Suchergebnisse

AbstractSince the 1980s, decentralisation has become a key development theme in Francophone West Africa for various reasons. Perhaps most significant is the great dissatisfaction with centralised approaches of the past. Despite the heavy interest in decentralisation, however, progress of implementation has been rather slow and problematic. Except in Senegal, decentralisation is a relatively new phenomenon in Francophone West Africa and even there the decentralisation process is far from complete. Other more recently decentralising countries have taken very different paths. Burkina Faso, for example, is gradually phasing in decentralisation in the rural areas, while Mali created local governments across the entire country simultaneously. Such differences in approach can be a justifiable response to variations in the political and social climate across countries. One factor that has been uniformly given inadequate attention in decentralisation efforts is the role of traditional local institutions and how they respond to the introduction of new local institutions. This and other aspects of decentralisation in Francophone West Africa require further careful study if policymakers are to better understand how to design and implement more effective and sustainable decentralised systems. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The failure to understand the mathematical structure of causal models, the sense in which such models represent causal assumptions, & the indirect nature of the test of such models seem to be responsible for much of the misunderstanding of what causal models are & for certain misconceptions about how causal models cannot be sci'ly useful. An attempt is made to clarify some of these matters in the reply to J. Gibbs "Causation and Theory Construction," Social Science Quarterly, 1972, 52, 4, Mar, 815 -- 826, pointing out that the "purist" empiricism expressed in this paper stands in contrast to the causal reasoning usefully applied to his own work. REJOINDER, by J. Gibbs criticizes H. Costner & H. Blalock for not specifically defining the concept of causation. With causal assumptions remaining obscure, when they test a causal model it will always be difficult to decipher those assumptions. When emphasizing that "goodness of fit" is crucial, the authors fail to address 3 important & related questions: (1) what is the criterion for a "good" fit?, (2) how can such criterion avoid arbitrary distinctions?, & (3) in what sense is "goodness of fit" divorced from the magnitude of r's. In reference to the status integration theory, they say nothing of its merits (as to testability range, or predictive accuracy), & criticize Gibbs for refraining from stating a theory in causal language; ironically enough, Costner & Blalock merely allude to their thoughts about causation. Modified AA.