The Impact of Court Delays on the Prosecutor and the Defendant: An Economic Analysis

One important aspect of the economic theory of criminal court delay is to understand how the prosecutor and the defendant make their decisions, and how these respond to changes in trial delay. If both parties jointly maximise expected utility, trial delay may increase or decrease the number of trials, depending upon the decision makers' attitudes towards risk. The main policy implication is that providing the criminal courts with more resources in the form of additional judges and court capacity may lengthen the trial queue rather than shorten it. This is a counterintuitive result contrary to popular belief.     

The ECJ eases the way for comparative advertisers

The ECJ reiterates its support for the comparative advertiserby indicating that common sense is needed to comply with theMisleading Advertising and Comparative Advertising Directive(Directive 97/55).     

Participation,education, and pluralism: towards a new extension ethic

The concern driving current debate on agricultural extension is increasingly that of how to help farmers learn how to deal with the complex world around them responsibly and profitably, in such a way that the extension worker is ancillary. This article seeks to deconstruct and provide a more reasoned assessment of agricultural extension services through a reflection on development paradigms, adult education, individual empowerment, and institutional pluralism. By calling into question the underlying ethical dimensions of agricultural extension, it is possible to develop an alternative paradigm and thereby generate new insights into it. The article concludes that the raison d'être of agricultural extension today must be to create an ethical basis which ensures that extension practices are more inclusive and thus responsive to the needs of farmers and other rural populations, integrating individual expectations into the wider socio-economic, cultural, political, and geographical environment.     

Multi-layered justice and security delivery in post-conflict and fragile states

This paper examines the value of an alternative approach to SSR policy, namely a multi-layered one in post-conflict and fragile state environments. It begins by arguing that there is a state-centric bias in current SSR policy and practice. This contradicts development principles of a ‘people-centred, locally owned’ approach in post-conflict and fragile state contexts. The SSR's state-centric approach rests upon two fallacies: that the post-conflict and fragile state is capable of delivering justice and security; and that it is the main actor in security and justice. The paper goes on to present the outline of a multi-layered strategy. This addresses the issue of who is actually providing justice and security in post-conflict and fragile states. The paper continues by describing the accountability mechanisms that could be pursued by SSR programmes in support of this approach. The conclusion is that the advantage of the multi-layered approach is that it is based not on the state's capacity, but on the quality and efficacy of the services received by the end user, regardless of who delivers that service.