Beyond Policy Community — the Case of the GP Fundholding Scheme

The paper examines the conception, implementation and abolition of the GP fundholding scheme, all within 10 years, for evidence of a changed style of health care policy-making. A health care policy community, in which the interests of the medical profession were prominent, existed between 1948 and the mid-1980s. The paper highlights the important factors in the breakdown of the policy community and traces the effect through to the negotiation, implementation and abolition of the GP fundholding scheme. In particular, the role of evidence in health care policy-making has changed significantly. A consequence of the collapse of the policy community has been that a 'folk psychology' rather than evaluative evidence has guided some aspects of health care policy since the 1990s.     

Intraprofessional Competition and Earnings Inequalities Across a Professional Chasm: The Case of the Legal Profession in Québec,Canada

Intraprofessional rivalry has a long history. This article examines earnings disparities as a dimension of intraprofessional competition among avocats and notaires in the civil law system of Québec, Canada. Drawing on two large‐scale surveys and in‐depth interviews with legal professionals, I examine three competing perspectives of earnings inequalities: human capital, social‐symbolic capital, and organizational‐structural explanations. Through this analysis I seek to examine whether similar causal processes shape earnings across the two spheres of legal practice in Québec. The findings of this study clearly demonstrate that these two professional groups are equipped with differential stocks of capital, and conversion rates differ drastically. Avocats receive greater exchange on their investments in human and social‐symbolic capitals. These disparities are most pronounced in sectors of the profession where jurisdictional frictions abound: among notaires and avocats working as solo practitioners and in small firms within competitive urban contexts. The article concludes with a discussion of theoretical extensions and future directions for the study of legal professionals in civil law systems and blended jurisdictions.     

The age of reason: An examination of psychosocial factors involved in delinquent behaviour

Purpose. Delinquent behaviour among children and adolescents is escalating at a considerable rate. This has led to calls to lower the Age of Criminal Responsibility (ACR); however there is limited research on which to base such a decision. The present study addressed this omission by (1) assessing whether or not children can accurately distinguish right from wrong in relation to ‘real‐life’ transgressions and (2) investigating psychosocial factors that may constrain children from acting in accordance with their knowledge of what is right and wrong. Methods. A total of 452 students were recruited from five schools in Sydney, Australia. Forty percent of participants were younger children recruited from Year 5 classes in primary school (mean age of 10.49), and 60% were older children from Year 8 classes in high school (mean age of 14.29). All students completed a questionnaire measuring their understanding of right and wrong, their level of moral disengagement and delinquent behaviour, and their perceived self‐efficacy relating to academic achievement, empathy, and resistance to peer pressure. Results. The majority of children in both age groups demonstrated knowing the difference between right and wrong in relation to ‘real‐life’ transgressions. Further analyses using structural equation modelling (analysis of moment structures, AMOS) revealed that children who engaged in delinquent behaviour were unable to exercise this knowledge appropriately to regulate their behaviour. They were less able to resist peer pressure for transgressive conduct, had low levels of empathic and academic self‐efficacies, and disengaged from moral standards. Conclusions. Implications for policy change and future research directions are proposed.     

Incitement to Religious Hatred: All Talk and No Substance?

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 has a frenetic history. It is the culmination of six attempts in Parliament in the last twelve years to make incitement to religious hatred unlawful. ¹ 1 Lord Lester proposed two amendments to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, June 1994 and the (Lord) Bishop of Oxford moved an amendment in July 1994. Lord Avebury introduced a Religious Offences Bill in 2001. The government has tried three times: in the Anti‐Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill in 2001; in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, introduced in November 2004 and (successfully) in the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill, introduced June 2005.
Each attempt has met with intense criticism. But now that the legislation is here, what may it achieve?