The private sector,the public sector and the laws of nature

Abstract: The author analyses differences between the private and public sectors by assessing their compliance with several laws and principles considered to govern organisms and organizations in nature. Those laws and principles involve: niche overlap; types of competition; natural selection and survival of the fittest; symbiotic relationships; and maturation of ecosystems. Each biological principle is first described in layman's terms. Subsequently the ways in which the public and private sectors relate to and comply with the principles are compared and discussed. Although both sectors are found to contravene nature's laws, the public sector is found to be a frequent violator. The implications of this lack of compliance to individuals in the fields of public administration and management science are discussed. The author suggests that an understanding of biological laws is of considerable value to those attempting to explain differences between the private and public sectors as well as to public administrators in general. Sommaire: L'auteur analyse les différences entre les secteurs privé et public en évaluant la façon dont ils respectent plusieurs lois et principes qui régissent le comportement des organismes et organisations au sein de la nature: 1. chevauchement des créneaux; 2. types de concurrence; 3. sélection naturelle et survie du plus fort; 4. rapports de symbiose; 5. maturation des systèmes écologiques. Chaque principe biologique est d'abord dérit en termes vernaculaires, puis l'étude compare et discute les attitudes des secteurs public et privé face aux principes de référence. Bien que les deux secteurs enfreignent les lois de la nature, le secteur public semble le faire fréquem-ment. On évoque ensuite les répercussions de cette dérogation pour les personnes exerçant dans les domaines de l'administration publique et des sciences de gestion. L'auteur souligne que la compréhension des lois biologiques est extrêmement utile à quiconque veut expliquer la différence entre les secteurs privé et public, ainsi qu'aux administrateurs du secteur public en général.     

Positive Administrative Control: Using Social Exchange to Assess Managerial Impacts on Inmate Misconduct

Positive administrative control uses social exchange theory to explain how management impacts institutional rates of inmate disorder. This study proffers that prison managers can use their relationship with staff to influence them to act in accordance with agency desires, which in turn affects institutional disorder rates. Using data from the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the model demonstrates an indirect connection exists between management/staff relationships and disorder. However, two of the scales used to explain positive administrative controls’ sway—the leader-member exchange (LMX) and perceived organizational support (POS)-had opposing effects. Increases in the quality of the leader-member exchange (LMX) was associated with decreases in misconduct rates, while increases in perceived organizational support (POS) was associated with increases in misconduct rates.     

Authoritarian Co-optation in the Age of Globalisation: Evidence from Hong Kong

The existing literature on authoritarian survival, implicitly or explicitly, assumes that political challenges faced by authoritarian regimes are all domestic. I argue that globalisation exposes authoritarian regimes to new sources of threat. In particular, capital mobility forces authoritarian regimes to deal with not only those who dare to voice out dissatisfaction, but also those who exit. While repression may be the best strategy to silence the vocal, co-optation would be a more effective tool to retain the runaway. It is, however, often impossible to co-opt all the capital owners. As such, authoritarian regimes have to be selective when choosing co-optation targets. I argue that authoritarian regimes would co-opt renowned firms because these firms yield the greatest demonstration effect. Hong Kong provides an interesting case to illustrate my arguments. Beijing strategically co-opted the stakeholders of renowned firms in Hong Kong in order to solve the city's pervasive confidence crisis prior to 1997. I test my arguments with data on firms listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. I find that firms owned by well-known and prestigious elite families were more likely to build political connections with Beijing. To test the causal linkage more rigorously, I use both the genetic matching and instrumental variable approaches. The empirical results provide strong support to my arguments.     

Is In-Prison Treatment Enough? A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prison-Based Treatment and Aftercare Services for Substance-Abusing Offenders

This study performed a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of the Amity in-prison Therapeutic Community (TC) and Vista aftercare programs for criminal offenders in California. For the average treatment participant, the cost of treatment was $4,112, which led to approximately fifty-one fewer days incarcerated (36% less) than the average individual in the control group. This implies that, for the average offender, treatment reduced recidivism at a cost of $80 per incarceration day. For participants who received both in-prison treatment and aftercare services, an additional day of incarceration was avoided at a cost of $51 per day relative to those that received in-prison treatment only.     

Global Debate and the Limits of the Bush Doctrine

The "Bush Doctrine" asserting the right to preemptively attack states that support or harbor terrorists and pursue weapons of mass destruction (WMD) has bitterly divided world opinion. Many seemingly long-settled questions of international politics, especially involving the unilateral use of force, have been reopened. Although we are concerned about the implications of the Bush Doctrine, we do not agree that it fundamentally changes world politics as some have asserted. Instead, we argue that the global debate leading up to the war in Iraq signals widespread support for existing international norms. Most states continue to see force as a last resort, properly subject to multilateral control in all but the most urgent cases of imminent self-defense. The nature of American diplomatic maneuverings in the United Nations and the public statements of high-level officials suggest that even the United States continues to recognize the importance of these norms.