Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Half-Title -- Dedication -- Title -- Copyright -- Contents -- Foreword by Rt Hon. Gordon Brown -- A Note on Citations -- Preface: A Scotsman Looks at the World -- 1. The Life of an Absent-minded Professor -- 2. A Weak State and a Weak Church -- 3 A Non-religious Grounding of Morals: Smith and the Scottish Enlightenment -- 4. Merriment and Diversion: Smith on Public Finance and Public Choice -- 5. The Invisible Hand and the Helping Hand -- 6. The French and American Smiths -- 7. Adam Smith Today -- Appendix -- Notes on Further Reading -- References -- Index

The Scotland and Wales Acts 1978 failed on multiple criteria. Although devolution of powers to Scotland and Wales was a principal policy of the UK Labour governments in office from 1974 to 1979, it was defeated in a guillotine vote in 1977. That defeat was orchestrated by the leaders of Tyne & Wear County Council, angry that a government of their own party was apparently neglecting their region in favour of Scotland. The project was rescued in two separate bills, but a further rebel amendment inserted a minimum assent condition in the required referendums. The people of Wales rejected the devolution they were offered. The people of Scotland accepted it, but by a margin that failed to cross the threshold. The resulting vote of confidence brought down the Labour government in March 1979. The role of Tyne & Wear County Council in killing the bills has never been fully acknowledged. The lessons of the story for current devolution policy are explored. Its lesson for relations between Scotland and the north of England are as fresh now as then. The border between Scotland and England is permeable while the United Kingdom remains a single country. Therefore any policy for tax transfers and public expenditure differentials must be fair to the English as well as to the people of the other three territories. The main relevant findings from fiscal federalism are presented.

The Scotland and Wales Acts 1978 failed on multiple criteria. Although devolution of powers to Scotland and Wales was a principal policy of the Labour governments in office from 1974 to 1979, it was defeated in a guillotine vote in 1977. That defeat was orchestrated by the leaders of Tyne & Wear County Council, angry that a government of their own party was apparently neglecting their region in favour of Scotland. The project was rescued in two separate bills, but a further rebel amendment inserted a minimum assent condition in the required referendums. The people of Wales rejected the devolution they were offered. The people of Scotland accepted it, but by a margin that failed to cross the threshold. The resulting vote of confidence brought down the Labour government in March 1979. The role of Tyne & Wear County Council in killing the first bill has never been fully acknowledged. The lessons of the story for current devolution policy are explored. If the UK remains a single country, any policy for tax transfers must be fair to the English as well as to the people of the other three territories.

It is inconsistent to believe that economic actors are basically selfinterested but that political actors are not. Rather, one should treat people as equally (not necessarily wholly) selfinterested in each sphere. The paradoxes of social choice are then shown to have important implications for political science. (Abstract amended)

The 1987 election result ensures that electoral reform remains on the intellectual, if not necessarily the political, agenda in the United Kingdom. Once again, the relationship between votes cast and seats won for each party was eccentric. Attempts to introduce some elements of social choice theory to the electoral reform debate. (AM)

THIS PAPER WAS DESIGNED TO TEST THE HYPOTHESIS THAT, THROUGH A KNOWLEDGE OF SOCIAL CHOICE, JEFFERSON AND/OR MADISON WAS IN A POSITION TO INDUCE EQUILIBRIA IN THE INSTITUTIONS THEY DESIGNED (THE PARLIAMENTARY RULES OF CONGRESS, AND THE STRUCTURE OF CHECKS AND BALANCES RESPECTIVELY). THE AUTHORS EXAMINED ALL THE KNOWN PRIMARY DOCUMENTS WHICH APPEAR TO BEAR ON THE QUESTION, AND NONE OF THEM SHOWS ANY HINT THAT EITHER JEFFERSON OR MADISON UNDERSTOOD THE SOICAL CHOICE COMPONENTS OF CONDORCET'S WORK. THEY FIND THAT THE HYPOTHESIS FAILS. THE CONSTITUTION, THE "FEDERALIST PAPERS" AND JEFFERSON'S "MANUAL" ARE ALL MASTERPIECES BUT THEY ARE NOT MASTERPIECES OF HERESTHETICS.