COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN BRITAIN

According to a strict definition, comparative public administration in Britain is relatively undeveloped. However, once the definition is relaxed it is possible to see that scholars in the British Isles make a substantial contribution to the field. This contribution can be examined under four headings; single country studies, juxtapositions, thematic comparisons and causal explanations. While causal explanation must remain as one major objective of comparative study, such explanations are problematic, and not only in Britain. At best they can only deal in establishing the strength of the evidence supporting plausible hypotheses rather than offer more direct tests of causality associated with statistical techniques. The way forward in comparative research is not to be found in a search for an overall theory, or the institutionalization of administrative data gathering. Intellectually interesting questions are more likely to provoke data collection than the other way around. A stronger dialogue between contemporary and past studies as well as a broadening range of countries covered might help generate the projects which provide the systematic comparative data that many commentators believe we lack.     

DECOMPOSING THE PEER EFFECT ON ADOLESCENT SUBSTANCE USE: MEDIATION,NONLINEARITY, AND DIFFERENTIAL NONLINEARITY*

Although the correlation between peer delinquency and delinquency is one of the most consistently demonstrated findings in delinquency research, researchers have focused primarily on the direct, linear, and additive effects of peers in statistical models, rather than on empirically modeling mediating, nonlinear, and moderating processes that are specified by theory. To address these issues, we measure respondent delinquency and peer delinquency with illegal substance use and then decompose the effect of peer substance use on self‐reported substance use. Logistic hierarchical models on a sample of adolescents from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) indicate that the effect of peer substance use on self‐reported substance use is partially mediated by perceptions of the health risks of substance use. In addition, the direct statistical effect of peers is nonlinear: On average, the peer effect decreases at higher values of peer substance use, which is consistent with a “saturation” effect. We also find that the functional form of the peer substance use/substance use relationship is dependent on the neighborhood context. In neighborhoods with more opportunities for crime, the peer effect is initially strong but decreases as peer substance use increases, which is consistent with a saturation effect. Conversely, in neighborhoods with fewer opportunities for crime, the effect of peers is initially small, but as delinquent peer associations increase, the peer effect increases multiplicatively.