Liberalization without decentralization: Haiti under Namphy and Delatour, 1986–1987

Following Haitian President Jean-Claude Duvalier's flight into exile in February 1986, the President of Haiti's provisional Conseil National de Gouvernement (CNG), Lieutenant General Henri Namphy, and his Minister of Finance, Leslie Delatour, enacted liberal reforms. This study examined their initial doctrine, decrees, and institutions for democratization and free markets, within a historical context of over-centralization and exclusion. Its purpose was to explore the contradiction and consequences of pursuing liberalization by decree, without significant decentralization. The author extracted CNG doctrine from speeches, legislation, and economic records. He then juxtaposed it with the adverse results of market reforms and popular reactions gathered from nine Haitian newspapers and two archival collections. He found that CNG doctrine and institutions were inadequate for resolving exclusion and popular discontent. Rather the deficiency of market reforms and the insufficiency of representative institutions exacerbated exclusion, which the author identified as the source of confrontation and violence in 1987.

Transnational Capital and the Politics of Global Supply Chains

In the latest phase of globalization, transnational corporations based in the U.S. have worked closely with U.S. foreign policymakers to secure favorable foreign direct investment provisions within U.S. domestic legislation and within U.S. trade agreements. These interactions between transnational firms and the U.S. state have provided many of the preconditions for an expansion of foreign direct investment connected to capital liberalization and the growth of global supply chains from the 1980s to the present. This relationship is best conceptualized as representing a “transnational interest bloc,” whose policy objectives are incorporated within investment provisions in US-backed trade and investment agreements.

Teachers' perceptions of the usefulness of Individual Education Plans (IEP)

Since 1997 federal special education policy mandated that all classroom teachers take part in planning and implementation of Individualized Education Plans (IEP) for students with disabilities. This legislation has given teachers new responsibilities because it requires greater participation in the IEP process. The purpose of this study was to examine teachers' perceptions of the usefulness of Individualized Education Plans (IEP). ^ Eighty seven certified Miami-Dade County Public School teachers, 60 general education teachers and 27 special education teachers were surveyed using an updated version of Rheams' (1989) The Teacher Perceptions of the Usefulness of IEPs. Subjects completed a survey form containing a demographic cover page, 18 Likert-scale statements and 3 open ended questions. This study looked at differences in perceptions by teacher group affiliation (general and special), grade level taught (elementary and secondary), and years of experience (<=5 and >5 years). The dependent variables were teacher preparedness; feasibility of IEP implementation; relevancy of IP to classroom instruction; and legal, professional and personal accountability with regard to the IEP. ^ Results of the Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) revealed that (a) special education teachers held a more positive perception of overall IEP usefulness than general education teachers, (b) special educators held more positive perceptions concerning issues of feasibility and preparedness, (c) elementary level teachers viewed the IEP more positively than secondary level teachers, specifically in the areas of preparedness and feasibility. ^ Findings of this study indicate that general and secondary educators have not embraced the legislation and incorporated it into their planning and instruction. These findings provide policymakers, institutions of higher education, and school administrators with insight as to how to better translate policy into classroom instructional practice. Consideration should be given to implementing (a) honest communication and shared decision making with regard to IEP directed curriculum and instruction, (b) updated pre and in-service IEP development and implementation training, and (c) opportunities for collaboration and increased plan time, especially on the secondary level. ^