An Evaluation of Private Sector Provision of Public Infrastructure in Australian Local Government

Private sector provision of public infrastructure in Australia at all levels of government, including local government, has steadily increased over the past twenty years. Nevertheless, this method of providing public infrastructure remains controversial. This article seeks to provide a critical review of the arguments surrounding private sector provision of infrastructure in Australian local government. It examines both the case for private sector provision of municipal infrastructure in Australia and the major arguments advanced against this approach to infrastructure development. Given the conceptual argumentation and empirical evidence on private municipal infrastructure provision, it is argued that policy makers should employ a nuanced performance evaluation framework to assess the benefits and weaknesses of private provision on the basis of the specific type of infrastructure in question and the kind of services it provides rather than simply endorse carte blanche privatization.     

Hegemony and Autonomy

This article analyzes the concept of hegemony and examines its relationship to power and autonomy. Refuting the conventional belief that it is ideology that distinguishes hegemony, the article argues that it is autonomy that constitutes the distinguishing characteristic. Although hegemons tend to evolve into imperialists, hegemony involves leadership of an alliance, not domination by coercion. It is impossible to conceptualize hegemony without also including autonomy. In this conceptualization, the primary source of autonomy lies in a specific hegemonic system of domination that itself embodies the notion of autonomy for both the polity and its citizenry, a limiting construction that hinders the tendency toward imperialism. Such a system includes one type of autonomy that can be designated as autonomy within hegemony. In addition, the article discusses two other types of autonomy: counterhegemony and a largely power-based opposed hegemony. Thus, the article concludes, hegemony is a complex concept, with several types of manifestation, that can more usefully be understood in connection with autonomy and power than as a stand-alone concept.     

Public Management and Departments: Contemporary Themes – Future Agendas

The purpose of this article is to review themes in recent academic research on public management at the national level and to see how it aligns with emerging agendas within the Australian public service. This provides an opportunity to identify strengths and gaps and to explore options for research.     

The relationship between Kenneth Koma and the Botswana Democratic Party, 1965-2003

This article assesses the weaknesses of opposition in Botswanathrough the case of Kenneth Koma, the influential Presidentof the Botswana National Front (BNF) from 1977 to 2001. Thisis done by examining the perception that from 1997 Koma's relationshipwith the ruling Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) destabilizedand weakened the opposition in the country. The article challengesa view, held by some of his detractors in the opposition, thathis leadership style was out of tune with global trends. Italso argues that what some people have viewed as ‘tribalism’— the domination of the BDP leadership by members of theBangwato tribe (of which Koma is also a member) — seemsto be primarily a matter of expediency. This alleged tribalismis used by Koma's critics as a smear. The article analyzes therelationship between Koma and the BDP at both political andpersonal levels. At the political level, Koma's failure to keepthe BNF united has been capitalized on by the BDP to tightenits grip on power. At the personal level, Koma has used hisconnections in the BDP to advantage in his business dealings.Koma's cult status and his personal and political choices havetherefore significantly contributed to de facto one-party rulein Botswana.     

Economic Threats or Societal Turmoil? Understanding Preferences for Authoritarian Political Systems

Why do some individuals prefer to be governed in an authoritarian political system? One intuitive answer is that citizens prefer authoritarian rule when the economy and society are in turmoil. These are common explanations for democratic backsliding, and the emergence and success of authoritarian leaders in the twentieth century. Which of these explanations better explains preferences for authoritarian rule? Both types of threat coincide in small samples and high-profile cases, creating inferential problems. I address this by using three waves of World Values Survey data to look at individual-level preferences for different forms of authoritarian government. Using multiple macroeconomic and societal indicators, I find that economic threats, especially increasing income inequality, better explain preferences for authoritarian government. I conclude with implications for understanding the emergence of support for authoritarianism in fledgling democracies.