Stressed,depressed, or bewitched?

Mental illness is an important cause of disability in sub-Saharan African countries and is rarely covered in health-related development activity. This article examines the close relationship between mental illness, religion, and culture, referring to the authors' experiences in Zimbabwe as an example. They emphasise the importance of gaining a sympathetic understanding of the religious beliefs and social contexts of psycho-social distress states, rather than simply translating concepts and ideas developed in the societies of Europe and North America.     

BUILDING SOCIETIES: A QUESTION OF ACCOUNTABILITY?

The investment and mortgage policies and practices of the British building societies affect individuals, neighbourhoods and the economy. Their activities have been subject to serious criticisms. Building societies, however, are scarcely accountable to their members, despite their position as'mutual' organizations; nor are they politically accountable to the electors through the government. The British building societies present a public interest problem. This article questions whether and how they ought to be made accountable for their actions in order to ensure that they further the public interest.     

The United Nations as an early casualty of the East‐West conflict over the nuclear disarmament issue: A view from within

This paper assesses the role of the United Nations in nuclear disarmament in the early postwar period and provides an explanation as to why its contribution was limited. It presents a framework of analysis concentrating particularly on the political organs of the UN. It is a view from within the World Organisation. It emphasises the difficulties the UN encountered in establishing its credentials in dealing with the requirements of the nuclear age. Finally, the paper examines the reasons of the failure of the negotiations which took place between 1945 and 1950.     

ASSESSING THE PERFORMANCE OF DEPARTMENTAL CHIEF EXECUTIVES: PERSPECTIVES FROM NEW ZEALAND

This article examines the new approach to specifying and assessing the performance of departmental chief executives in New Zealand introduced in 1988 by the fourth Labour government (1984–1990). Drawing on the findings of a series of interviews with ministers, chief executives and other senior public servants conducted between late 1989 and late 1991 by a number of researchers, the article outlines the origins and implementation of the new policy framework, and evaluates its strengths and weaknesses. From the evidence available to date, it appears that the new model has won the support of most of the parties directly affected, and that it has enhanced the accountability of chief executives to their portfolio minister(s). However, the implementation of the new regime has highlighted the inherent problems of assessing the performance of senior personnel in the public sector and of imposing sanctions in the event of substandard performance. In addition, various issues of a constitutional nature have arisen concerning the roles and responsibilities of chief executives, the balance of power between chief executives and their portfolio minister(s), and the proper role of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in the new accountability framework.