Domestic Violence: Research and Implications for Batterer Programmes in Europe

The European Union is in the early stages of developing policy and practice guidelines for dealing with domestic violence offenders. There is a real danger, however, that that policy and practice is going to be shaped by political lobbyists rather than academic literature and evidence-based practice. Feminist advocates control the curriculum of domestic violence perpetrator programmes in the US and more recently in the UK and proscribe treatments that do not conform to their conceptualisation of domestic violence. Feminist advocates conceptualise domestic violence as unilateral male-to-female violence enacted to control and dominate women, supported by the patriarchal beliefs and systems of the wider society. Academic support for this theory is lacking, however, and scientifically sound evaluations find that programmes based on this philosophy have little or no effect on recidivism. Empirical literature suggests that domestic violence is not a unitary phenomenon and that perpetrators are a heterogeneous group whose treatment should match their crimingenic needs and risk.     

A dialogue with ‘global care chain’ analysis: nurse migration in the Irish context

This article examines the relationship between globalization, care and migration, with specific reference to the ‘global care chain’ concept. The utility of this concept is explored in the light of its current and potential contributions to research on the international division of reproductive labour and transnational care economies. The article asserts the validity of global care chain analysis but argues that its present application to migrant domestic care workers must be broadened in order that its potential may be fully realized. Accordingly, five ways in which the concept could be more broadly applied are outlined and applications of this expanded framework are illustrated through a case study of nurse migration in the Irish context. Finally, the discussion considers future directions for empirical and theoretical research into global care chains and suggests various lines of enquiry.     

‘Democratic Socialism’ and the Concept of (Post)Capitalism

This article explores the ‘democratic socialism’ being proposed by new left movements on either side of the Atlantic, and evaluates its claim to be a form of anti- or postcapitalism. It argues that in the democratic socialist worldview, the line between capitalism and socialism rests on the balance of power between workers and capitalists in the economic sphere. While traditional social democracy seeks to redistribute wealth but leaves relations between workers and capitalists within firms untouched, democratic socialism seeks to abolish private property in the economic sphere. Production is controlled democratically by the workers themselves, in league with a workers’ state. The article critically appraises the claim that such a scenario constitutes a form of postcapitalism. Drawing on the work of critical Marxists such as Moishe Postone, it argues that capitalism is not primarily defined by private property relations in the economic sphere, but rather the peculiar social form of capitalist labour. Unlike in pre-capitalist societies, for labour in capitalism to secure a continued basis on which to reproduce the means of subsistence, it must be socially validated as ‘value-producing’. The criteria for value validation is not set in the workplace, or within a single nation state, but rather on the world market. The article concludes that, for all its merits, the democratisation of workplaces does not overcome the need for this social validation, but rather constitutes an alternative form of managing the process of production in this context. As such, democratic socialism, like social democracy, remains susceptible to the same imperatives and crises as other forms of capitalist production, and so cannot be said to constitute a form of ‘postcapitalism’.     

Intergovernmental Relations in the UK: Time for a Radical Overhaul?

Brexit and the coronavirus pandemic have put relationships between the UK government and its devolved counterparts under growing strain. Tensions generated by both of these developments have exposed the inadequacies of the existing, under-developed system for bringing governments together in the UK. The limitations of the current system include the ad hoc nature of intergovernmental meetings, and their consultative rather than decision-making character. Drawing upon an analysis of how intergovernmental relationships are structured in five other countries, the authors offer a number of suggestions for the reconfiguration of the UK model. They explore different ways of enabling joint decision making by its governments, and argue against the assumption that England can be represented adequately by the UK administration. Without a serious attempt to address this dysfunctional part of the UK’s territorial constitution, there is every prospect that relations between these different governments will continue to deteriorate.     

The Role of Motivation and Leadership in Public Employees’ Job Preferences: Evidence from Two Discrete Choice Experiments

Two discreet choice experiments investigated how three styles of leadership (i.e., transformational, transactional, and ethical) and three job features aimed at activating different motivational forces (i.e., public service motivation, external regulation, and intrinsic motivation) simultaneously and independently affected the job preferences of a sample of public employees. Subjects displayed a strong preference for jobs that benefit more citizens, that are more interesting, and that require working under ethical leaders rather than unethical ones. Whereas the prospect of a 5% salary increase strengthened participants’ preferences for a given position, offering a 1% salary raise did not significantly change subjects’ job choices. Furthermore, participants did not appear to have any preference for working under a transformational leader rather than a transactional leader.