Suchergebnisse

In 1991, the Philippines joined a growing list of countries that reformed health planning through decentralization. Reformers viewed decentralization as a tool that would solve multiple problems, leading to more meaningful democracy and more effective health planning. Today, nearly two decades after the passage of decentralization legislation, questions about the effectiveness of the reforms persist. Inadequate financing, inequity, and a lack of meaningful participation remain challenges, in many ways mirroring broader weaknesses of Philippine democracy. These concerns pose questions regarding the nature of contemporary decentralization, democratization, and health planning and whether these three strategies are indeed mutually enforcing.

Oral Arguments and Decision Making on the United States Supreme
Court. By Timothy R. Johnson. Albany: State University of New York
Press, 2004. 180p. $35.00.This book makes a persuasive thesis that the oral arguments presented
in cases before the United States Supreme Court are used by the justices
to help them arrive at substantive legal and policy decisions that closely
parallel their preferred outcomes. Although that would seem to be logical,
the author documents that many scholars who write about the Court do not
share this thesis. Those scholars, such as the so-called attitudinalists,
posit that oral arguments have no effect on justices' votes. In order
to reinforce his thesis, Timothy Johnson uses the strategic model of
decision making, namely, that justices are goal oriented, they are
strategic, and they account for institutional rules. He then goes on to
explain that because the briefs presented to the Court from both the
litigants and from amici curiae are understandably biased in behalf of
their particular points of view, the oral arguments serve to solve this
problem.