Suchergebnisse

In a self-consciously forward looking survey recently published inPS, Glendon Schubert continues to employ the phrase "public law" as roughly synonymous with the legal concerns of political science. The recent publication of Murphy and Tanenhaus'The Study of Public Lawalso reaffirms that, in spite of the movement toward "judicial behavior," which it might have been anticipated would change the boundaries of the field, the "public" in public law is still very much with those political scientists particularly concerned with things legal. There does not seem to me to be any valid reason why political scientists should maintain the public law—private law distinction and then proceed to exclude themselves from the "private" law sphere.

In a self-consciously forward looking survey recently published in PS, Glendon Schubert continues to employ the phrase "public law" as roughly synonymous with the legal concerns of political science. The recent publication of Murphy and Tanenhaus' The Study of Public Law also reaffirms that, in spite of the movement toward "judicial behavior," which it might have been anticipated would change the boundaries of the field, the "public" in public law is still very much with those political scientists particularly concerned with things legal. There does not seem to me to be any valid reason why political scientists should maintain the public law—private law distinction and then proceed to exclude themselves from the "private" law sphere.

As health care applications derived from human genetics research are likely to move increasingly from 'clinic to community', there is growing interest not just in how patients understand and take up health-related genetic information but also in the views of the wider population, as well as a range of professional groups. In this paper, issues relating public knowledge and public trust are raised and discussed in an attempt to move forward debates about public involvement in genomic research and the role of sociologists within interdisciplinary teams. As the field of public understanding of science has developed, we have seen a shift from a focus on the lack of scientific literacy as problem to a recognition of the range of different knowledges that people have and use as they confront science and technology in their everyday lives. As a mood for dialogue pervades many institutions in their relations with 'publics', attention must now be paid to the way in which knowledge and expertise is expressed, heard and acted upon in dialogic encounters. There is increasing concern about public trust in science and calls to increase public confidence, particularly through more open engagement with a range of publics. However, lack of trust or loss of confidence may be constructed as problems rather than reflecting empirical reality, where more complex relationships and attitudes prevail. Lack of trust is often privatized, deeply rooted in lived experience and routinely managed. Trust relations are generally characterized by ambivalence, uncertainty and risk, and are always provisional. Drawing on selected literature and empirical research to review and illustrate this field, this paper argues that scepticism or ambivalence on the part of publics are not necessarily problems to be overcome in the interest of scientific progress, but rather should be mobilized to enhance open and public debates about the nature and direction of genomics research, medicine, and the related social and ethical issues. Just as there can be no resolute expression of public knowledge or public opinion, it is unlikely that there is a resolute expression of public trust in genomics. However, ambivalence and scepticism can be harnessed as powerful resource for change, whether through the mobilization of public knowledges or the development of greater reflexivity within scientific institutions. This demands a sharing of power and greater public involvement in the early stages of policy formation and scientific and medical agenda setting.

AbstractThe term 'public affairs' has now become a much‐discussed topic in continental Europe's political and economic circles, including Germany and Austria. The problem is that few people really understand just what the term means. Many people have the impression that 'public affairs' is another way of describing lobbying. Others perceive it as classic public relations. In Europe many decision makers of the business world lack the specific knowledge of policy making; however, until now just a few such executives have taken advantage of the real opportunities opened up by using the services of professional public affairs consulting. Communications companies in Europe are now offering public affairs consulting as part of their services, with increasing success. The first task to make public affairs better known in Europe therefore must be public relations for public affairs. Copyright © 2001 Henry Stewart Publications

Public choice scholars have attended only modestly to issues in public health. We expect that to change rapidly given the Covid-19 pandemic. The time therefore is ripe for taking stock of public-choice relevant scholarship that addresses issues in public health. That is what we do. Our stock-taking highlights three themes: (1) Public health regulations often are driven by private interests, not public ones. (2) The allocation of public health resources often reflects private interests, not public ones. (3) Public health policies may have perverse effects, undermining instead of promoting health-consumer welfare.

Although public–private partnerships (PPPs) are frequently analyzed and lauded in terms of efficiency, their impact on public values is often neglected. As a result, there is little empirical evidence supporting or rejecting the claim that PPPs have a negative effect on public values. This case study provides valuable insight into the relationship between public values in PPPs and the circumstances affecting the degree to which public values are upheld. Research findings demonstrate that whether public values are at stake in PPPs cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. Rather, public values can be threatened, safeguarded, or even strengthened depending on the project phase and the specific facet of the public value under scrutiny. Insight into which circumstances influence the safeguarding of public values in DBFMO (design–build–finance–maintain–operate) projects unravels the strengths and weaknesses of PPPs in terms of public values, providing public managers with a starting point for optimization.

Abstract: The debate over managerialism has been the most controversial issue in Australian public administration journals in recent years. Although most articles have been critical, there have been responses in favour of the changes by senior public servants. One unfortunate consequence of this debate has been the appearance of a gap between academic public administration and public service practice.This paper argues that, from several angles, the work now carried out by public services is management rather than administration. It argues that managerialism is a long‐overdue reform to a model which has outlived its usefulness. The traditional model of public administration was an irrelevance for many years; it was never efficient or effective and deserved to be replaced. However, public management does not necessarily mean the widespread and uncritical adoption of practices from the private sector. What it should mean is that a distinctive public management needs to be developed. This should take account of the differences between the sectors, but still recognise that the work being done by public servants is now managerial rather than administrative.