scholarly journals The Limits of Policy Change: Incrementalism, Worldview, and the Rule of Law, by Michael T. Hayes, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2001, 204 pp., $21.95 paper.Improving Governance: A New Logic for Empirical Research, by Laurence E. Lynn Jr., Carolyn J. Heinrich, and Carolyn J. Hill, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2001, 224 pp., $24.95 paper.

2003 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 486-488
Author(s):  
Ann Chih Lin
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Research ◽  
Policy Change ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Washington Dc ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Georgetown University

scholarly journals Engaging Foreign Law: Not So Liberally

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (75) ◽  
pp. 11-19
Author(s):  
Pierre Legrand
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Local Knowledge ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Legal Thought ◽  
Foreign Law ◽  
Georgetown University ◽  
The Way

Taking its cue from a remarkable institutional initiative owing to the Georgetown University Law Center, this essay contests some of the key assumptions that have informed liberalism’s cosmopolitan turn. In particular, the argument addresses the way in which liberal legal thought has handled a doctrine widely known as “the rule of law”. The text challenges the universalizing drive having informed the dissemination of “the rule of law” and the attendant marginalization of culture in the form of the decredibilization of local knowledge. The paper suggests that “comparative law” can offer a valuable opportunity for the liberal self to revisit its uniformizing ideological commitments  — although not “comparative law” of the mainstream brand.

Governance and Performance: New Perspectives. Edited by Carolyn J. Heinrich and Laurence E. Lynn, Jr. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2000. 349p. $65.00 cloth, $23.95 paper. Improving Governance: A New Logic for Empirical Research. Laurence E. Lynn, Jr., Carolyn J. Heinrich, and Carolyn J. Hill. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2001. 212p. $60.00.

2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (4) ◽  
pp. 824-825
Author(s):  
Dianne N. Long
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Future Study ◽  
Public Management ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Washington Dc ◽  
University Of Arizona ◽  
Georgetown University ◽  
And Performance ◽  
The University

Carolyn Heinrich, Laurence Lynn, and Carolyn Hill are public management and policy scholars who puzzle over the workings of government. Their efforts aim not only to add to our understanding of these workings but also to provide a template for future study. The first volume by Heinrich and Lynn is designed around a set of working papers originally introduced at a conference of government and policy scholars in May 1999 at the University of Arizona, and are oft referred to as “the Arizona papers.” The publication is the result of a research project funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts to study best practices in government management. The second volume authored by Lynn, Heinrich, and Hill argues for a theoretical framework to guide future research.

The Limits of Policy Change: Incrementalism, Worldview, and the Rule of Law By Michael T. Hayes. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2001. 204p. $60.00 cloth, $21.95 paper.

2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (3) ◽  
pp. 639-640
Author(s):  
Robert F. Durant
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Policy Process ◽  
Political System ◽  
Policy Outcomes ◽  
Washington Dc ◽  
Abuse Of Power ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
System P ◽  
Partisan Mutual Adjustment

“There remains,” writes Michael T. Hayes in his provocative new book, “a pressing need to educate the public—specialists and nonspecialists alike—on what politics can accomplish, and at what speed” (p. 189). To this end, Hayes challenges what Thomas Sowell (A Conflict of Visions, 1987) calls the tenets of “articulated rationality” (i.e., rational-comprehensive ideals) in the policy process. He vigorously asserts that the benefits of incrementalism (viz., its focus on “partisan mutual adjustment,” its understanding of “the importance of checks on the arbitrary abuse of power,” and “its ability to draw on the dispersion of knowledge throughout the political system” [p. 8]) exceed its costs (e.g., delay and incoherent policy outcomes). Moreover, on balance, “partisan mutual adjustment produces better [emphasis added] policy outcomes than any attempt at rational-comprehensive analysis” (p. 8).

Ukrainian kleptocrats and America’s real-life House of Cards: Corruption, lobbyism and the rule of law

2017 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taras Kuzio
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Washington Dc ◽  
Political Consultants ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
House Of Cards ◽  
Political Forces ◽  
Long Time ◽  
European Values

Washington DC is not only a center for democracy promotion programs by government-funded and private foundations and think tanks. Washington DC has also attracted hundreds of millions of dollars for lobbyists, political consultants and think tanks from authoritarian political forces and kleptocrats who have little in common with American and European values. Both Republicans and Democrats have been recipients of these illicit funds from state officials and oligarchs who are seeking to ingratiate themselves with American public opinion. Political consultants, lobbyists, lawyers and think tanks which receive funds from such sources are part of a bigger problem of reverse corruption and cynicism and the export of authoritarian practices from Ukraine and post-Soviet states to the West. This was clearly seen in the hiring of Paul Manafort, Viktor Yanukovych’s long-time political consultant by US presidential candidate Donald Trump. Trump’s promise to ‘drain the (Washington) swamp’ rings hollow after it was revealed he accepted funds from a Ukrainian oligarch who had earlier donated funds to the Clinton’s (Reader 2016).

scholarly journals The adversity on establishing places of worship: has religious freedom failed in Indonesia?

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-113
Author(s):  
Ridwan Arifin ◽  
Hanif Helmi ◽  
Ngaboawaji Daniel Nte ◽  
Waspiah Waspiah ◽  
Dian Latifiani
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Cultural Factors ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
Legal Regulations ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Human Rights Standards

Religious freedom has various interpretations in practice, although the rule of law regulates this right. In many cases, freedom of religion is closely related to human rights and security studies, however, not infrequently, the cases intersect with political policies. This paper aims to analyze various cases regarding religious freedom in Indonesia concerning human rights. This paper examines various phenomena related to difficulties and establishing places of worship, especially for certain groups in Indonesia in various policies and legal regulations in Indonesia. The method used for this research is non-empirical research. All data dan information analyzed come up from various previous research. This paper found and underlined that debates on the relativity of human rights often lead to different perceptions in human rights standards. Various laws relating to communities of places of worship, in many cases and considered by many experts to violate the basic principles of human rights. This paper also emphasized that the fulfillment of human rights in Indonesia concerning religious freedom cannot be separated from historical, sociological, and cultural factors of the Indonesian people themselves.

On the limited interchangeability of rule of law measures

2011 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 371-394 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jørgen Møller ◽  
Svend-Erik Skaaning
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Research ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Content Validity ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Explanatory Factors ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Data Requirements

During the latest decade, empirical research on the causes and consequences of the rule of law has expanded and, in the process, become extremely influential. However, we show that a number of widely used indices of the rule of law are not interchangeable. This lack of interchangeability is reflected in the fact that they are based on different defining attributes, to some extent cover distinct empirical scopes, do not correlate highly with each other, and support different explanatory factors. Until a consensus has been established with respect to the conceptualization of the rule of law, scholars are thus not free to opt for the measure that fits their data requirements best regarding spatial and/or temporal scope. Instead, they must carefully assess the content validity vis-à-vis their stipulated definition of the rule of law. Given the amount of money and time poured into the rule of law agenda, the problems identified reflect the lack of maturity of ‘good governance’ research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document