Suchergebnisse

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. ; Abstract: TheWorld Health Organization reports noncommunicable disease as a global pandemic. While national and international health research/policy bodies, such as the World Health Organization and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, emphasize the importance of preventative health, there is a continuing distortion in the allocation of resources to curative health as a result of government failure. Government failure is, in part, the result of a political response to individual preference for certainty in receiving treatment for specific health conditions, rather than the uncertainty of population-based preventative intervention. This has led to a failure to engage with those primary causative factors affecting chronic disease, namely the psychosocial stressors, in which the socioeconomic determinants are an important component. Such causal factors are open to manipulation through government policies and joint government-government, government-private cooperation through application of nonmedical primary-preventative health policies. The health benefits of Aboriginal people in traditional land management, or caring-for-country, in remote to very remote Australia, is used to exemplify the social benefits of nonmedical primary-preventative health intervention. Such practices form part of the "healthy country, health people" concept that is traditionally relied upon by Indigenous peoples. Possible health and wider private good and public good social benefits are shown to occur across multiple disciplines and jurisdictions with the possibility of substantial economies. General principles in the application of nonmedical primary-preventative health activities are developed through consideration of the experience of Afboriginal people participation in traditional caring-for-country.

AbstractAlmost all advocates of international climate change policy hope and expect that the Climate Change Conference to be held in Paris in November–December 2015 will reach an agreement to reduce global anthropomorphic greenhouse gas emissions. Yet more than 25 years of international climate change policy has failed to reach such an agreement; emissions, far from having been reduced, have greatly increased. In the author's view, no such agreement will be reached in Paris. Anticipating this, Lord Stern, a highly influential figure in international climate change policy, has restated the case for continuing with this policy while relinquishing the objective of reaching such an agreement, though it had previously been claimed that this was essential to 'save the world'. Advocating the continuation of climate change policy while disavowing a formerly acknowledged condition of its success seems to represent a further stage in the abandonment of rationality in climate change policy formulation.

UK climate change policy is based on the advice of the Committee on Climate Change established under the Climate Change Act 2008. This Committee is an independent, expert agency established as part of the reconceiving of the regulatory state as a response to the neo-liberal critique of older forms of regulation. But the quality of the advice given in the Committee's recent Fourth Carbon Budget Review is so tendentious as to barely be able to be described as advice at all. This grave shortcoming poses the most serious questions for contemporary constitutional and regulatory processes.

Adapting the concept of 'interpersonal justice' used by Professor Robertson to provide a 'meta-doctrinal' defence of the law of negligence, this article asks whether the personal injury system can be thought to have a democratic justification in common beliefs in such justice. It is widely acknowledged that the gross functional inadequacy of the personal injury system makes it implausible to claim that that system can be justified on grounds of compensation or deterrence. But that inadequacy makes it equally implausible to claim that common citizens would chose that system, which exists only because it is effectively compulsory. Constructing a market in first person insurance would put the existence of the personal injury system to the test of actual choice.

An attempt to restate Marx's critical method in terms of Spinozist dogmatic epistemology was central to Louis Althusser's conception of Marxist philosophy. Although it is no longer necessary to argue that this 'restatement' had almost no ground in Marx's own thinking, it was a highly significant expression of the essence of dialectical materialism. Through discussion of Hegel's critique of Spinoza, it will be argued that a democratically acceptable method of criticism of the mistaken beliefs of others, such as Marx developed in Capital, must take a resolutely anti-dogmatic approach which has the principle of winning subjective conviction at its core.

Public managers in local integrated services collaboratives find that commitment to local partnership goals sometimes requires evading policy directives that are imposed by legislation or bureaucratic superiors. Using data that reveal what is often concealed, the author finds that these workarounds can be defined and identified and that they often revolve around central features of policy rather than marginal details. Workarounds emerge in the space created by certain managerial strategies and dispositions: treating directives as starting points for negotiation, using performance to justify discretion and manage risk, establishing local collaborative goals as an alternative locus of accountability, and distinguishing front‐door services from back‐door accounting. By aggregating data from clusters of workaround stories, researchers and practitioners can (1) identify policy flaws in need of repair, (2) illuminate tensions in the integrated service ideal, and (3) inform the enduring normative debate over administrative discretion and public accountability.

Climate change has become a critical political issue in the past twenty years. However, there is a related issue that is often overlooked by governments, industry, and the public: energy supply security, defined by the IAEA (2007) as ".the ability of a nation to muster the energy resources needed to ensure its welfare" (n.p.). Conventional energy requires the burning of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide, the primary driver behind climate change (Pulles & Amstel, 2010, p. 4). Because of this, the problems of our dependence on fossil fuels and carbon fuelled global warming are interrelated. As such, solving the climate change problem may mitigate energy concerns. However, the potentially disastrous consequences of climate change will not be felt immediately while energy is critical to our daily survival; so, energy issues are arguably a more pressing concern.

AbstractThe terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, spawned 252 new nonprofit organizations. We know little about these organizations, including how they emerged, formalized, met constituents' expectations for immediate performance, and ultimately survived. This article explores these issues through a case study of one successful organization, the Windows of Hope Family Relief Fund. Using concepts from disaster, organizational ecology, and entrepreneurship research, the analysis identifies six propositions that link these literatures, notably the role of resource acquisition in formalization and the role of legitimacy in both fund development and organizational endurance. The study contributes new knowledge about the role of collaboration in acquiring capacity to enhance responsiveness. The findings suggest potential parallels to the evolution of new nonprofit organizations in other contexts.