Public Attitudes About Land Use Policy and Their Impact on State Policy-Makers

Results from a study in Ohio, and replicated in six additionalstates, show public opinion toward state land use regulationto be aggregated around two major attitudes: the Environmentalistsstress the impact of negative developmental externalities andfavor broader review of land use decisions; the Localists areconcerned with accountability and local control of decision-making.An intensive analysis of the Ohio Land Use Work Group revealsthe policy-making elite in basic sympathy with the Environmentalists,but constrained by intra-agency rivalries and apprehensionsabout public reaction. Discussion focuses on the shifting publicconsensus toward greater land use control, and the implicationsfor state policy-making. ^*Originally read at a meeting of the Midwest Political ScienceAssociation, Chicago, 1975. The authors gratefully acknowledgefinancial assistance from the Academy for Contemporary Problems,Columbus, Ohio, and from the Ohio Office of Budget and Management.Special appreciation is expressed to the Academy's president,Ralph R. Widner, and to Dean Clark and Paul Goesling who, atthe time of the study, were affiliated with OBM. Gratitude alsoto individuals who facilitated the national-regional interviewing:David Gillespie, Brij Khare, Michael Obrey, Michael Shay, JosephThomas, and Hugh Winebrenner.     

Command of the Sea with Chinese Characteristics

As globalization accelerates, U.S. foreign policy makers have become less convinced of the influence geopolitics and power politics have on international affairs. They now risk losing touch with rising competitors like China that continue to view the international system in geopolitical terms. Chinese geopolitical strategists have great influence with the country's defense policy makers, who are focusing increasingly on the need for China to establish command of the seas—a goal that threatens conflict between it and the United States throughout Asia. In order to prevent a return to a world dominated by aggressive, geopolitically driven actors, the United States cannot afford to assume that China shares its worldview and that geopolitics has disappeared from international relations.     

Beyond Dichotomy: Dwight Waldo and the Intertwined Politics–Administration Relationship

Dwight Waldo's conception of the politics–administration question might be better understood as a "relationship" that contains elements of separation and intermixture rather than a "dichotomy," according to this author-commentator.To suggest that Waldo came to support the dichotomy presumes agreement about the meaning of the concept that is missing in Waldo's writings and in the public administration literature.