Have We Gone From a Post‐War to a Pre‐War World?

In 1990, right after the Berlin Wall fell, NPQ published our Spring edition, titled “The New World Disorder,” about the nationalistic chaos and up‐in‐theair sensibility of that fraught new historical moment. Nearly a quarter of a century later, the regime of globalization that had supplanted the Cold War world of blocs is itself coming apart at the seams. Even Henry Kissinger these days says “the world order is crumbling.” Will this New World Disorder 2.0 revert to a system of conflicting blocs, as during the Cold War, or will we be mature enough to save the interdependence of plural identities that is the foundation of a new global civilization? In this section our contributors offer their perspectives on what the future holds.     

THE DEVELOPMENT OF SELF‐CONTROL: EXAMINING SELF‐CONTROL THEORY'S STABILITY THESIS*

Research on self‐control theory consistently supports its central prediction that low self‐control significantly affects crime. The theory includes other predictions, however, that have received far less scrutiny. Among these is the argument that self‐control is developed early in childhood and that individual differences emerging then persist over time. The purpose of this study is to provide a rigorous test of the stability thesis. First, we examine the extent of stability and change in self‐control for a national sample of U.S. children age 7 to age 15. Second, we consider whether parenting continues to affect self‐control during adolescence—a period after the point at which self‐control differences should be fixed. The analysis revealed strong absolute and relative stability of self‐control for more than 80 percent of the sample, and this stability emerged in large part as early as age 7. Contradicting the theory was a smaller portion of respondents (roughly 16 percent) who experienced substantial absolute and relative changes in self‐control even after the age of 10. Moreover, parental socialization continued to affect self‐control during adolescence, even after accounting for both prior self‐control and exposure to parental socialization.     

AN ASSESSMENT OF GOVERNMENT INNOVATION POLICIES

The authors compare the innovation policies of industrialized countries along several dimensions: the policy tools (e.g., supply, demand, environment) they use or prefer, and their national philosophies, especially whether they have explicit policies toward the development of specific industries or technologies. They also identify the principal difficulties that existing innovation policies have suffered. Among them are the lack of market know-how among policymakers, bias toward research and development-oriented stimuli rather than other aspects of innovation such as demand, and vulnerability of policies to changes in political philosophy. They conclude with a list of questions that governments initiating policies of technological choice should consider to avoid some of these pitfalls.     

Procedural Change and the Sources of Ex Ante Constraints in EU Legislation

With 27 member states using a variety of administrative practices and institutions to implement European Union (EU) policy, the EU has been widely used as a natural laboratory for analyzing administrative politics and institutions. This research has largely focused on the institutional relationships as they are at the time of the analysis. However, the EU has used several legislative procedures. Furthermore, there has been little attention given to the administrative and delegatory consequences of changes in the EU's legislative procedures. This article examines how legislative institutions' preferences for limits to the implementing discretion of the Commission and the member states have changed with the shift from the cooperation procedure to the codecision procedure. I find that the European Parliament (EP) responded to the codecision procedure by increasing the share of its amendments that expand the implementing discretion of member states. Furthermore, the Council significantly changed its attitude toward EP amendments restricting Commission discretion.     

SELF‐CONTROL THEORY AND THE CONCEPT OF OPPORTUNITY: THE CASE FOR A MORE SYSTEMATIC UNION*

The purpose of this study is to advance the idea that low self‐control—one of the strongest known predictors of crime—likely has effects that are conditional on the supply of criminal opportunities. Some scholars initially interpreted the theory to make this exact prediction, but Gottfredson and Hirschi (2003) have rejected this interpretation. They have insisted that the simplistic nature of most crimes ensures that opportunities are limitless and that variation in opportunity simply reflects variation in self‐control. We trace the history of this uncertain position of opportunity in self‐control theory and argue that it should play a significant role in the theory, even if Gottfredson and Hirschi did not originally envision this. Next, we draw on routine activities theory and applications of it to individual offending to offer a theoretical statement of how opportunity should be incorporated into self‐control theory. Last, using data from a national sample of juveniles, we test the arguments that have been made. The analysis suggests that the effects of low self‐control on delinquency partially depend on the availability of criminal opportunities, as indicated by the time juveniles spend with their friends or away from the supervision of their parents.