Local Politics and the Provision of Indigent Defense Counsel*

In this study we examine the decisions of local governments regarding the form and funding of indigent defense programs. We draw theoretical propositions from the literature on state and local policy making, and we test these propositions using data from Georgia. We find that the provision of indigent defense counsel by local governments is influenced by both economic and political factors: by the wealth on which counties can draw for revenue, which produces interjurisdictional disparities; and by the political resources that interested parties can bring to bear on the policy process. These findings add to a growing body of literature that maps the relationships between trial courts and their political environments. The analysis may also have implications for the allocations of functional responsibilities among levels of governments.     

TWO BOOKS ON FEDERALISM1

COMMUNISM AS A WAY OF LIFE
MAX BELOFF
Nuffield College, Oxford
LOCKE'S ATLANTIS ernesto de marchi
St. Antony's College, Oxford     

Implementing Program Budgeting in the Serbian Ministry of Defense

The Republic of Serbia's Ministry of Defense (MoD) is attempting to implement a program‐oriented, multi‐year budgeting system in 2010. This paper reveals several challenges that threaten the success of this initiative. First, we find that the proposed budget system confuses organizations and programs. Second, there does not appear to be a centrally coordinated effort to implement program budgeting, leading to significant disparities in comprehension, organization, and implementation amongst the subordinate commands in MoD. Finally, there is a distinct lack of communication within the MoD regarding the necessity of a program budget and how the process should move forward. These issues inhibit the implementation of program budgeting in the MoD and diminish the possible gains associated with the multi‐year, programmatic allocation of defense resources.     

CORE EXECUTIVE STUDIES TWO DECADES ON

The concept of the ‘core executive’ was introduced by Dunleavy and Rhodes in 1990. Two decades on, what is the state of core executive studies? This article argues that the language of the study of central government has been transformed. In addition, there is now a much broader consideration of the central government space, incorporating ministers, civil servants, and so on. Within core executive studies, the resource‐dependency approach has become dominant. Arguably, though, with its insistence on a structural element to power and its focus on prime ministerial predominance, much of this work collapses back into an interpretation that is close to the conclusions of the pre‐1990 debate. Currently, only the interpretive, ethnographic approach proposed by Rhodes and his co‐authors challenges the new orthodoxy. This article suggests that a resolutely positivist account of the core executive would provide a similar challenge and spark a lively and very welcome debate.