The purpose of knowledge: pragmatism and the praxis of marxist criminology

This paper revives and revises the argument that there is no place for a concept of crime in marxist theory, and consequently that there is no theoretical justification for the development of marxist criminology. However, earlier essays along these lines have adopted a rationalist epistemology in advancing this case — with its attendant difficulties of idealism, privileged conceptualization and inflexibility. The present paper attempts to escape such problems, and to extend the critique of criminological theorization, by developing its case on the basis of a pragmatist epistemology. It is argued that the conflicting aims of marxist theory and the bourgeois legal theory from which crime is transferred make it difficult for marxist criminology to generate a unified theory to guide political practice and research. Moreover, Marxists' privileging of the concept of crime may be systematically blinding them to political developments which render criminology historically obsolescent.     

Interpersonal Correlates of Peer Victimization Among Young Adolescents

Empathy, prosocial behavior, the number of friends, self-reported popularity, and various forms of interpersonal forgiveness were examined as predictors of peer victimization among 52 7th and 8th graders attending a private school. Popularity was the strongest individual predictor of teacher-reported victimization with high popularity associated with low victimization. Malestudents reported significantly higher rates of victimization than females, prompting the decision to examine correlates of self-reported victimization separately by gender. Interpersonal forgiveness scores were the strongest predictors of self-reported victimization; however, different forms of forgiveness were the greatest predictors of male and female self-reported victimization. Implications are discussed.     

The Reinvention of Public Personnel Administration: An Analysis of the Diffusion of Personnel Management Reforms in the States

Reform is a common theme in American public administration. During the twentieth century at least 12 major administrative reforms have taken place at the federal level and countless others in state and local governments. Frequently, these reforms have addressed the operation of public personnel management systems. Recent efforts associated with the reinventing government movement, for example, have proposed numerous alterations to civil service rules and procedures, and many jurisdictions have implemented significant changes in their personnel practices. This article examines the extent to which these kinds of personnel reforms have been implemented by state governments. A reform index is developed to document the considerable variation among the states in their approach to personnel practices. Several state characteristics are associated with scores on this index, including legislative professionalism, which bears a positive relationship to reform, and the level of unemployment within a state and the proportion of state employees associated with public employee unions, which are both negatively associated with reform.     

Administrative Discretion and Active Representation: An Expansion of the Theory of Representative Bureaucracy

Recent studies of the theory of representative bureaucracy have focused on active representation, whereby administrators in public organizations work to advance the interests of particular groups, achieving policy outcomes that directly address the needs of those groups. The concept of administrative discretion is central to these studies, as an administrator must have the discretion to produce results that reflect the values and beliefs of these groups. While the presence of discretion is often implied in these studies, few have examined it explicitly. Using data from the Farmer's Home Administration, we explore whether administrators who perceive themselves as having more discretion enact policy outcomes that are more representative of minority interests. The results strongly support the conclusion that administrators who perceive themselves as possessing significant discretion and who assume the role of minority representative in their agencies are more likely to enact policy outcomes that favor minority interests.