Can Xi Jinping be the next Mao Zedong? Using the Big Five Model to Study Political Leadership

Journal of Chinese Political Science - It is commonly believed that the current Chinese president, Xi Jinping, shares a leadership style with Mao Zedong on account of his charisma, prosecution of...     

Pretend It Doesn'T Work: The ‘Anti-Social’ Bias In The Maryland Scientific Methods Scale

The social constructs and methodological principles embodied in the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale (SMS), comprising part of the Campbell Collaboration in Crime and Justice assessment protocol, induce a series of biases in the evaluation of evidence of crime prevention policy interventions that focus on collective social phenomena, such as communities. Applying these principles leads to negative conclusions about effectiveness; yet their inherent ‘anti-social’ bias may induce Type II error with regard to the desirability of ‘social’ interventions to reduce crime. Policy-making is poorly served as a result. This point is illustrated, first, through a scrutiny of the social constructs used, including those that typify treatments, institutional settings and units of analysis. These are seen as being constructed in a way that is congenial to the underlying methodological issue of ‘control’ but that constitute nevertheless a distorted definition of the governance issues involved in crime reduction in community settings. A model more appropriate for evaluating voluntaristic action in civil society is needed. Second, it is suggested that this methodological bias arises particularly in policy interventions and change programmes that address issues concerning the ‘collective efficacy’ of local communities in reducing crime. An empirical exemplification of these arguments is presented with reference to a completed evaluation research study (Foster and Hope, 1993).     

Law,the State,and the Dialectics of State Crime

Drawing on material from a study of civil society and state crime in six countries, this article reflects on two themes from Chambliss’s work: the debate between state-centred and more pluralistic views of law, and the “dialectical” approach to the analysis of state crime. It argues for a more pluralistic approach to law than Chambliss and Seidman adopted in Law Order and Power, along with a broader approach to the definition of state crime as a form of deviant behaviour. Case studies from the civil society research illustrate how the strategies adopted by organizations challenging state practices can be understood in terms of an interplay between different forms of law. With some qualifications, we support Chambliss’s dialectical approach, and attempt to clarify just what the term “dialectical” means. Finally we bring together the two strands of the argument to propose an approach to state crime founded on “dialectical legal pluralism”.     

Monitoring the Peace?: Northern Ireland's 1975 Ceasefire Incident Centres and the Politicisation of Sinn Féin

During the Provisional IRA's (PIRA) 1975 ceasefire, two different sets of incident centres were established across Northern Ireland in order to monitor and avert escalation of violence between Republicans and Security Forces. While one group of offices was run by the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) and administered by clerks in the Northern Ireland Civil Service, very quickly Sinn Féin (taking advantage of their decriminalisation in 1974) established their own incident centres to coordinate their communication with the government. This article argues that the establishment of the Sinn Féin incident centres set a precedent for the future political activity of the Provisional Republican Movement; that their activity during the 1975 ceasefire played an important formative role in the evolution of the group's political strategy; and that this experience, acquired from the work done during the 1975 truce, was of far greater influence than is appreciated in current accounts.