this paper.     

Bodenschutzrechtliche Ordnungspflichten im Insolvenzverfahren

Seit längerem ist in Rechtsprechung und Literatur umstritten, ¹ ob und in welchem Umfang ein Insolvenzverwalter wegen Gefahren, die von Massegegenständen ausgehen, ordnungsrechtlich haftet. In zwei aktuellen Urteilen hat das BVerwG eine Zustandsverantwortlichkeit des Insolvenzverwalters grundsätzlich anerkannt. Insbesondere durch Freigabe von Massegegenständen kann sich der Insolvenzverwalter aber von der ordnungsrechtlichen Haftung befreien. 1) Vgl. zu dem Streit zwischen Insolvenz- und Verwaltungsrechtlern, Verwaltungs- und Zivilgerichten: Uhlenbruck KTS 2004, 275ff.; Kothe ZfIR 2004, 1ff.; Häsemeyer in: FS Uhlenbruck, 2000, S. 97ff.; Franz NuR 2000, 496ff.     

中国高等教育的将来

目前,我们处在一个相互依赖和多元文化的全球社会。世界变了,高等教育却仍然没有出现任何实质性的变革。因此,我们需要对高等教育重新进行思考,我们需要全新的教育内容、途径以及步骤。教师必须学着将学生们自己的知识看成是教——学过程中一个非常重要的新资源,同时应该继续掌控学生在课堂的学习过程。我们有关学习的新的认识和当前实际的学习方式是互相矛盾的。对于真正的素质教育来说,培养更高层次的思考方法必须优先于实际知识的学习。与其他社会制度一样,高等教育也往往抵制变革。因此我们必须设计出新的机制,不断进行变革,使这些变革对于所有的教育机构、教职员工和学生来说都是很平常的,都是容易实现的。我提议,邀请大学和学院参与进来,重新定义中国的高等教育。批准参与的大学和学院都将收到一笔特殊基金,用于贯彻实施他们自己设计的独立的改革方案。这些方案都须是小型的、独立的,并且是不受传统的和官僚性的改革方案限制的。