Veblen's Placebo: A historical perspective on administrative evil

Thorstein Veblen was a turn of the 20th century American economist concerned with the implications of financial capitalists directing the means of production. Veblen proposed that the rationality of "material science" as practiced by the "production engineers" is fundamentally different from the rationality of market capitalism. If this claim is valid, our previous contentions regarding accounting, as a facilitating technology, for administrative evil warrant reconsideration. Veblen's position provides a historical perspective on one dimension of administrative evil that is generally unquestionably accepted, especially within accounting. That is, technology, such as accounting and the related information systems, is amoral, and it is only through ideologically instigated applications that any moral value accrues. We discuss administrative evil and the role of instrumental rationality generally, and accounting specifically, in creating it. Veblen's characterization of financial capitalism and production engineers and his arguments for the primacy of economic efficiency versus "pecuniary gain" provide a basis for evaluating the legitimating action. We consider how Veblen's work relates to notions of instrumental rationality and then undertake a critical assessment of the ideas. Some of Veblen's ideas, while utopian, might be seen as an elixir for the detrimental influences of financial capital; however, at best, they provide a placebo for the ills of administrative evil and, as such, do not provide an amoral basis for legitimating the associated accounting systems.

Annotated Bibliography: Grande Bretagne / Great Britain: Part Four: Administrative Law texts

(with C. N. Doe).

Courts and Consociations: Human Rights versus Power-sharing

Consociations are power-sharing arrangements, increasingly used to manage ethno-nationalist, ethno-linguistic, and ethno-religious conflicts. Current examples include Belgium, Bosnia, Northern Ireland, Burundi, and Iraq. Despite their growing popularity, they have begun to be challenged before human rights courts as being incompatible with human rights norms, particularly equality and non-discrimination.

Courts and Consociations examines the use of power-sharing agreements, their legitimacy, and their compatibility with human rights law. Key questions include to what extent, if any, consociations conflict with the liberal individualist preferences of international human rights institutions, and to what extent consociational power-sharing may be justified to preserve peace and the integrity of political settlements.

In three critical cases, the European Court of Human Rights has considered equality challenges to important consociational practices, twice in Belgium and then in Sejdic and Finci v Bosnia regarding the constitution established for Bosnia Herzegovina under the Dayton Agreement. The Court's decision in Sejdic and Finci has significantly altered the approach it previously took to judicial review of consociational arrangements in Belgium. This book accounts for this change and assess its implications. The problematic aspects of the current state of law are demonstrated. Future negotiators in places riven by potential or actual bloody ethnic conflicts may now have less flexibility in reaching a workable settlement, which may unintentionally contribute to sustaining such conflicts and make it more likely that negotiators will consider excluding regional and international courts from reviewing these political settlements.

Courts and Consociations:How human rights courts may destabilize power-sharing settlements

We consider the use of consociational arrangements to manage ethno-nationalist, ethno-linguistic, and ethno-religious conflicts, and their compatibility with non-discrimination and equality norms. Key questions include to what extent, if any, consociations conflict with the dictates of global justice and the liberal individualist preferences of international human rights institutions, and to what extent consociational power-sharing may be justified to preserve peace and the integrity of political settlements. In three critical cases, the European Court of Human Rights has considered equality challenges to important consociational practices, twice in Belgium and, most recently, in Sejdic and Finci, concerning the constitutional arrangements established for Bosnia Herzegovina under the Dayton Agreement. The Court’s recent decision in Sejdic and Finci has significantly altered the approach it previously took to judicial review of consociational arrangements in the Belgian cases. We seek to account for this change and assess its implications. We identify problematic aspects of the judgment and conclude that, although the Court’s decision indicates one possible trajectory of human rights courts’ reactions to consociations, this would be an unfortunate development because it leaves future negotiators in places riven by potential or manifest bloody ethnic conflicts with considerably less flexibility in reaching a settlement. That in turn may unintentionally contribute to sustaining such conflicts and make it more likely that advisors to negotiators will advise them to exclude regional and international courts from having standing in the management of political settlements.

Governing Ireland:From Cabinet Government to Delegated Governance

The structures of Irish government were once considered reliably stable, professional and efficient. The economic crash of 2008 swept away all such sureties. How did we fail to foresee the challenges and avert a crisis that has undermined the state in every respect? Initial explanations have focused on the absence of robust mechanisms to challenge policy, a lack of imagination and expertise in policy design, and inadequacies in policy implementation and evaluation. Others still have pointed to the inability of traditional structures of decision-making and oversight to manage the multidimensional nature of modern policy problems, as well as an increasingly complex administrative system.

This new book offers a fresh and sustained scrutiny of the Irish system of national government. It examines the cabinet, the departments of Finance and the Taoiseach, ministerial relationships with civil servants, the growth and decline of agencies, the executive's relationship with Dáil Éireann and other monitoring agencies, the impact of the European Union, the courts, the media and social partnership. Distinguished academics are brought together in this volume to reassess Irish governance structures in the context of much greater diversity in policy processes and delegation in government. The book is essential reading for anyone interested in how the Irish state is governed, including practitioners and students of Irish politics.

Moving Beyond the Administrative: Supervisors' Perspectives on Clinical Supervision in Child Welfare

This study contributes to the emerging knowledge base of child welfare supervision. An exploratory study examined the beliefs, practices, and experiences of 51 child welfare supervisors in Ontario, Canada. Eight focus groups were held with supervisors from a range of settings cross the province. The study identified a number of interwoven factors at the organizational, supervisory, and practice level that affect the nature of supervision offered. Implications are drawn for child welfare practice, models of supervision which integrate administrative, clinical and educational features, organizational culture, and training new supervisors.