Paradise postponed? The Department of National Heritage and political hegemony

Established following the Conservative Party's election victory in April 1992, the Department of National Heritage has been heralded as an important stage in the growing recognition of the significance of the leisure industry to Britain. By combining, for the first time, responsibility for sport, tourism, the arts, libraries, heritage, broadcasting and film, and by providing them with Cabinet representation, a unique opportunity has, seemingly, been provided to develop and promote the interests of leisure in Britain. This paper takes the view that although this initiative has been broadly welcomed, there are important inconsistencies which require attention. On the one hand the selection of the portfolio appears somewhat eclectic. On the other hand, it is questionable why such a department should have been developed at all. An inspection of the implicit ideology suggests that rather than the traditional use of the state to promote leisure interests, the introduction of the department signifies a shift to the use of leisure to promote the Government's interests. Thus the new Department of National Heritage is to be used as a central feature in the legitimation of the government's political programme. Rather than emphasising its traditional quasi-welfare role, the new place for leisure and heritage is firmly in the market economy. Whilst a leisured society may be the epitome of post-industrialism, therefore, the citizen rights claim for access to leisure activities can only be secured by engaging with the market. This legitimised construction of post- modern citizenship is at the centre of a new political order where choice has been replaced by means and where the classless paradigm championed by the Prime Minister will be a classlessness of constructed omission.

Climatic risks and impacts in South Asia: extremes of water scarcity and excess

This paper reviews the current knowledge of climatic risks and impacts in South Asia associated with anthropogenic warming levels of 1.5°C to 4°C above pre-industrial values in the 21st century. It is based on the World Bank Report “Turn Down the Heat, Climate Extremes, Regional Impacts and the Case for Resilience” (2013). Many of the climate change impacts in the region, which appear quite severe even with relatively modest warming of 1.5–2°C, pose significant hazards to development. For example, increased monsoon variability and loss or glacial meltwater will likely confront populations with ongoing and multiple challenges. The result is a significant risk to stable and reliable water resources for the region, with increases in peak flows potentially causing floods and dry season flow reductions threatening agriculture. Irrespective of the anticipated economic development and growth, climate projections indicate that large parts of South Asia’s growing population and especially the poor are likely to remain highly vulnerable to climate change.

Can valuation factors be prescribed? The case of collective enfranchisement and leasehold extension of flats in England and Wales

Recent concerns over the valuation process in collective leasehold enfranchisement and lease extension cases have culminated in new legislation. To underpin this, the Government (Department of Environment Transport and the Regions (DETR)) commissioned new research, which examined whether the valuation of the freehold in such cases could be simplified through the prescription of either yield or marriage value/relativity. This paper, which is based on that research, examines whether it is possible or desirable to prescribe such factors in the valuation process. Market, settlement and Local Valuation Tribunal (LVT) decisions are analysed, and the basis of 'relativity charts' used in practice is critically examined. Ultimately the imperfect nature of the market in freehold investment sales and leasehold vacant possession sales means that recommendations must rest on an analysis of LVT data. New relativity curves are developed from this data and used in conjunction with an alternative approach to valuation yields (based on other investment assets). However, the paper concludes that although the prescription of yields and relativity is possible, it is not fully defensible because of problems in determining risk premia; that the evidential basis for relativity consists of LVT decisions; and that a formula approach would tend to 'lead' the market as a whole.