Designing a dispute resolution system for water policy and management

Conclusions The Montana state water planning process represents one example of how a government agency with decision-making responsibilities can design and facilitate a dispute resolution system. Dispute resolution systems can increase the participation of all affected interests in developing and implementing public policy. This, in turn, should increase their ownership in the final decision and in seeing that it is implemented. A dispute resolution system may not decrease the volume of conflicts, per se, but it should reduce the high costs of conflict and realize the benefits of conflict more efficiently.The use of dispute resolution systems to address complex, multi-party public policy issues also provides other benefits, including the consideration of diverse perspectives and interests; the cooperative and systematic analysis of technical and scientific information; the formation of more pragmatic, equitable, and mutually acceptable goals and alternatives; and the improvement of relationships among diverse, often competing interests, government agencies, and policymakers. Matthew McKinney is a policy analyst and facilitator with the State of Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, 1520 East Sixth Avenue, Helena, Mont. 59620.An earlier version of this article was presented at a conference titled Innovation in Western Water Law and Management, held at the Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado School of Law, 5–7 June, 1991.     

Victor Klemperer. Munich 1919. Diary of a Revolution

Victor Klemperer. Munich 1919. Diary of a Revolution . Translated by Jessica Spengler (Cambridge: Polity, 2017), pp.x + 190. Sixteen b/w plates. £15.51 (hb).     

Participatory Governance in Latin America: Promises and Limitations

Maxwell A. Cameron, Eric Hershberg, and Kenneth E. Sharpe, eds., New Institutions for Participatory Democracy in Latin America: Voice and Consequence. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Tables, figures, bibliography, index; 263 pp.; hardcover $105, paperback $30, ebook $19.99. Françoise Montambeault, The Politics of Local Participatory Democracy in Latin America: Institutions, Actors, and Interactions. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2015. Figures, tables, notes, bibliography, index, 288 pp.; hardcover $65, ebook. Patricio Silva and Herwig Cleuren, eds., Widening Democracy: Citizens and Participatory Schemes in Brazil and Chile. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Figures, tables, notes, bibliography, index; 379 pp.; hardcover $87, ebook $90. J. Ricardo Tranjan, Participatory Democracy in Brazil: Socioeconomic and Political Origins. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 2016. Figures, tables, notes, bibliography; 288 pp.; paperback $35, ebook. Brian Wampler, Activating Democracy in Brazil: Popular Participation, Social Justice, and Interlocking Institutions. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2015. Figures, tables, abbreviations, notes, bibliography, index; 312 pp.; paperback $39, ebook $39.     

Does Welfare Provision Promote Democratic State Legitimacy? Evidence from Brazil's Bolsa Família Program

Conditional cash transfer programs may boost the electoral fortunes of incumbents among beneficiary groups, but do they also influence recipient attitudes toward state legitimacy? This article examines the relationship between Brazil's Bolsa Família program and recipients’ sense of the Brazilian state's political legitimacy, from 2007 to 2014. Using AmericasBarometer data and propensity score matching, this study provides evidence that targeted cash benefits correlate with citizens’ views of the state, but that this relationship is limited to increasing trust in core state institutions, local government, and incumbent political actors. Diffuse dimensions of regime legitimacy, including recipients’ sense of political community, support for regime principles, and retrospective perceptions of national economic performance, are largely unaffected by the receipt of targeted benefits. Over time, the evidence also suggests that the impact of program receipt on these measures of support remains largely unchanged.