Bureaucratic politics and the new fighter aircraft decisions

Abstract. According to the bureaucratic politics approach to policy making, an appreciation of competition and conflict among bureaucrats is considered to be critical for an understanding of decision outcomes. In this paper, we employ the bureaucratic politics model to assess the outcomes of the initial phase of the Canadian government's new fighter aircraft (NFA) program, which began in March 1977 with cabinet approval of the procurement and ended in April 1980 when cabinet announced the selection of the McDonnell Douglas F-18A Hornet. This paper examines the interests of the three departments responsible for furnishing cabinet with recommendations - National Defence, Supply and Services, and Industry, Trade and Commerce. We examine instances of conflict among the bureaus involved, but conclude that, overall, conflict was relatively muted in this case. Three reasons are offered to explain why conflict between departments was not endemic to the NFA program, and several broader conclusions are drawn about the applicability and utility of the bureaucratic politics approach. Sommaire. D'après l'approche de politique bureaucratique en matière d'élaboration de politiques, l'on considère qu'il est très important d'évaluer les rivalités et les conflits existants entre les bureaucrates pour comprendre les conséquences d'une décision. Dans le présent article, les auteilrs se servent du modèle de politique bureaucratique pour évaluer les conséquences de la phase initiale du programme fédéral Nouvel avion de chasse (NAC). Cette phase a débuté en mars 1977 lorsque le conseil des ministres a approuvé l'acquisition d'un tel avion et s'est teminée en avril 1980 avec la sélection du F-18A Hornet de McDonnell Douglas. Cet article examine les intérêts des trois ministères chargés de présenter leurs recommandations au cabinet, à savoir: la Défense nationale, Approvisionnements et Services, et Industrie et Commerce. Il étudie les cas de conflits entre les services concernés mais conclue que dans l'ensemble, dans le cas en question, les conflits étaient pratiquement inexistants. Les auteurs donnent trois raisons expliquant pourquoi il n'y a pas eu de conflits endé miques entre les ministères à propos de ce programme NAC et ils tirent plusieurs conclusions plus générales au sujet de I'applicabilité et de l'utilité de l'approche de poli tique bureaucratique.     

The Ministry of State for Science and Technology

Abstract. During the past two and a half years, the federal government has employed a new and experimental mechanism to formulate and co-ordinate its science policies, the Ministry of State for Science and Technology, a horizontal planning and co-ordinating agency headed by a minister of state. The portfolio's mandate includes neither the statutory authority to regulate other departments and agencies of the federal government nor the opportunity to implement programs in the fields of science and technology. The structure of this ministry and its role vis-à-vis other federal government departments and agencies, other levels of government, and the scientific-technological community are described and evaluated in this essay. The essay examines, first, the constraints inherent in the nature of this new mechanism, given the existing organization of the executive-bureaucratic arena and, second, the consequent problems which have been experienced in the attempts of this ministry to formulate and wordinate science policies for the federal government. The analysis of the ministry's role is based primarily on confidential interviews with government officials and secondarily on reports and studies of Canada's science policy machinery. The analysis concludes with an assessment of the future roles of the ministry and recommends a significant reorientation of the ministry's efforts in light of the existing allocation of responsibility for policy and programs and the requirements of the science policy field. Sommaire. Au cours des trente derniers mois, le gouvernement fédéral s'est servi d'un nouvel outil expérimental pour élaborer et coordonner ses politiques scienti-fiques:le ministère d'État, aux Sciences et à la Technologie, qui exerce une fonction de planification et de concertation sectorielles. Le mandat de cet organisme n'englobe pas la réglementation de l'activité d'autres ministères et offices de l'État, ni la mise en ?uvre de programmes scientifiques ou techniques. Les auteurs décrivent et évaluent la structure du ministère d'État et son rôle à l'égard des autres ministères et offices de l'État, des autres paliers d'administration et des communautés scientifique et technique. Ils examinent tout d'abord les contraintes découlant de la nature même du ministère d'État au sein de la superstructure administrative et bureaucratique, et les problèmes qui en ont résulté pour le ministère au cours de ses travaux d'élaboration et de coordination des politiques scientifiques fédérales. Les auteurs basent leur analyse du rôle du ministère d'État, principalement sur des entretiens confidentiels avec des hauts fonctionnaires, et accessoirement sur des rapports et des études à propos des mécanismes canadiens d'élaboration des politiques scientifiques. Ils tenninent leur analyse par une prospective du rôle du ministère d'État, et ils recomman-dent un réaménagement de ses activités en fonction de la répartition actuelle des responsabilités en matière d'élaboration de politiques et de mise en ?uvre de programmes, et à la lumière des nécessités de la politique des sciences.     

Intellectualizing about the moon-ghetto metaphor: A study of the current malaise of rational analysis of social problems

The title refers to the widely held view that advanced western societies (particularly the United States) have been vastly more successful in meeting certain kinds of objectives, than others, and that rectifying this imbalance is a high priority social objective. The paper is concerned with three intellectual traditions that have purported to explain the reasons for the problem, and to provide guidance for helping with the lot of the ghetto. One of these traditions views the problems in terms of inadequate policy machinery, and the resolution in terms of better analysis feeding into the policymaking process. A second views the problem in terms of organizational structure, and searches for a solution in terms of institutional reform or redesign. Still a third tradition sees the problem as stemming from the past allocation of scientific and technical talent, and proposes a solution in terms of a significant reallocation of research and development activity. It is apparent that these traditions of analysis, neither separately nor together, have been very successful in resolving social problems. The purpose of the essay is, through examination of the intellectual traditions and their interaction with the policymaking process, to try to illuminate the nature of their weaknesses and, if possible, to see what lessons can be learned regarding how to make analysis more useful, and map out some potentially fruitful directions for intellectual exploration.The author is indebted to Graham Allison, Harvey Brooks, John Patrick Crecine, Lee Friedman, A. O. Hirschman, C. E. Lindblom, Keith Pavitt, Kenneth Warner, and Douglas Yates for helpful criticism and encouragement. The debt I owe to these intellectual colleagues goes far beyond their reactions to this paper. Many of my better ideas have been lifted from them. I could list here a number of other important influences but in a paper of this sort the author is faced with a Hobson's choice regarding footnote acknowledgements. On the one hand he could footnote all of the obvious sources and influences on particular points, in which case the footnotes would take up more space than the text. Or he can be parsimonious and be accused of stealing, without acknowledgement, other people's ideas. With apologies, and misgivings, I have opted for the second strategy both in this opening footnote and throughout the paper.     

Der Monopolmechanismus in der Wissenschaft. Auf den Schultern von Robert K. Merton

Quality assurance has become the guiding principle of governing research in the wake of the global diffusion of New Public Management. In this respect, the “High Impact Journal” occupies a central place. It is shown that the production of a hierarchy of disciplinary journals furthers the monopoly mechanism in science through processes of the material production of market power and symbolically constructed exclusivity. These processes and the rule of the Shanghai ranking enable an exclusive class of globally dominant universities to ensure the circular accumulation of economic and symbolic capital. The competition among researchers for recognition by the scientific community in terms of their contributions to the advancement of knowledge is being displaced by the competition among entrepreneurial universities for researchers, students and funds as profit generating resources. The resulting tendencies of halting the evolution of knowledge can be counteracted by measures which further the plurality of authorities for quality assurance, the building of opposing power to existing power in a system of checks and balances and by providing space for methodological anarchy.     

Radiological determination of the cranial index of present-day Ghanaians

The cranial index (CI) of Ghanaians is currently unknown. The aim of this study was to measure the CI in a population of Ghanaians in order to classify them against pre-determined CI categories. A systematic random sampling method was used to select 300 normal computed tomography (CT) head scans of adult Ghanaians from the largest hospital in Ghana. All patients were deemed to have a normal cranial image configuration based on the radiological report. The biparietal diameter (BPD, width) and the occipitofrontal diameter (OFD, length) were measured on transaxial CT images using a workstation with a calibrated measurement calliper tool. The CI ratio was calculated as the BPD multiplied by 100 and divided by the OFD. Mean, standard deviation (SD) and range were calculated for BPD, OFD and CI. Differences in measurements between demographic groups were compared using an unpaired t-test, with test α set at 0.05. Of the population of Ghanaians included in this study, 165 (55%) were male and 135 (45%) were female. The mean CI was 77.3 ± 3.6 in males and 79.0 ± 3.3 in females, placing both genders in the mesocephalic category. However, the difference between males and females was found to be statistically significant (P = 0.02). The study indicated that most Ghanaian adults belong to the mesocephalic category of CI. Females also had a higher CI, which could be used to differentiate gender groups. This information can be useful for forensic medicine, plastic surgeries for clinical and research purpose.

Key points

• This study found the mean CI of adult Ghanaians to be 78.0 ± 13.0.
• This indicates that most Ghanaian adults belong to the mesocephalic category of CI.
• Females had a higher CI, which could be used to differentiate gender groups.
• To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study which assessed CI of Ghanaians using CT scan.