F.L. McDougall and the Origins of the FAO

This article evaluates the role of Frank Lidgett McDougall, Australian economist, businessman and public servant, in the creation of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). It traces McDougall's development from an advocate of preferential trade within the British Empire to his embrace of a broader, more internationalist, concept of nutrition. By the mid-1930s, McDougall's advocacy of policies to improve nutrition worldwide through "marrying health and agriculture" led to the Australian government's advocacy of such policies in the League of Nations. McDougall was successful in persuading Australian policy makers that proposals to improveworldwide nutritional levels were also in Australia's best interest, by increasing demand for Australian agricultural exports. Finally, McDougall's significant personal role in the establishment of the FAO is assessed as the culmination of his career as a major behind-the-scenes architect of public policy.     

Programmed instruction and its implications in the teaching of law

“Health” is a disciplinarily imperialistic and conceptually amorphous term; as such, it defies a unifying, coherent and universal definition. These characteristics of health present enormous problems for a curriculum developer trying to chart the outlines and contents of the subject. A sure way out is to reflect carefully on Gardner's suggestion regarding the tension between depth and coverage and to make the definition of health a part of any module on health care law. In addition, the experiences of other common jurisdictions present Nigeria with a choice between a single module approach and multiple module approach to health care law.     

Visions of (In)Security and American Strategic Style

This essay was stimulated (provoked) by discussions in three separate venues: (1) a U.S. Naval War College conference on "Alternative Futures in War and Conflict: Implications for U.S. National Security," held in late 1999; (2) several recent widely circulated "blue-ribbon" reports on the subject; and (3) recent papers emerging from the U.S. defense bureaucracy speculating on strategic visions of the next ten to twenty years. My contention is that the prevailing official and quasi-official debate exhibits excessive and overly definitive emphases on: (1) particular facets of insecurity; (2) attributions to the U.S. of benign intent and capacity; and (3) assumptions that most others share that interpretation of our words and deeds. There also tends to be unwarranted neglect of representation and standing issues which discriminate for and against different policy perspectives and forms of program expertise. A plea is offered for an alternative approach based on what we know about how persons, organizations, and communities can best position themselves for (in)security futures.