The Other Side of the Coin: NGOs,Rights‐Based Approaches,and Public Administration

The majority of the world's population resides in low‐ and middle‐income countries, where the problem of sustainable development is among the most pressing public administration challenges. As principal actors within the international development community, transnational nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) play a leading role in piloting a wide variety of development‐focused strategies. During the past decade, many of these transnational NGOs, along with the United Nations, have embraced a rights‐based approach (RBA) to development as an alternative to traditional service delivery. Despite the growing popularity of RBA among NGOs and other development actors, surprisingly little attention has been paid to understanding the significance of RBA for public administration and for public managers—the “other side of the coin.” Drawing on current research in NGO studies and international development, this article describes several varieties of contemporary rights‐based approaches, analyzes their impact on development practices, and examines the intersection of RBA and public administration.     

Pursuing performance and maintaining compliance: Balancing performance improvement and accountability in Ontario's public health system

This article examines the compatibility between performance improvement and compliance‐based accountability in the implementation of a new system of public health performance management in Ontario. Findings from this mixed‐method study show that only minor elements of performance improvement get incorporated into pre‐existing compliance‐based accountability structures, that reinforcement of accountability structures works to the detriment of performance improvement intentions, and that limiting managerial influence in developing performance measures and targets diminish the utility of information for improvement. The study concludes that achieving a better balance requires an alternative to top‐down decision making that goes beyond consultation to include partnership.     

Randomization in coalition contracts

This article analyzes a much debated clause in the coalition contract between SPD and FDP in Rheinland-Pfalz. Two parties write a contract, based on which decisions under incomplete information have to be made at a later point in time. It is shown that a complex complete contract can achieve the first best outcome. However, a simple incomplete contract can implement the first best outcome only if use of seemingly inefficient randomization is made.     

Perceived coercion and need for hospitalization related to psychiatric admission

Psychiatric hospitalization constitutes a moment of major stress to the point that occurrences of posttraumatic stress disorders have been described. Feelings of coercion are usual, whatever the legal status of admission. Patients may also consider afterwards that they needed hospitalization even if they refused it initially. A cross-sectional survey has been conducted among the inpatients of a Swiss psychiatric hospital to assess their subjective view of admission with emphasis on legal status, perceived coercion and need for hospitalization. Eighty-seven questionnaires were completed and analyzed. Results indicated that 74% of patients felt that they had been under pressure to be hospitalized, whether or not they were involuntarily admitted. Seventy percent felt their admission was necessary. More involuntary patients reported a subjective lack of improvement. Clinicians could decrease feelings of coercion of their patients while discussing need for hospitalization, legal status and subjective feeling of coercion as different dimensions. An argument is presented to favor positive pressure from social environment over legal involuntary commitment in many hospitalizations.     

Sharing aquatic genetic resources across jurisdictions: playing ‘chicken’ in the sea

International regimes regulating access and benefit sharing were originally designed to promote conservation and fairness objectives concerning the use of the world’s biological resources for their genetic material value. These regimes determine from whom permission is required to take the resources and who obtains the benefits of their use. They have evolved separate frameworks in three distinct jurisdictional areas—within national jurisdiction, beyond national jurisdiction and in the Antarctic Treaty Area. This article argues that if these regimes continue to evolve separately, there is a strong temptation for countries to play ‘chicken’ with biological resource governance through forum shopping or opting out of agreements that do not suit their political ends. Using game theory and a transgenic tilapia fish example incorporating genetic material from the three jurisdictional areas, it illustrates the legal and ethical dilemmas that can arise from the territorial (jurisdictional) approach to access and benefit sharing—to the detriment of fairness and conservation in tilapia’s countries of origin. Tilapias are known as the ‘chicken of the sea’ because they dominate global farmed production and developing countries depend on them as their primary source of protein, livelihoods and trade. This means there will be serious consequences if the regimes do not achieve their fairness and conservation objectives for sharing their genetic material. This article concludes that a purpose-driven cooperative governance approach can sidestep the game of chicken and promote fairer and more conservation focused outcomes than the current jurisdictional approach for the developing country providers of migratory aquatic resources.