Quangos—What's in a Name? Defining Quangos from a Comparative Perspective

Without definitional clarity the "quango debate" is inherently flawed and meaningful progress undermined. A possible solution to this problem is proposed in this article by way of a subsectional map which aims to clarify the quango topography. This accepts the diversity inherent in the quango debate while allowing for increased clarity and focused research. This, the authors believe, is the only way forward for practitioners, academics and policymakers working within the sphere of quasi-government. There is a need to address precise forms or subsections of the quango continuum as studies or reforms which focus on one type of quango would not necessarily work if applied to all quangos, or quangos in other countries.     

A positive model of tax reform

This paper is devoted to the explanation of tax policy from a behavioural-theoretic point of view. It, for the first time, brings together within a unified framework behavioural determinants of government expenditure, taxation, and tax reform. Administrative and compliance costs associated with taxation (factors generally neglected in models of taxation), as well as tax avoidance/evasion, deadweight losses, and the costs that are involved in the tax reform process itself, play a crucial role in the model. The paper investigates how these factors influence the development of taxation and expenditure, and the occurrence of tax reform.This paper has been presented at the Congress of the European Public Choice Society, Linz (Austria), 1989. The authors would like to thank Jos de Beus, Kees Goudswaard, Hans de Groot and Jean-Dominique Lafay for their useful comments. This paper is based on our Dutch publication Belastinghervorming en politieke economie, in Belastingheffing en belastinghervorming, pp. 179–211. Preadviezen Koninklijke Vereniging voor de Staathuishoudkunde 1988. Leiden/Antwerpen: Stenfert Kroese.     

Does inequality cause inflation?: The political economy of inflation,taxation and government debt

Public Choice - A democratic society in which the distribution of wealth is unequal elects political parties that are likely to represent the interests of poor people. It is in the interests of the...     

亚洲多边主义的进程与外交艺术:美国、日本、中国之比较

东亚合作更多地表现为一种地区多边合作的过程。作为东亚的一个成员,和平发展的中国无疑是东亚区域合作最重要的动力源之一。从地缘上看,美国不属于东亚范畴。但基于历史原因和美国独特的地位,东亚合作进程又不可能排除美国的影响,甚至需要美国建设性的参与。因此,东亚合作一方面是一个内部一体化的过程,另一方面也涉及到一个对外部开放的问题。如何评估东亚合作进程中的中国的作用、美国对东亚合作进程的影响以及东亚合作背景下中美关系的前景等已经成为学界研究的一个热点。为此,中国国际关系学会、外交学院、美国乔治.华盛顿大学联合举办了“东亚地区合作与中美关系”国际研讨会(2005年11月),中美双方学者就此展开坦诚的对话交流。在会议讨论的基础上,我刊以笔谈形式整理刊发部分学者的观点,以飨读者。     

Somebody’s Gotta Be There for These Kids: Importance of Service Orientation for Sustaining Public Child Welfare Workers

Research has long indicated that both employees’ perceptions of external support and their own dispositional factors tend to predict satisfaction, intent to stay, and retention. However, the dispositional factor of service orientation has received minimal attention in child welfare or social work research. This article furthers the research on service orientation by utilizing quantitative surveys to test relationships between service orientation and key organizational variables and then exploring qualitative results to gain a more nuanced perspective on how service orientation inhabits the work-related experiences of study participants and its relation to worker retention projections in the field of child welfare.     

“Bending” Evidence for a Cause: Scholar‐Advocacy Bias in Family Law

There are a number of salient public policy issues in the family law field that have invoked impassioned policy debates on a recurrent basis. In the absence of a body of research to address these critical concerns, advocates under the guise of social science scholarship have exacerbated the confusion and controversy by construing the scant available research evidence to justify their own ends, without regard to the relevance, quality, utility, and limitations of the studies. This is one of two articles on this problem that we have named “scholar‐advocacy bias.” In this article, we discuss the difference between truth in social science and truth in law. We identify common ways in which social science researchers and reviewers of research—wittingly or unwittingly—can become advocates for ideological positions and social policies at the expense of being balanced reporters of research evidence as illustrated by recent debates about overnight parenting of infants and toddlers. We also consider how adherence to established scientific principles and methods prevents the misuse of research in this way.