The evolution of a bail reform

This paper analyzes an attempt to reform the bail system through the development of procedures increasing the use of pre-trial release on own recognizance. A motivating question for the study is the extent to which criminal justice systems are organized to improve their performance over time. This depends upon the ability to generate new ideas, screen them, implement the good ones successfully, and diffuse those successfully implemented to other areas. How any particular reform evolves depends upon a variety of economic, political, and organizational factors. An evolutionary economic framework is used in an attempt to describe the interaction of these factors coherently. The paper suggests that (1) the reform as initially developed did represent an improvement; (2) considerable deterioration occurred over time after implementation; (3) diffusion was widespread with variable performance improvement; (4) an important benefit was the development of a spin-off reform; and (5) there is a general misorganization of resources at the local level for research and development efforts of criminal justice systems.Much of this research was undertaken while the author was in the stimulating environment of the Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University. Numerous individuals provided helpful suggestions and criticisms during the course of this study; I am grateful to them all. Robert Goldfarb, Merton Peck, Daniel Freed, and C.B. McGuire provided detailed criticisms which were enormously helpful. Particular thanks are due Richard Nelson for giving me a good credit rating as my intellectual debt to him continues to grow. Finally, I would like to thank the public and private officials who, by responding frankly to my interview queries, have made this study possible.     

Deception and Mutual Gains Bargaining: Are They Mutually Exclusive?

Conclusion We have made great strides in recent years teaching more people — in classrooms, corporate training sessions, and actual negotiations — about negotiations, including how to be more ethical and how to ensure that integrative joint gains are not left on the table. The fact that we even need to write an article like this is an indication of the advances that have been made.Yet exactly because of these advances, more care needs to be taken to ensure that the subtle distinction between what is ethical and what is integrative is maintained. Being ethical in negotiations is more complicated than producing greater joint utility, and the techniques that are helpful for producing greater joint utility should not be made more complicated by the addition of ethical concerns. Each issue — ethics and mutual gains bargaining — can stand on its own, and benefits by being considered on its own. By maintaining this distinction, we believe each will have greater clarity and greater impact, and our teaching and training will be both better received and more valuable to those we teach.     

Chinese foreign policy and American social science

Abstract

Karl Marx and Mao Tse-tung, C. Wright Mills, Barrington Moore, Jr. and Fei Hsiao-t'ung also described themselves as social scientists. Thus when Boardman contrasts radical scholarship with authentic social science he is merely using a debater's tactic, using a label to place his adversaries at a rhetorical disadvantage, trying to monopolize the term science for only his outlook on events.     

Theory building: issues and an agenda

There is a growing recognition of the need to change the way research is conducted in management. In addition, there is an increasing belief that the philosophy of science can be applied to the research methods and standards normally employed in the study of organizations. Several recent contributions to the literature of management have indicated what must be done. Yet in many key respects, little progress has been made. This paper (1) considers the current status of theory development in management, (2) examines the approach offered by the natural sciences, (3) discusses the obstacles to implementation of the pure sciences approach, and (4) suggests what can be done to enhance the exposition and construction of theories.     

Civil Society,Democratization, and Foreign Aid: Civic Engagement and Public Policy in South Africa and Uganda

Drawing on comparative research in South Africa and Uganda, this article examines how far civil society organizations influence government policy and legislation and extend citizen participation in public affairs. The article also considers how far external funding influences policy engagement and outcomes. The main finding is that few civil society organizations have either a consistent level of engagement in the policy process or make a significant difference to policy outcomes. The nature of internal governance practices in galvanizing citizens' voices and the relationship to the state and political parties are the most decisive factors in civil society organizations achieving policy influence. The article concludes that the capacity of civil society organizations to offer citizens a say in decisions and to enhance pluralism may be as important as their ability to influence policy and demand accountability from state actors.