Accountability: Is Westminster the Problem?

The outcome of the Symposium reported in AJPA 58(1) is said by the convenors to be that there are many different kinds of accountability and that there may be clashes between them. This paper suggests one possible reason is that the Westminster label hides the potential tensions between the increasing demands for accountability, more responsiveness and responsibility, the new public management and the institutional framework. Everyone wishes to cover perceived unmet demands and expectations, providing we remain with basic Westminster as our starting point. The paper suggests that commitment to what we call Westminster is the problem. It restricts understanding of the reality of Australian governance because it is not an uncontested term. Westminster is made to mean whatever the normative stance of the commentator requires. The paper argues that it is an opportune time to answer some basic questions about responsible parliamentary democracy in Australia.     

The Bush Administration's 'Alliance-Based' East Asia Policy

The US will face major foreign policy challenges in East Asia in the twenty-first century. In this article, Ralph A. Cossa, president of the Pacific Forum CSIS, Honolulu, examines the Bush administration's policy towards East Asia which he argues continues to be alliance-based. The principal issues include: the precarious situation on the Korean Peninsula; China's potential emergence as a regional power and the sensitive topic of the Taiwan Strait, Japan's struggle with economic and constitutional reform and an unstable Indonesia. The administration's stated commitment to missile defense has been well publicized and the security implications of this for the region are also examined by Cossa. Although a ''Vision statement'' on the Asia-Pacific is still lacking and needed, he argues that the basic components of the Bush administration's Asia strategy appear to be well-formed.     

Personnel Management: Politics, Administration, and a Passion for Anonymity

Personnel management is vitally important to the maintenance and preservation of the administrative state and its democratic institutions. This reaction critically examines the personnel recommendations made by Floyd W. Reeves and Paul T. David in their study Personnel Administration in the Federal Service. It questions the degree to which there is a coherent set of political and constitutional expectations marking the progress of personnel policy that might enable us to forecast the future, both theoretically and practically. The authors highlight how and why the field should pay greater attention to the political ends that our personnel theories serve.     

The consequences of a pragmatic turn for semiotics

Clara H. Stewardson Professor of Philosophy.