The ideological component of Senate voting: Different principles or different principals?

Evidence exists on both sides of the question of whether or not legislator-specific, ideologically-driven shirking of constituent interest occurs. In this paper, we use a well-known model of such shirking by senators as our point of departure and add measures of inter-state constituent interests, the role of campaign contributions and, hence, the importance of whether or not senators are up for reelection. We find some evidence that the model provides a stronger explanation for senators up for reelection than for those who are not and that campaign contributions help determine voting decisions by these legislators. Finally, accounting for inter-state constituent interests, shirking is not a significant variable in the voting decisions of senators facing reelection. Thus, it appears that the reelection interests of some senators have been mistaken for ideologically-driven shirking.     

Policy learning and the public inquiry

Can public inquiries learn lessons in ways which can reduce the likelihood of future failure? Political science research has consistently stated that the answer to this question should be an emphatic no and defined the public inquiry as an ineffectual lesson-learning mechanism. This article, however, contends that this conventional wisdom needs to be revisited. Drawing upon policy learning research for its theory, and 100 interviews across four international cases for its evidence, this article returns to the question above and finds that inquiries regularly produce ‘instrumental’ and ‘cognitive organisational’ forms of learning, which propel substantive reform agendas. By contrasting these outcomes against the types of learning that inquiries struggle to produce, the article delivers a nuanced evaluation that indicates that we need to reconsider what we think we know about these important institutions.

     

An Inquiry into Balanced Scorecards within Best Value Implementation in UK Local Government

The aim is of this paper is to conduct an exploratory study into the use of Balanced Scorecards as an approach to implementing Best Value in UK local government. Furthermore, a participant-observation method is used to study the development into a Balanced Scorecard within local government.
There is a need to critically evaluate approaches to implementing Best Value so that local government can determine how to achieve the service performance levels laid down in the framework. There is a paucity of systematic studies exploring and critiquing the effectiveness of using the Balanced Scorecard in Best Value implementation. The paper describes an exploratory multiple case research study followed by longitudinal participant-observer research on Balanced Scorecard development in a Best Value context. The findings show that the Balanced Scorecard can play a key role in Best Value implementation. Moreover it is also useful in linking other improvement initiatives. However, the Balanced Scorecard process must be informed by organizational and environmental information that is both accurate and adequate. The audit functions of the Business Excellence Model go some way to providing this information.     

Evaluating the best value framework in UK local government services

The aim of this article is to conduct an exploratory multiple case analysis of local government delivery of Best Value by focusing on Environmental Waste Management Service (EWMS) delivery. EWMS is chosen as a key area of Best Value development and application. The Best Value framework was developed by the UK Government to introduce performance management to local government as part of the ‘Modernising Government’ agenda. There is a need to critically evaluate Best Value so that local government can determine if this is a suitable and sustainable framework for the management of public services and that it can make a contribution to increased public service effectiveness. The article describes an exploratory multiple case research study and shows that the imposition of Best Value in local government must recognise the complexity and diversity within local government services, rather than adopting an inflexible approach to deployment. There is a need to go beyond generalised performance measures and benchmarks and to attempt to understand the difficulties and complexities of localised conditions. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Core Executive, Modernization and the Creation of PESC, 1960-64

The period between 1957 and 1964 was one of immense yet underestimated political and administrative change. It culminated in what many have seen as a golden age in Whitehall. This is reflected by the wealth of records now available for the study of government and policy networks. The period is thus an ideal one for collaboration between historians and political scientists.
The decisional case study examined in this article focuses on the early years of the Public Expenditure Survey Committee, as viewed from the perspective of welfare policy. The drive to 'modernize' government started with attempts to 'roll back the state' and to hive off the implementation of policy to executive agencies, very similar to those pursued in the 1980s by Mrs Thatcher and Next Steps. The reasoned rejection of such a policy was symbolized by the creation of PESC, a centralized attempt to allocate resources rationally. PESC itself, however, was initially a failure. External circumstances, such as the breakdown of political and administrative networks within the core executive, and internal tensions, including the Treasury's covert attempt to impose its own departmental interest, led the Cabinet Secretary to conclude that the prioritization and strict control of forward expenditure commitments was 'not possible'. This case study demonstrates how future studies of the core executive might be broadened and deepened.     

The intersection of race and gender: an examination of sentencing outcomes in North Carolina

This study examines the intersection of offenders’ race and gender in the sentencing process using data on felony cases sentenced in North Carolina. Analyses examine the likelihood that charges were reduced in severity between initial filing and conviction, the likelihood of imprisonment, and the length of sentence imposed, and test whether race affects punishment similarly for men and women. Results indicate that status characteristics predict both reductions in charge severity and the severity of the final sentence, and that racial disparity is conditional on gender. However, the results are not entirely consistent with predictions derived from the extant literature. Gender significantly predicts case outcomes at each stage, but black men were not uniformly disadvantaged, and black women received the least severe treatment in two out of four analyses. Theoretical implications for the intersection of race and gender in sentencing theories are discussed.