“Purpose versus practice in the use of electronically monitored home confinement”

This paper explores differences between the stated purpose and actual practice of electronically monitored home confinement as a prison-diversion strategy. Methods and data are triangulated to examine the difference between the stated purposes of electronic monitoring and its actual usage in two contexts: 1) the decision to imprison/probate; and 2) the actual use of electronically monitored home confinement. Sentencing information, along with data on employment, family, substance abuse, prior convictions, and type of offense, were collected on 391 felony offenders sentenced to probation in 1987–89 from three counties located in two large Metropolitan Statistical Areas in Texas. Information gathered from interviews with probation officials is also employed. This paper presents an analysis of this data and discusses its implications for future use and evaluation of electronically monitored home confinement.     

Modern dependency: A “crucial case” study of Brazilian government policy in the minicomputer industry

Conclusion Brazil’s minicomputer industry has become dependent on government import policy, government financing and domestic private business. The growth in the domestic component of this industry between 1974 and 1981 suggests that incremental government policies (short of a transformation to socialism) can alter Brazil’s level of dependency on MNCs, concerning at least one industry–the minicomputer industry. Therefore, the Brazilian minicomputer model advances the dependency question from “what is dependency and why does it exist?” to “how can one improve its position in a dependency situation?” Relative success in the minicomputer industry cannot be construed as victory over Brazil’s dependency on MNCs, which may alter its economic and political relationship with other countries. Instead, it illustrates a viable model for improving a developing country’s dependency situation. This infant industry strategy is given more credence due to the rekindling of protectionism by all nations. A definitive evaluation of Brazil’s minicomputer policies cannot be rendered until this industry has progressed in its growth cycle. As indicated earlier, signs of both success and failure are evident. In addition, several events may restrict growth in Brazilian minicomputer firms: (1) restriction of funds due to the enormous foreign debt, (2) corrupt or inappropriate management, (3) unsuccessful transfer of technology, or (4) intrusion of smaller and less expensive microcomputers into uses now served by minicomputers. Thus, how effectively Brazil can get out of its overall dependency trap will depend not only on how well it can apply the minicomputer industry model to other industries, of course, given that the model does succeed in the long–run. But it will also depend on how well Brazil can deal with the problems listed above. 0259 0255 V 2