Der Geist des „Roten Wien“ ins 21. Jahrhundert gerettet: Karl Popper Reconsidered by Malachi Haim Hacohen

Ohne Zusammenfassung Der nachstehende Text ist eine überarbeitere Fassung der Laudatio für Malachi Haim Hacohen anl?sslich der überreichung des Victor-Adler-Staatspreises in Wien am 25. April 2003. Hacohen erhielt diesen Preis für sein Werk „Karl Popper — the Formative Years, 1902–1945. Politics and Philosophy in Interwar Vienna“, Cambridge: University Press 2000.     

Today's leaders: Career trends of Canada's private- and public-sector executives

Abstract: Today, a great deal of attention is focused on the need to change the management of the public service in order to improve customer service and increase efficiency. In many cases, unfavourable comparisons are made to the private sector. But little comparative analysis has actually been undertaken with reference to the career profiles of senior managers in Canada's public and private sectors. The Public Management Research Centre undertook a study comparing the backgrounds and management experiences of Canada's most senior executives in the public and private sectors. Information was gathered from seventy current heads of federal departments and agencies (deputy ministers - dms ) and from sixty-three chief executive officers (ceos ) of private companies of comparable size and importance. The results of this study, published in a document entitled Today's Leaders, indicate that it is likely that the top job in public-sector organizations will never be identical to that in the private sector. However, if improving the management of the public sector means adopting some elements of private-sector management techniques (e.g., alternative service delivery, increased customer service, greater attention to cost recovery and bottom-line), the thrust for these changes must come from senior management. In addition, current criteria for recruitment, development and promotion of future public-sector leaders must be re-evaluated. Sommaire: Le Centre de recherche en gestion dans le secteur public a effectué une étude comparant l'historique personnel et l'expérience de gestion des plus hauts cadres des secteurs public et privé au Canada. Les renseignements ont été recueillis auprès de 70 chefs titulaires de ministères et d'organismes fédéraux (sous-ministres) et de 63 présidents-directeurs généraux (pdg ) de compagnies privées d'envergure comparable. Publiés dans un document intituléLeaders d'aujourd'hui, les résultats de l'étude révèlent que le poste suprême des organismes publics ne sera probablement jamais identique à celui des organismes privés. D'autre part, s'il s'agit d'améliorer la gestion du secteur public en adoptant certains éléments de gestion du secteur privé (modes-alternatif de prestation de servies, meilleur service à la clientèle, recouvre-ment des coûts et rentabilité), ce sont les cadres supérieurs qui doivent en prendre l'initiative. Par ailleurs, il faut réévaluer les critères actuels de recrutement, de développement et de promotion des futurs du chefs de file secteur public.     

On the Nature of Tolerance: Dichotomous or Continuous?*

The purpose of this article is to reconsider the claim made recently by Mondak and Sanders that political tolerance ought to be thought to be a dichotomous rather than continuous variable. Using data from both Russia and the United States, I demonstrate that those Mondak and Sanders regard as uniquely tolerant are most likely no more than people who were given insufficient opportunity to express their intolerance. Even if such a phenomenon of “absolute tolerance” exists (all ideas expressed in all ways are to be tolerated), it is sufficiently rare that few practical implications are indicated for those doing empirical work on political tolerance and intolerance. * I appreciate the valuable comments of Jeffcry Mondak on an earlier version of this paper.     

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.     

Robert Tollison and operationalizing public choice

In this tribute to Robert Tollison, I will outline his contributions to the development of public choice. I focus on Tollison’s work on rent-seeking, the political economy of reform, and the rules level of analysis in sports economics. Throughout his career, Tollison brilliantly figured out ways to take insights from price theory and public choice theory and operationalize them using multiple methods of empirical analysis, including historical interpretation and statistical testing.     

A Different Carbon Tax: The Sustainable Green Tariff

Two heated current political arguments focus on carbon taxes and tariffs. This essay will develop an argument for linking carbon emissions with tariffs, through a tax on goods entering a country based on the method of transport and distance traveled, rather than based on the country of origin or category of the product. The result would be to encourage more sustainable local production, to reduce currently externalized costs of carbon emissions, to generate new tax revenues to fund reductions in regressive social insurance taxes, and to provide benefits for those adversely affected by carbon emissions.