Decision Making in Autocratic Regimes: A Poliheuristic Perspective

This paper applies the poliheuristic theory of foreign policy decision making to non-democratic states. Poliheuristic theory asserts that state leaders assign primary importance to their political survival; however, the meaning of "the political" varies dramatically from country to country. Furthermore, the types of actors who hold leaders politically accountable also vary between countries. Consequently, leaders often pursue vastly different means of ensuring their political survival. The author uses the common distinction between single-party, military, and personalist autocracies to show that apparently arbitrary differences in autocratic leaders' political concerns actually vary in systematic and potentially predictable ways. Because this argument is generalized to non-democratic states as a whole, it has important implications for the ways in which democratic states craft their policies toward autocracies.     

引言

如果说,中国近代的法律改革大体上是引入西方的法律以改造中国固有的法律体系的话,那么这种改革又基本上可以归结为两种模式.一种模式是由输入国,亦即由我们中国人自己发动和主持的改革,可以说自清末以来的历次重大法律改革都是采取的这种模式.另一种模式则是由输出国(譬如英国)发动和主持的,香港和1898-1930年间的威海卫即是其典型的示例.这两种模式各有千秋,但是尚欠细致的比较.     

A mesolevel comparative approach to maxi and mini strategies of public enterprise reform

Large-scale privatization is an unfamiliar area of public policy. The practice and study of property reforms and privatization needs to include mesolvel phenomena such as laws, regulations, institutions and standard operating procedures. There has been little comparative analysis of privatization programs around the world. The author argues that analysts should compare the most immediately relevant institutional environment of the enterprise. Conceptually, this mesolevel system is situated between the firm and the macroeconomy. This system of action is especially fruitful for cross-national comparisons of privatization programs because it is at this level that privatization strategies are designed. The problem for Eastern Europe and for less-developed countries is lack of experience with the relatively light economic regulation that characterizes industrial countries. Government leaders must also decide how much effort to devote to privatization of state-owned enterprises and how much to fostering private sector investment in new firms. Ernest J. Wilson, III is affiliated with the National Security Council, Washington, D.C.     

Scales for perceived risk of student-on-student victimization in grades 7 through 10: A psychometric analysis of the adolescent index on school safety

Although past research has developed scales for the incidence, prevalence, and fear of student-on-student victimization (SSV), little is known about the scaling of perceived risk (i.e., the cognitive appraisal of the chances of experiencing SSV). Hence, this study examined self-report survey data for the perceived risk of SSV as measured in the Adolescent Index for School Safety (AISS). Children in grades 7 through 10 (n=337) in a single Florida public school completed the AISS. Factor analyses using Maximum Likelihood Estimation with Oblimin Rotation identified nine unique factors for perceived risk. Reliability analyses found standardized Cronbach Alphas that ranged from .64 to .91, and seven out of the nine identified scales were above .80, which suggested good to excellent internal consistency. Future research should examine the content validity, construct validity, and predictive validity for the AISS and other self-report surveys of SSV dynamics. This publication was made possible by a grant [#97-MU-FX-KO12 (S-l)] from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (O.J.J.D.P.), United States Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.). This grant is administered through the Hamilton Fish National Institute on School and Community Violence at George Washington University. This specific study was developed and implemented by staff at: 1) East Carolina University’s Department of Criminal Justice; and 2) Florida State University’s Center for Educational Research and Policy Studies. All points of view and opinions in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of East Carolina University, Florida State University, the Hamilton Fish National Institute on School and Community Violence, the O.J.J.D.P., or the U.S.D.OJ. The authors would also like to thank Dr. Bill Doerner and Jennifer Jolley for their support, editorial feedback, and insightful comments regarding earlier drafts of this paper.