Evaluating the 'New Public Management' Reforms in the UK: A Constitutional Possibility

Far-reaching managerial changes to the public sector in the UK have been occurring in the last few years. Broadly described as the 'new public management' (Hood 1991, 1995) these changes have reached new levels of intensity ever since the Conservative Government came to power in 1979. The article argues that the government should be accountable for these changes but not in a way which simply justifies its actions to the body politic but rather by going beyond this to a complete critical evaluation to assess their merit and worth. It is this exposure which will provide its real accountability. This article addresses the contextual factors surrounding the possibility of conducting such a wide-ranging evaluation. It traces a range of different examples which highlight the resistance of the previous government to an open-ended evaluation tracing the sizeable investment in implementation rather than careful policy experimentation and evaluation that has occurred. Finally, and most importantly the article explores the constitutional position of the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) and the National Audit Office (NAO) who could conduct the wide-ranging evaluation which is deemed necessary. The conclusion of the article is that there is a need for an evaluation and any resistance of the government could be overcome if the C&AG and NAO exercised their constitutional right to conduct an evaluation of the reforms.     

CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES:

Since 1989, federal law requires states to have presumptive child support guidelines and review them using economic data on child-rearing costs at least once every 4 years. This article reviews the child support guidelines models adopted by states, how they relate to estimates of child-rearing expenditures, the extent that states are updating their guidelines, and some of the more controversial guidelines provisions (i.e., adjustments for shared-parenting time, additional dependent children, and low-income nonresidential parents). We find that many states are not updating their core formulas and schedules. As a result, several state guidelines produce support award amounts that are below the costs of raising children.     

Forensic Psychological Expertise in the Wake of Daubert

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. established guidelines for screening the admissibility of scientific evidence and overruled the Frye general acceptance doctrine. Guidelines more akin to those advocated by psychologists to assess the trustworthiness of the expert testimony were established in light of the Federal Rules of Evidence on the reliability, relevance, and prejudicial or probative nature of the information. Forensic psychological experts will have to be explicit about the scientific foundations of their opinions. The more flexible formula for the admission of scientific evidence may exert greater quality control than the Frye test, and enhance the relationship of psychology and law by eliminating some sources of controversy within the professional community over expert witnesses. Research needs flowing from the new standards are identified. Administrative Judge with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Southern California, and a Mediator and Arbitrator with Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services/Endispute     

Turmoil in Assam

Abstract

Thousands of Assamese have perished in ethnic, religious, and linguistic clashes. The native population has been outnumbered by Bengali‐speaking immigrant Hindus and Muslims, reducing the Assamese to a minority status in their home state. This human onslaught and the failure of the state and central governments to formulate a viable solution have given rise to an upheaval in the form of militant activities, largely headed by the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA). Two military operations have been conducted in the last 18 months to rout the separatist Maoist militants. In December 1991, ULFA declared a unilateral indefinite ceasefire. Negotiations for a permanent solution to the turmoil are currently underway. This article traces the origin, nature, and content of these developments.     

Participation as a Framework for Analysing Consumers’ Experiences of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

This article argues that an analytic framework based on participation is useful for analysing consumer experiences of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), providing a complementary approach to analyses drawing on procedural justice theory. The argument is developed by applying McKeever's ‘ladder of legal participation’ (LLP)¹ to a qualitative data set consisting of interviews with United Kingdom consumers. The article concludes that applying the LLP in the consumer ADR context results in novel empirical and theoretical insights. Empirically, it demonstrates that – even in low-value and transactional disputes – consumers expect high levels of participation from ADR. Theoretically, it argues that the LLP complements existing approaches by providing an unifying lens through which to study consumer experiences by emphasizing the importance of participation, not only as a process value but also in shaping outcomes highlighting the distinction between genuine and tokenistic provision of ADR.