Juggling Inputs, Outputs, and Outcomes in the Search for Policy Competence: Recent Experience in Australia

During the mid- to late 1980s, the Labor government in Australia under Prime Minister Bob Hawke distinguished itself by achieving a balance in its budgeting and management approaches. This allowed for focusing on inputs, outputs, and outcomes in tandem. The approach differed considerably from that pursued in New Zealand. There, an overemphasis on outputs introduced serious distortions to the relations between ministers and officials, which reformers in Wellington have subsequently taken strides toward correcting.
As often happens with reform movements, the Australian process reached a plateau by the early to mid-1990s. Broadly, officials welcomed a change of government in 1996 with the expectation that the coalition under Prime Minister John Howard would give new impetus to innovative public management. Ironically, this coalition addressed the issues surrounding budgeting and management reform through an unreconstructed 1980s lens, highlighting outputs at the expense of balanced emphasis of inputs and outcomes as well. As suggested by the Labor government's success in the 1980s and the adjustments attempted by New Zealand governments in the 1990s, collective dynamics among and between members of cabinet and officials, respectively, are key to a balanced approach. These dynamics foster a sense of trusteeship whereby participants see that inputs, outputs, and outcomes form part of a seamless web centered on public interest. The analysis of the Coalition's performance so far suggests thhat its efforts at reform have proven retrogressive when evaluated by this standard.     

Electoral bias at the 2015 general election: reducing Labour’s electoral advantage

Electoral bias results in an asymmetrical seat distribution between parties with similar vote shares. Over recent British general elections Labour held an advantage because it efficiently converted votes into seats. Following the 2015 election result this advantage has reduced considerably, principally because Labour’s vote distribution saw it accumulate more ineffective votes, particularly where electoral support was not converted into seats. By contrast, the vote distribution of the Conservative party is now superior to that of Labour because it acquired fewer wasted votes although Labour retains a modest advantage overall because it benefits from inequalities in electorate size and differences in voter turnout. Features of the 2015 election, however, raise general methodological challenges for decomposing electoral bias. The analysis, therefore, considers the effect of substituting the Liberal Democrats as the third party with the United Kingdom Independence Party. It also examines the outcome in Scotland separately from that in England and Wales. Following this analysis it becomes clear that the method for decomposing electoral bias requires clearer guidelines for its application in specific settings.     

A method for measuring and decomposing electoral bias for the three-party case, illustrated by the British case

The measurement of bias in election results, whereby one or more parties are advantaged in the translation of votes into seats at the expense of others, is attracting increasing attention. So far, almost all of the analytical work – aimed at both identifying the extent of bias in an election result and establishing its causes – has focused on either two-party systems or on the largest two parties in multi-party systems. Building on the firm foundations of one such approach, this paper introduces an original procedure for analysing bias in three-party systems using a readily-appreciated metric for both evaluating the degree of bias and decomposing it into the various causal factors. This is illustrated using the example of the 2005 British general election and a comparison of the results from two-party and three-party analyses of six recent elections there.     

Sociology and international relations: legacies and prospects

While sociological concepts have often been implicitly used in International Relations (IR), recent years have seen a more explicit engagement between IR and Sociology. As with any such interdisciplinary assignation, there are both possibilities and challenges contained within this move: possibilities in terms of reducing IR's intellectual autism and opening the discipline towards potentially fertile terrain that was never, actually, that distant; challenges in that interdisciplinary raiding parties can often serve as pseudonyms for cannibalism, shallowness and dilettantism. This forum reviews the sociological turn in IR and interrogates it from a novel vantage point—how sociologists themselves approach IR concepts, debates and issues. Three sociological approaches—classical social theory, historical sociology and Foucauldian analysis—are critically deployed to illuminate IR concerns. In this way, the forum offers the possibility of (re)establishing exchanges between the two disciplines premised on a firmer grasp of social theory itself. The result is a potentially more fruitful sociological turn, one with significant benefits for IR as a whole.     

A Disruptive Influence? “Prevent‐ing” Problems and Countering Violent Extremism Policy in Practice

This article describes how disrupting the activities of suspected violent extremists has become an increasingly significant construct in the policy and practice of the Prevent strand of UK Counter‐Terrorism. Informed by empirical data collected during semi‐structured interviews with police officers involved in conducting disruptions and members of the communities where these occurred, blended with a limited amount of field observation, the analysis documents how and why a logic of disruption has assumed increasing prominence in counter terrorism work. In respect of police interventions in particular, implementing disruptions, rather than pursuing fully‐fledged prosecutions, represents a pragmatic way of reconciling increasing demand with limited resources, as well as managing some of the difficulties of translating intelligence into legal evidence. Conceptualized in this way, the analysis positions disruption as a distinctive mode of crime prevention; one premised upon logics of near‐event interdiction. As such, it is understood as rather different in its operations and functions to other forms of “early intervention” that are increasingly prominent in much contemporary crime prevention policy. By focusing upon how specific Prevent interventions are implemented and performed this analysis makes a particular contribution to our knowledge of counter terrorism work. This reflects the fact that most previous studies of Prevent and other countering violent extremism programs have provided analyses of community perceptions and reactions to policing and the policy frame, rather than the configuration of the interventions themselves.     

A Two‐Level Model for Evidence Evaluation in the Presence of Zeros*

Abstract: Likelihood ratios (LRs) provide a natural way of computing the value of evidence under competing propositions. We propose LR models for classification and comparison that extend the ideas of Aitken, Zadora, and Lucy and Aitken and Lucy to include consideration of zeros. Instead of substituting zeros by a small value, we view the presence of zeros as informative and model it using Bernoulli distributions. The proposed models are used for evaluation of forensic glass (comparison and classification problem) and paint data (comparison problem). Two hundred and sixty‐four glass samples were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy, coupled with an energy dispersive X‐ray spectrometer method and 36 acrylic topcoat paint samples by pyrolysis gas chromatography hyphened with mass spectrometer method. The proposed LR model gave very satisfactory results for the glass comparison problem and for most of the classification tasks for glass. Results of comparison of paints were also highly satisfactory, with only 3.0% false positive answers and 2.8% false negative answers.