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.     

Change in the Australian Electricity Industry: A Case Analysis

In this article a contextualist framework is used for theoretical analysis, in which context, content and process are linked over time. Within this framework we begin with the contextual factors which appear to be significant in restructuring the electricity industry, then outline the pathway taken by reform in the United States of America, United Kingdom and Australia, before describing the principal changes to one organisation and the management issues which have arisen as a result of these changes.     

Community Sustainability and Land Use

Books reviewed:
Timothy Beatley, Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities
Amer El-Ahraf, Mohammad Qayoumi and Ron Dowd, The Impact of Public Policy on Environmental Quality and Health: The Case of Land Use Management and Planning
Daniel A. Mazmanian and Michael E. Kraft, (eds.) Toward Sustainable Communities: Transition and Transformations in Environmental Policy
Kee Warner and Harvey Molotch, Building Rules: How Local Rules Shape Community Environments and Economies     

Inter-Institutional Dynamics: Assessments of the Supreme Court in a Separation of Powers Context

Using data collected from a survey experiment, we examine whether information about the nature of the interactions between the Supreme Court and Congress influences respondents’ assessments of the Court. We find that political sophistication is key to understanding how individuals incorporate the separation of powers context into their evaluations of the Court. Political sophisticates give the Court its highest assessments when told that the Court and Congress are often in disagreement, and that Congress is most responsible for this disagreement. Assessments of the Court are significantly lower, however, when sophisticates believe that high levels of disagreement between the Court and Congress are due to the Court’s actions and when these respondents believe that the Court and Congress agree a high proportion of the time. These results suggest that for political sophisticates, the Court’s institutional standing is related to the balance it strikes between deference to Congress and judicial independence.