Suchergebnisse

"Labeling a person, institution or particular behavior as 'corrupt' signals both political and moral disapproval and, in a functioning democracy, should stimulate inquiry, discussion, and, if the charge is well-founded, reform. This book argues...that the political community and scholars alike have underestimated the extent of corruption in the United States and elsewhere and thus, awareness of wrong-doing is limited and discussion of necessary reform is stunted. In fact, there is a class of behaviors and institutions that are legal, but corrupt. They are accepted as legitimate by statute and practice, but they inflict very real social, economic, and political damage. This book explains why it is important to identify legally accepted corruption and provides a series of examples of corruption using this perspective."--

Related Content: Balfour (PAR July/August 2017)
Related Content: Jackson (PAR July/August 2017)
Related Content: Williams (PAR July/August 2017)
Related Content: Downey (PAR July/August 2017)

This article explores the relationship between civil society and public administration. It is argued that the disjunction between reform movements in the two fields can be repaired by a focus on administrative culture. The role of administrative culture is explained through a comparative case study of the political response to official corruption involving organized crime in the United States and the Netherlands. In rejecting the American solution to the problem, the Dutch reflect an administrative culture that differs sharply from the control-oriented culture in American government. The conclusion proposes the adoption of civic engagement benchmarks in American public administration.

Note: The comments of Alan Snyder, Eugene Lewis and the Editor and anonymous reviewers of Law and Policy are gratefully acknowledged.This article examines the merits of two alternative briefs in Equal Protection litigation on police misconduct. The several suits brought against the Philadelphia Police Department illustrate the shortcomings of the judicially preferred intentionality brief and indicate the need for a more completely specified institutional brief. The background of the two briefs is traced to a dialectical conflict between discretion and control in the idea of law enforcement.The use of force is not a philosophical issue for a policeman. It is not a question of should or whether, but when and how much (Rubinstein 1973:323).