Suchergebnisse

No government serious about environmental protection will imitate the Mexican model. The undrinkable waters & defiled deserts of Mexico's northern border towns & the poisoned air of its capital city are infamous. But there are noticeable changes in Mexican politicians' & lawmakers' attitudes toward the country's environmental ills, in no small part because of changing public attitudes toward these problems. As Mexico's political system becomes more open & democratic, policy elites are increasingly attentive to environmental problems, as ordinary citizens, & especially urbanites, vent their frustration at the ballot box. Perhaps ironically, Mexico's hydrocarbon industries are potential leaders in the nascent environmental reform process. Inducements for better environmental behavior by the oil & natural gas industries are new, municipal & federal environmental regulations, stepped-up enforcement, & local & cross-border markets for Mexico's gas. 57 References. Adapted from the source document.

On the 75th anniversary of Herbert A Simon's "Proverbs of Administration," it is fitting to consider its place in the public administration canon, with an eye to contemporary realities. In Proverbs, Simon interrogated prevailing mid-century "principles of public administration." But even as he reduced in rank each "principle," he preserved a central tenet of earlier pioneers of a "science of administration"—namely that public administration theory should focus, first and foremost, on administrative efficiency. Seven and a half decades after its publication, a clear-eyed examination of Simon's essay is in order, with attention to both its historical and contemporary contexts. This essay urges that the administrative efficiency tenet was already on unstable ground at the time of Proverbs' publication, rendering Simon's reformist agenda less than paradigm-changing. In the contemporary context, the democratic shortcomings of Simon's agenda are even more apparent. Proverbs is out of synch with the goals for public administration promulgated by respected associations in the field. Simon's approach also lacks inspiration for students of public service eager to shore up the American democratic project amidst unprecedented challenges.

Twitter, Facebook, and other social media are increasingly touted as platforms not merely for networks of friends and for private diversion, but as vehicles that allow ordinary people to enter and influence the many arenas of public life. On the surface, the disparate and shapeless population of "i‐reporters," policy "tweeters," and anonymous news web site "commentators" would appear to challenge the comparatively well‐defined cast of professional diplomats, journalists, and propagandists that Harold D. Lasswell identified as policy‐oriented communicators. However, to illuminate the roles and impacts of social media in politics and policymaking, insights from Lasswell's "science of communication" must be embedded in Lasswell's broader lessons on value assets and outcomes. A closer look at the so‐called democratizing functions of social media in politics reveals the influence of powerful intermediaries who filter and shape electronic communications. Lasswell's insights on the likelihood of increased collaboration among political elites and skilled, "modernizing intellectuals" anticipates contemporary instances of state actors who recruit skilled creators and users of social media—collaborations that may or may not advance experiments in democracy. Lasswell's decision process concept is deployed to discover social media's strengths and weaknesses for the practicing policy scientist.