Response Latency Methodology for Survey Research: Measurement and Modeling Strategies

In public opinion research, response latency is a measure ofattitude accessibility, which is the ease or swiftness withwhich an attitude comes to mind when a respondent is presentedwith a survey question. Attitude accessibility represents thestrength of the association in memory between an attitude objectand an evaluation of the object. Recent research shows thatattitude accessibility, as measured by response latency, castslight on a wide range of phenomena of public opinion and politicalbehavior. We discuss response latency methodology for surveyresearch and advocate the use of latent response latency timers(which are invisible both to respondents and interviewers) asa low cost, low-maintenance alternative to traditional methodsof measuring response latency in public opinion surveys. Weshow that with appropriate model specification latent responselatency timers may provide a suitable alternative to the morecomplicated and expensive interviewer-activated timers.     

Citizen Preference and Resource Allocation: The Case for Participatory Budgeting in Seoul

This article seeks to measure the extent to which the service priorities of citizens of Seoul, South Korea, are reflected in corresponding resource allocations in the city's budget, despite there being virtually no participation by citizens in the budget creation process. We find a less than perfect congruence between budget allocations and citizen preferences at both the city and district level. Given these results, we discuss the potential for participatory budgeting to address discrepancies in resource allocation by focusing on the unique demographic and cultural makeup of Seoul constituencies.     

Legislators and interest groups: Some observations on the Israeli scene

Public administration in Britain is expected to operate according to the principles of good administration. However, in a climate of efficiency and value‐for‐money, agreement as to what these principles require can no longer be assumed. In particular, there may be differences between the principles supported by those engaged in the administrative process and the requirements that an increasingly interventionist judiciary see as appropriate. These differences would seem best resolved by a Code of Good Administration, the drawing up of which could be undertaken by the Select Committee on Public Administration and represent parliament's response to judicial/executive tension. Such a code would prevent the erosion of the principles of good administration, act as an authoritative document for the courts and provide select committees with a further mechanism by which to hold government to account.