Governance without a state: Can it work?

In this article we explore how much state is necessary to make governance work. We begin by clarifying concepts of governance and the “shadow of hierarchy” and we follow this clarification with a brief overview of empirical findings on governance research in developed countries. We then discuss the dilemmas for governance in areas of limited statehood, where political institutions are too weak to hierarchically adopt and enforce collectively binding rules. While prospects for effective policymaking appear to be rather bleak in these areas, we argue that governance research has consistently overlooked the existence of functional equivalents to the shadow of hierarchy. We assert that governance with(out) government can work even in the absence of a strong shadow of hierarchy, we identify functional equivalents to the shadow of hierarchy, and we discuss to what extent they can help overcome issues of legitimacy and effectiveness in areas of limited statehood.     

Comparison of fingernail striation patterns in identical twins.

The fingernail ridge patterns of a pair of identical twins were compared to each other, their parents, and an unrelated subject. The patterns of the twins' nails showed regions of strong similarity but were distinguishable from one another. Fewer similarities were found when comparing the nails to those of the parents and the unrelated control. The twins were shown to be monozygotic by means of DNA profiling. This therefore represents the first demonstration of unique fingernail ridge patterns in subjects shown conclusively to be identical twins. When the fingernail ridge patterns were examined with a scanning electron microscope, the backscattered electron (BEI) images were found to have superior contrast when compared to the secondary electron (SEI) images.     

Reentry and Removal: Implications for Juvenile Confinement Facilities

An important national initiative in juvenile justice is Juvenile Offender Reentry (JOR). The renewed emphasis on offender reintegration has generated significant attention to juvenile justice practices, with the notable exception of juvenile confinement facilities. Juvenile detention and, to a lesser degree, juvenile corrections practitioners are involved but not invested in reentry, having made very few programmatic changes to accommodate JOR initiatives largely because these initiatives have been external to the institution and its staff. Yet, reentry is a powerful concept for juvenile facility practitioners, and the application of reentry principles could have a profound impact on daily operations. This article addresses a range of issues about investing juvenile institutions in reentry practices. Several reentry models are discussed along with their implications for daily operations and programs.