Suchergebnisse

The publication of the National Commission for Higher Education (NCHE) in 1996 was hailed as the first systematic attempt to map out a policy terrain for higher education in South Africa since the elections of April 1994. Its recommendations, particularly on the governance of higher education, elicited much discussion and debate. The debate continued (and continues) with the publication of the Green and White Papers, the Bill on Higher Education, and the Higher Education Act (HEA) in late 1997. This paper explores and seeks to clarify the emerging model of educational governance that has been accepted by the Ministry of Education in South Africa as the basis for managing and transforming the inherited system of higher education. Specifically, the paper considers the philosophy of ?co-operative governance? and the governance recommendations of the NCHE Report and the HEA. These documents are examined in relation to state control and state supervision models of higher education governance. The paper concludes by considering the politics of policy development in the transformation of the South African higher education governance system.

Federal courts supervise state criminal justice administration through decisions under two federal statutes, the Habeas Corpus Act and section 1983, a Civil Rights Act provision. These statutes provide overlapping review of constitutional errors. Habeas law has become too technical, limited by procedural barriers that often result in prisoners' losing their constitutional claims; moreover, the overlap between the two statutes adds further confusion. The theoretical basis for this complicated system of duplicative litigation no longer exists. Because the most important law of criminal procedure is now completely federal, state courts have no institutional reason to resist its application in favor of their own. Habeas law should be reformed and simplified to protect the goals of criminal procedure: innocence and deterrence of unreasonable state-court constitutional interpretations. Section 1983 litigation revisiting issues that the plaintiff had a meaningful opportunity to raise in state court or on habeas should be curtailed, unless the plaintiff demonstrates that one of those courts has ruled in his favor.

Helmut Willke ; Inhaltsverzeichnis ; Volltext // Exemplar mit der Signatur: München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- 97.63994

Driven in part by the question of bank supervision in euro-area countries, a growing body of literature addresses whether central banking and bank supervision should be combined. This paper address this debate in light of recent legislation in the United Kingdom and the United States. Recent legislation in the United Kingdom stripped the Bank of England of its responsibility for bank supervision and established the Financial Services Authority as an integrated supervisor of financial services. In the United States, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 expanded the regulatory authority of the Federal Reserve. In light of international trends, I consider how the separation of monetary policy and bank supervision in the United Kingdom versus the combination of those functions in the United States stacks up against the empirical and theoretical literature. I conclude that the approaches in both countries rely on untested elements. I make predictions for the future role of the central banks in the United States and United Kingdom and some recommendations for reform.