Suchergebnisse

Targeted redistribution in multicultural societies can pose "the dilemma of recognition": the beneficiary groups have to be officially recognised, defined, and sometimes mobilised, which accentuates group distinctions and thus threatens to contribute to conflict, discrimination, and inequality instead of combating it. Many governments are well aware of this dilemma, and to resolve it they modify the category system used in redistributive policies. This paper analyses the options governments have – accommodation, denial, and replacement – and concentrates on the latter. Replacement means that a government constructs the targets of redistributive policies so as to avoid accentuation or recognition of inconvenient group distinctions, but still allow redistribution that benefits these groups. The question is, does it work? Replacement is increasingly in demand, in countries around the world, but its effects are little researched. This paper elaborates on two exemplary cases – India and Nigeria – which have experimented with replacement ever since the 1950s and provide ample opportunity to research its long‐term effects.

Targeted redistribution in multicultural societies can pose "the dilemma of recognition": the beneficiary groups have to be officially recognised, defined, and sometimes mobilised, which accentuates group distinctions and thus threatens to contribute to conflict, discrimination, and inequality instead of combating it. Many governments are well aware of this dilemma, and to resolve it they modify the category system used in redistributive policies. This paper analyses the options governments have - accommodation, denial, and replacement - and concentrates on the latter. Replacement means that a government constructs the targets of redistributive policies so as to avoid accentuation or recognition of inconvenient group distinctions, but still allow redistribution that benefits these groups. The question is, does it work? Replacement is increasingly in demand, in countries around the world, but its effects are little researched.This paper elaborates on two exemplary cases - India and Nigeria - which have experimented with replacement ever since the 1950s and provide ample opportunity to research its long-term effects. (Original abstract)

This article explores postmodern reasoning in academic public administration. It argues that the antiscience and proliberation arguments that abound in postmodern writing in public administration are informed by a fallacy: conflating administrative practice and the scientific study of that practice. In effect, postmodernists confuse wrongs of bureaucracy with arguments against modern science and then propagate relativism to clear up the muddle they created. This article opposes that package deal. It argues that the main objection postmodern authors have against science and administration—neglect of the variety of subjects' points of view—has nothing to do with positivism or modern science and cannot be cured with relativism.

""Unintended consequences" is an umbrella concept. It comprises
phenomena that differ in crucial respects and consequently, without
refinement, it remains a rather blunt instrument for policy
analysis. The contributions in this volume, however, show that
disentangling unintended consequences by making clear distinctions
between various types, makes the concept much more useful
for policy analysis. Assessing the impact of EU foreign policies as
studied in this volume, we show that "bonuses", "windfalls", "accidents",
and "trade-offs" – all unintended – are very different when
it comes to the explanation of policy outcomes, or to allocating
responsibility for them."

""Unintended consequences" is an umbrella concept. It comprises phenomena that differ in crucial respects and consequently, without refinement, it remains a rather blunt instrument for policy analysis. The contributions in this volume, however, show that disentangling unintended consequences by making clear distinctions between various types, makes the concept much more useful for policy analysis. Assessing the impact of EU foreign policies as studied in this volume, we show that "bonuses", "windfalls", "accidents", and "trade-offs" – all unintended – are very different when it comes to the explanation of policy outcomes, or to allocating responsibility for them."