Suchergebnisse

Neoclassical economists insist that government outlays for administration, defense, & internal security generate pure public goods that benefit all members of the community since they are completely nonrival in consumption; eg, the benefits to one citizen from a battleship in no way prevent others from having similar benefits. Hence, in studies of fiscal incidence, economists allocate all such presumed benefits at their total costs to households by some a priori formula. It is argued that the benefits from so-called pure public goods -- insofar as they exist -- are civilization itself. They are the overhead costs of the modern state, whose benefits are community life, incomes, etc. They do not enter into individual preference functions in the usual manner; allocating them as if they did involves double counting. A better procedure is to ask who pays for these public overhead expenditures, or who pays more in taxes than received in benefits such as transfer payments, food subsidies, schooling, etc. The evidence from studies of fiscal incidence in several countries indicates that the rich -- who also most enjoy the "blessings of civilization" -- generally pay for them. 4 Tables. AA.

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.