Industrial safety: The political challenge∗

The Philosophical Origins of Modern Contract Doctrine. JAMES GORDLEY. Oxford. 1991. The Clarendon Press. 263 pp. £35 hb; £16.99 pb.

A History of the Anglo‐American Common Law of Contract. KEVIN M. TEEVEN. New York. 1990. Greenwood Press, xii + 382 pp.

Legal Fiction: Law in the Novels of Nineteenth Century Women Novelists. KATHLEEN LONCAR. London. 1995. Minerva Press. 266pp. (inc Index). £7.99 pb. ISBN 1 85863 668 X.

Adversaria: Literature and Law. E.J. HINZ, T. ANDERSON AND A. McGILLIVRAY (eds.) [Special Issue of Mosaic: A Journal for the Interdisciplinary Study of Literature, vol.27 no.4 ‐ December 1994] Winnipeg. 1994. University of Manitoba, ix + 230 pp. $20 pb. ISSN 0027–1276.

The Independence of the Judiciary. The View from the Lord Chancellor's Office. ROBERT STEVENS. Oxford. 1993. Clarendon Press, xii + 221 pp (incl. index). £27.50 hb. ISBN 0 19 825815 1

Marriage, Property and Law in Late Imperial Russia. WILLIAM G. WAGNER. Oxford. 1994. Clarendon Press. xiv+413pp (incl. Index) £45 hb. ISBN 0–19–820447–7.     

Dosage of treatment to sexual offenders: are we overprescribing?

A sample of 337 offenders who received treatment in a variety of sex offender treatment programs in the Ontario region of Correctional Service Canada between 1993 and 1998 were divided based on the highest intensity sex offender programming that they received (low, moderate, and high). The three groups were compared with reference to a variety of actuarial risk assessment measures, criminogenic factors, and the number and type of treatment programs completed. It was hypothesized that the high-intensity group would have more criminogenic risk factors, higher actuarial scores, and participate in more treatment programs than both the moderate- and low-intensity groups. The results indicate that in general, the hypotheses were supported. Nonetheless, the results suggest that the low-intensity group may be receiving too much sex offender-specific treatment.     

Australian Public Policy, Federalism, and Intergovernmental Relations: The Federal Factor

Public policy is the overt activity of governing and what governmentshave as their primary purpose. This is so whether the politicalsystem is unitary or federal. There are many more elements thatcomplicate policymaking in a federal system. In particular,constitutional, financial, and political issues intrude becauseof the necessary interdependence of otherwise independent andautonomous national and subnational components. This articleaddresses this complexity of joint action through use of theideas about federalism, the structure of governing institutions,and the processes of policymaking. The extent to which an outcomedepends on the mixture of independence and interdependence isconceptualized as degrees of the federal factor. Linking thisconcept to particular policy arenas may provide a better understandingof federal systems than explanation from centralization or decentralizationor dependence or independence.     

Three Traditions of Network Research: What the Public Management Research Agenda Can Learn from Other Research Communities

This article identifies and describes the development of three parallel streams of literature about network theory and research: social network analysis, policy change and political science networks, and public management networks. Noting that these traditions have sometimes been inattentive to each other's work, the authors illustrate the similarities and differences in the underlying theoretical assumptions, types of research questions addressed, and research methods typically employed by the three traditions. The authors draw especially on the social network analysis (sociological) tradition to provide theoretical and research insights for those who focus primarily on public management networks. The article concludes with recommendations for advancing current scholarship on public management networks.     

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.