Elections and political change in post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina

This article examines attempts to use electoral politics to promote substantive political change in post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina. Since 1990 elections have been a key part of virtually all negotiated agreements to end civil wars. The utility of democracy for building peace is often asserted but rarely backed with long-term commitment and resources on the ground. Bosnia since 1996 is a rare exception. There, international actors sought not only to establish a democratic political system but to use electoral democracy as a tool with which to transform the nature of politics in Bosnia in short order. This article focuses on efforts to shape the development of political parties and the party system, assesses the degree to which it has succeeded and examines the broader implications of Bosnia's experience for other state-building efforts of its kind.     

Public Private Partnership als „Negotiated Order“ —

Der Beitrag versteht Public Private Partnership (PPP) als negotiated order — als Produkt kontextgebundener Aushandlungsprozesse zwischen Akteuren der öffentlichen und privaten Welt. Am Beispiel der vorvertraglichen Phase von drei Entwicklungspartnerschaften der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) werden auf Grundlage der Negotiated-Order-Theorie drei zentrale Thesen herausgestellt: PPP-Aushandlungsprozesse sind durch informelle Vorverständigungen gekennzeichnet, in denen Legitimationsanforderungen beider Welten frühzeitig auf spezifische Handlungskontexte abgestimmt werden. Diese Vorleistung wird von ?bridging agents“ erbracht, die als Vertreter öffentlicher und privater Organisationen und einer gemeinsamen Fachwelt Handlungskontexte interpretieren und damit Verhandlungsspielräume schaffen ?to get things done“ aber auch beschränken. Sie orientieren sich dabei an kontextbezogenen Praktiken der Zusammenarbeit, die den Charakter — die negotiated order — einer jeden PPP prägen. Bewähren sich diese Praktiken im Rahmen einer PPP, so gehen diese in die Vorstellungswelt der Akteure im Alltag über und geben eine Vorlage für zukünftige (PPP-)Kooperationen.     

Priority-setting processes for medicines: the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand

The agencies involved in the assessment and prioritisation of medicines for public subsidy purposes in Australia, England and Wales, and New Zealand are compared in terms of their processes; ultimate decision-maker and political involvement in decisions; price-setting processes; decision criteria and inclusion of economic assessment of cost-effectiveness; provision for the rule of rescue and separate treatment of potentially life-saving medicines and cancer drugs; levels of access; extent of consumer participation in processes and decisions; and provision for appeal from decisions. All countries face the key challenge of expanding access to important new treatments, while maintaining cost-effectiveness as a key criterion for public funding and safeguarding the affordability and sustainability of their programs into the future. New Zealand's model may have led to a greater focus on cost-containment and overall affordability than those of the other two agencies. Despite controversial decisions that have led on occasion to disappointment and challenge, the Australian and New Zealand agencies have survived and appear to have managed to date to maintain public and political support. By contrast, the United Kingdom's National Institute for Healthcare and Clinical Excellence is facing major changes to its role that could see it become more of an advisory organisation.