Economic &amp; Political Rationality

Elkin, Stephen L.

doi:10.2307/3234949

Cited by 25 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…His constitutional, or constitutive, approach contends that good political institutions are not simply generative of good outcomes like freedom and equality, but that they have freedom and equality embedded within them. They are important not only for what they do, therefore, but for what they are (Elkin, 1985). Hence, when he warns (1987) that too much central control over the finances of local government inhibits the vital, deliberative city, he might be directing his advice to the UK government.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Partnerships versus Regimes: Why Regime Theory Cannot Explain Urban Coalitions in the Uk

Davies

2003

Journal of Urban Affairs

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compares and contrasts urban regeneration partnerships in the UK with urban regimes in the US. Regime theory, as developed by Elkin and Stone, neither describes nor explains the contrasting forms of collaboration in the UK. The development of urban regeneration partnerships has been driven by a combination of two main factors: the development of an ideological perception within local government elites that urban regeneration depends on market led growth, and a series of central government regeneration initiatives. These initiatives, designed to encourage, and where necessary coerce, local authorities into cooperative arrangements have resulted in highly bureaucratized, but symbolic, partnerships with local business elites. Business activity in these partnerships thus far has been marginal. It is unlikely to be fruitful, therefore, for scholars to seek Stonean regimes in the UK. On the other hand, to describe such partnerships as regimes is misleading and results in a lack of conceptual clarity. Despite the fashion for copying urban policy from the US, the institutions of urban politics in the UK are likely to remain resolutely different.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Partnerships versus Regimes: Why Regime Theory Cannot Explain Urban Coalitions in the Uk

Davies

2003

Journal of Urban Affairs

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Implicit in these discussions has been a set of moral questions about the fairness of distributions and allocations of public goods, but also questions about how best to strive for the kind of society we deserve. Indeed Stephen Elkin (1985) reminds us that there are broader constitutive questions at stakeöaround the fit between political ideas and policy practices öthan any simple cost^benefit approach to policy analysis could calculate.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Where Has Welfare Gone? Introductory Remarks on the Geographies of Care and Welfare

Staeheli¹,

Brown²

2003

Environ Plan A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Where has welfare gone? Introductory remarks on the geographies of care and welfare Shortly after World War 2, T H Marshall (1950) argued that the provision of social welfare services was needed to sustain a polity in which individuals were capable of truly being citizens. During that same period, the apparatus of the modern welfare state was built to deliver those services (Schottland, 1967). The ways in which social welfare was provided in various countries reflected different strategies and ideologies concerning how best to achieve the social rights that Marshall identified, as well as how best to construct inclusive and just societies (Esping-Anderson, 1990). In the past decade, these welfare regimes have been the subject of reforms that have radically reshaped the relationships between individuals, families, citizens, communities, and states (Gilbert, 2002;Katz, 2001;Zijderveld, 1999). These reforms are the outgrowth of concerns that`something' was not working with the ways in which social welfare had been provided. Politicians and activists on both the right and the left pointed to the large numbers of people who seemed dependent on social welfare services, rather than enabled by them. The quality and cost of services were decried. And the polities within these countries seemed fragmented, atomized, and incapable or unwilling to act as citizens.Much of the debate over welfare focused on institutional structures, policies, and behaviors that limited the effectiveness of social welfare. Embedded in these debates, however, were competing moral philosophies concerning social justice and how justice might be enhanced. These were never just debates of philosophy or policy, of course. They were debates over geography: where welfare ought to be and what form it should take there; how places (for example, cities, households, regions, the nation) and movements (migrations, household reconfigurations, etc) ought to be constituted through the welfare state. The following set of papers discusses the implications of these philosophies and geographies for the ways that social welfare and care are provided and for the kinds of societies they enable. In this introduction, we will attempt to provide a framework through which these philosophies can be interpreted. We begin by situating the papers within geography through a very brief and admittedly partial consideration of the ways in which geographers have approached the study of welfare and care. We then outline a perspective towards social justice that highlights the significance of care and welfare in creating an inclusive society. Finally, we highlight the ways in which each of the papers addresses these issues and helps us to understand where welfare has gone in this era of retrenchment and decline. Geographies of welfareIn the 1960s, welfare geography was part of an attempt to create a relevant, socially aware scholarship that could inform policy decisions and other kinds of praxis (for example, Ha« gerstrand, 1970;Harvey, 1973;Morrill, 1969;. In conjunction with the ...

show abstract

“…They might show more sympathy for their organization and their fellow employees, and less interest in personal advancement. Managers without such religious values will be drawn into the political sphere and be more likely to engage in calculative behaviors based on instrumental rationality (Elkin 1985).…”

Section: Religion and Managerial Behavior: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Managers' Religiosity: Impacts on Work Attitudes and Perceptions of Co-Workers

Bozeman¹,

Murdock

2007

International Public Management Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Do public managers' religious beliefs and behaviors affect their work and their work-related attitudes? Perhaps due to the sensitive nature of this question, there is almost no empirical work on the topic. Our study uses questionnaire data (n ¼ 765) from the National Administrative Studies Project-III to test hypotheses about the impacts of U.S. public managers' religiosity, as well as their political activity, on work attitudes. Religiosity is defined by public managers' responses about attending religious services. Political behavior is defined in terms of membership in political organizations and election groups. An application of ordinary least squares regression shows that religious public managers tend to have a stronger orientation toward job security and a more favorable view of their organization and fellow employees. Public managers are no more or less oriented to security than other respondents in the sample, but they have more negative views about their organization and fellow employees. These findings do not change when obvious controls are introduced into the model.

show abstract

Economic & Political Rationality

Cited by 25 publications

References 0 publications

Partnerships versus Regimes: Why Regime Theory Cannot Explain Urban Coalitions in the Uk

Partnerships versus Regimes: Why Regime Theory Cannot Explain Urban Coalitions in the Uk

Where Has Welfare Gone? Introductory Remarks on the Geographies of Care and Welfare

Public Managers' Religiosity: Impacts on Work Attitudes and Perceptions of Co-Workers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About