FROM POLICY COMMUNITY TO ISSUE NETWORK: SALMONELLA IN EGGS AND THE NEW POLITICS OF FOOD

In the last two years the issue of food has been subject to increasing political controversy with firstly salmonella in eggs and later listeria and BSE becoming the focus of conflict and widespread media attention. This is an important change. In most of the post-war period food policy was conducted within a relatively closed policy community where issues concerning food policy were largely treated as routine technical decisions. The significance of the salmonella in eggs affair is that it is indicative of wider changes in the making of food policy. The increased activity of interest groups, the impact of the Common Agricultural Policy and changes in the retail economy have combined to transform the food policy community into an issue network.     

The Law Union of Ontario

The Law Union of Ontario is an attempt by a small group of lawyers in an advanced capitalist society to engage in organized progressive political and legal work. This has not been easy nor has it been entirely successful.     

POSTMODERN THOUGHT AND CRIMINOLOGICAL DISCONTENT: NEW METAPHORS FOR UNDERSTANDING VIOLENCE*

Although postmodern theory has virtually exploded throughout the social sciences, thus far it has only begun to touch criminology. This piece identifies some of the principal themes associated with postmodern thought, reasons for the current interest in it, and its potential relevance for criminology. There are many postmodernisms, but special attention is paid here to the popular models borrowed from literary and linguistic analysis. Violence is used as a concrete example to explore these issues. The postmodern critique is a challenge not only to the philosophical underpinnings of traditional and empirical criminology, but also to the basic premises of both mainstream and progressive social policy responses to criminal violence.     

THE CHANGING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF LOCAL AUTHORITY CHIEF OFFICERS

This article argues that recent political change in Britain has brought about a crisis of adjustment for local government chief officers in their relationship with the elected members. Key aspects of this political change are the break-up of the post-war political consensus and the passing of the earlier period of growth. As the ideological distance between the two main parties has widened and the end of growth has intensified conflicts, the professional stance of neutrality towards partisan politics has become more difficult to sustain. So for chief officers the crisis of adjustment has taken the form of a search for new ways of work with the politicians as the earlier, relatively harmonious relationship has passed into history.
Against this background of increased politicization, the impact of current changes on the three aspects of the chief officer role is examined: as professional adviser, as departmental manager and as a 'bureaucratic politician'. Finally, some of the changes that have been proposed to ease this crisis for chief officers are discussed.     

CHANGING AGENDAS AND POLICY COMMUNITIES: AGRICULTURAL ISSUES IN THE 1930s AND THE 1980s

Pluralists have argued that the political agenda is relatively open. If a group or party apply enough pressure then new issues should have access to the political arena. However, the theories of policy communities and the third dimension of power suggest that issues can be kept off the political agenda. Agriculture seems to provide an example where for forty years new issues did not emerge. Yet in the 1930s and 1980s pressures to change the agricultural agenda have existed. This raises the problem of how, if the agenda is controlled, new issues are debated. Traditionally, agenda change has been explained through the activities of pressure groups but this paper argues that this view is inadequate where a policy community exists. Therefore it suggests that agendas change when structural factors change perceptions and the dominant beliefs of the policy-makers no longer match reality.     

It's the government's fault! A cross-section study of economic voting in Denmark, 1990/93

Abstract. The relationship between voters' support for the government and thirteen items tapping their evaluation of the economic situation is analyzed. One data set is collected under Conservative rule and another under Social Democratic rule. The answers are first aggregated into three factors. Two are egotropic: the economic situation of the family, and its unemployment situation. One is sociotropic: worry about the economic development in the country. The impact of the first is strongly significant, and greater than found in comparable studies. The impact of the second is mostly significant, while the impact of the third is the least reliable. We have thus found a clear case of pocketbook voting.