The Role of Equalization in Federal Grants: A Commission Report. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations

In addition to our discussions today of the current situation in Angola, I would like to direct my remarks to the question of what role, if any, the United States should play with regard to Angola, and concretely, how the Congress can assist in the formulation and execution of a responsible American policy toward Angola. We have all learned a number of important lessons from recent revelations about the conduct of American policy in Southeast Asia, about Government coverups such as Watergate, corporate bribery of foreign officials and political parties, and about the illegal and unacceptable activities of the CIA as described in the Rockefeller Commission report and elsewhere. Certainly we can apply some of these lessons to our present consideration of U.S. policy toward Angola; hopefully we will learn the vital facts and ask the necessary questions now, rather than, as has too often been the case, after the fact.

Download Full-text

The National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA): “Fragile – Handle With Care”

The New Zealand Annual Review of Education ◽

10.26686/nzaroe.v0i10.1388 ◽

2000 ◽

Author(s):

Howard Lee ◽

Gregory Lee

Keyword(s):

Educational Achievement ◽

Tertiary Education ◽

Coalition Government ◽

Third Way ◽

Knowledge Based ◽

Strategic Direction ◽

Advisory Commission ◽

Policy Direction ◽

Economic Globalisation

In April 2000, soon after taking office, the Labour-Alliance coalition government announced the establishment of the Tertiary Education Advisory Commission (TEAC) with a brief to develop a strategic direction for tertiary education. After a decade of neoliberal policies of decentralisation and marketisation, this heralded a new policy direction that has been described as New Zealand’s version of the Third Way. The new direction was to take account of economic globalisation, technological change and the need for New Zealand to become a knowledge-based society. To this end, the TEAC produced four reports before completing its work at the end of 2001. This article reviews and critiques those reports and concludes that the TEAC’s proposals could produce a highly centralised and regulated system with the potential to destroy the independent role of the universities within a democratic society.

Download Full-text

The Limits of Regionalization: The Intergovernmental Struggle over EU Cohesion Policy in the Czech Republic

East European Politics and Societies and Cultures ◽

10.1177/0888325417720717 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 31 (4) ◽

pp. 863-884 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Michael Baun ◽

Dan Marek

Keyword(s):

Czech Republic ◽

Policy Implementation ◽

Domestic Politics ◽

Intergovernmental Relations ◽

Cohesion Policy ◽

Central State ◽

The Czech Republic ◽

Structural Funds ◽

Funds Management

What explains national variation in the implementation of EU Cohesion Policy, in particular when it comes to the role of regions in Structural Funds management? This is an important question because, as some scholars have claimed, Cohesion Policy has the potential to empower regions and promote regionalization in Europe. Particularly in the new CEE member states, where relations between central and subnational authorities often remain unsettled or in a state of flux, the ability of regional authorities to exercise a substantial role in Cohesion Policy implementation could significantly impact intergovernmental relations and the balance of power between the central state and regions. This article examines this question in the case of one CEE member state, the Czech Republic, where the role of regions in Structural Funds management has been a particularly contentious issue over the course of three programming periods beginning in 2004. The article argues that the standard explanation in the literature for variation in Cohesion Policy implementation—national constitutional arrangements and governmental traditions—cannot explain the change of implementation systems in the Czech Republic because these remained constant over the three programming periods under investigation. Instead, the Czech case suggests the primary importance of regional administrative capacity and performance as a factor affecting Cohesion Policy implementation, while domestic politics and EU-level influences play important though secondary roles.

Download Full-text

Multilateral Collaboration in Canadian Intergovernmental Relations: The Role of Procedural and Reciprocal Norms

Publius The Journal of Federalism ◽

10.1093/publius/pjx066 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 48 (4) ◽

pp. 636-663 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Robert Schertzer ◽

Andrew McDougall ◽

Grace Skogstad

Keyword(s):

Intergovernmental Relations

Download Full-text

The Top 10 Concerns about Recovery Encountered in System Transformation

A Practical Guide to Recovery-Oriented Practice ◽

10.1093/oso/9780195304770.003.0008 ◽

2008 ◽

Author(s):

Larry Davidson ◽

Michael Rowe ◽

Janis Tondora ◽

Maria J. O'Connell ◽

Martha Staeheli Lawless

Keyword(s):

At Risk ◽

Mental Illness ◽

Systems Of Care ◽

System Transformation ◽

Policy Makers ◽

Recovery Orientation ◽

Federal Mandate ◽

Commission Report ◽

The Many

The second chapter begins with descriptions of some of the many ways in which people with serious mental illness are key agents in their own recovery. In these descriptions, we fi nd that the cornerstones of recovery are both the hope that a better life is possible and the desire the person has to pursue such a better life once this hope has taken root. For an individual, both hope and action appear to be required to make recovery a reality. As we begin to understand more fully the role of systems of care and of the practitioners within those systems in facilitating recovery, we suggest that achieving, in the words of the New Freedom Commission report, “profound change—not at the margins of a system, but at its very core” also will require both hopeful attitudes and concerted efforts. While the remaining chapters in this volume will deal more explicitly with the kinds of concerted efforts required to achieve transformation, this chapter focuses primarily on attitudes toward recovery and the kinds of concerns systems and practitioners have raised (to date) as they have gone about the process of understanding and implementing recovery principles in practice. It has been our experience, however, that the federal mandate to transform systems of care to promote recovery has left many policy makers, program managers, practitioners, and even the recovery community itself under increasing pressure to move to a recovery orientation without fi rst examining the concerns of stakeholders within those systems about this new notion of recovery and its implications. As a result, we are all at risk of overlaying recovery rhetoric on top of existing systems of care, failing to effect any real or substantial—not to mention revolutionary—changes due to our urgency to just “get it done.” In this chapter, we pause to consider some of the more common concerns we have encountered in attempting to introduce and implement care based on the vision of recovery that we have articulated thus far. Addressing these concerns, we believe, is a necessary fi rst step in changing the attitudes that underlie current practices in the process of replacing these attitudes with the more hopeful, empowering, and respectful attitudes demanded, and deserved, by people in recovery.

Download Full-text