DOCSLIB.ORG

Government from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia Page Semi-Protected for Government in Linguistics, See Government (Linguistics)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Government from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia Page Semi-Protected for Government in Linguistics, See Government (Linguistics) Government From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page semi-protected For government in linguistics, see Government (linguistics). Part of the Politics series Basic forms of government Power structure Confederal Federal Hegemony Imperial Unitary Power source Democracy Direct Representative others Monarchy Absolute Constitutional Oligarchy Aristocracy Military junta Plutocracy Stratocracy Timocracy Authoritarian Autocracy Despotism Dictatorship Totalitarianism Other Anarchy Anocracy Kritarchy Republic Theocracy Politics portal v t e Part of a series on Politics Ballot box Primary topics[show] Political systems[show] Academic disciplines[show] Public administration[show] Policy[show] Organs of government[show] Related topics[show] Subseries[show] Politics portal v t e A government is the system by which a state or community is governed.[1] In Brit ish English (and that of the Commonwealth of Nations), a government more narrowl y refers to the particular executive in control of a state at a given time[2]know n in American English as an administration. In American English, government refe rs to the larger system by which any state is organized.[3] Furthermore, governm ent is occasionally used in English as a synonym for governance. In the case of its broad associative definition, government normally consists of legislators, administrators, and arbitrators. Government is the means by which state policy is enforced, as well as the mechanism for determining the policy of the state. A form of government, or form of state governance, refers to the set of political systems and institutions that make up the organisation of a specif ic government. Government of any kind currently affects every human activity in many important ways. For this reason, political scientists generally argue that government shou ld not be studied by itself; but should be studied along with anthropology, econ omics, history, philosophy, science, and sociology. Contents [hide] 1 Political science 1.1 Etymology 1.2 Classifying government 1.3 The dialectical forms of government 2 Forms of government by associated attributes 2.1 By elements of where decision-making power is held 2.1.1 Aristarchic attributes 2.1.2 Autocratic attributes 2.1.3 Monarchic attributes 2.1.4 Pejorative attributes 2.2 By elements of who elects the empowered 2.2.1 Authoritarian attributes 2.2.2 Democratic attributes 2.2.3 Oligarchic attributes 2.2.4 Libertarian attributes 2.2.5 Other attributes 2.3 By elements of how power distribution is structured 2.3.1 Republican attributes 2.3.2 Federalism attributes 2.3.3 Other power structure attributes 3 Forms of government by other characteristic attributes 3.1 By socio-economic system attributes 3.2 By political system attributes 3.3 By significant constitutional attributes 3.4 By approach to regional autonomy 3.5 Theoretical and speculative attributes 4 Maps 5 References 6 Bibliography 7 Further Reading 8 External links Political science Etymology From Middle English government,[citation needed] from Old French government[cita tion needed] (French gouvernement), from Latin gubernatio ("management, governme nt"). Government is a compound formed from the Ancient Greek ??ße???? (kubernao, " I steer, drive, guide, pilot") and the Latin -mente, ablative singular of mens (m ind). arch-, prefix derived from the Greek archon, 'rulership', which means "higher in hierarchy".[4] The Greek word ???t?? krátos, 'power', which means "right to lead" is the suffix root in words like aristocrat and democracy. Its mythological per sonification was the god Kratos, a son of Styx. Classifying government In political science, it has long been a goal to create a typology or taxonomy o f polities, as typologies of political systems are not obvious.[5] It is especia lly important in the political science fields of comparative politics and intern ational relations. On the surface, identifying a form of government appears to be easy, as all gove rnments have an official form. The United States is a federal republic, while th e former Soviet Union was a socialist republic. However self-identification is n ot objective, and as Kopstein and Lichbach argue, defining regimes can be tricky .[6] For example, elections are a defining characteristic of a democracy,[citati on needed] but in practice elections in the former Soviet Union were not "free a nd fair" and took place in a single party state. Thus in many practical classifi cations it would not be considered democratic. Identifying a form of government is also complicated because a large number of p olitical systems originate as socio-economic movements and are then carried into governments by specific parties naming themselves after those movements; all wi th competing political-ideologies. Experience with those movements in power, and the strong ties they may have to particular forms of government, can cause them to be considered as forms of government in themselves. Other complications include general non-consensus or deliberate "distortion or b ias" of reasonable technical definitions to political ideologies and associated forms of governing, due to the nature of politics in the modern era. For example : The meaning of "conservatism" in the United States has little in common with t he way the word's definition is used elsewhere. As Ribuffo (2011) notes, "what A mericans now call conservatism much of the world calls liberalism or neoliberali sm.[7] Since the 1950s conservatism in the United States has been chiefly associ ated with the Republican Party. However, during the era of segregation many Sout hern Democrats were conservatives, and they played a key role in the Conservativ e Coalition that controlled Congress from 1937 to 1963."[8] Every country in the world is ruled by a system of governance that combines at l east 2 (or more) of the following attributes (for example, the United States is not a true capitalist society, since the government actually provides social ser vices for its citizens). Additionally, one person's opinion of the type of gover nment may differ from another's (for example, some may argue that the United Sta tes is a plutocracy rather than a democracy since they may believe it is ruled b y the wealthy).[9] There are always shades of gray in any government. Even the m ost liberal democracies limit rival political activity to one extent or another, and even the most tyrannical dictatorships must organize a broad base of suppor t, so it is very difficult "pigeonholing" every government into narrow categorie s[clarification needed] The dialectical forms of government Main article: Plato's five regimes The Classical Greek philosopher Plato discusses five types of regimes. They are Aristocracy, Timocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy and Tyranny. Plato also assigns a m an to each of these regimes to illustrate what they stand for. The tyrannical ma n would represent Tyranny for example. These five regimes progressively degenera te starting with Aristocracy at the top and Tyranny at the bottom. In Republic, while Plato spends much time having Socrates narrate a conversation about the city he founds with Glaucon and Adeimantus "in speech", the discussio n eventually turns to considering four regimes that exist in reality and tend to degrade successively into each other: timocracy, oligarchy (also called plutocr acy), democracy and tyranny (also called despotism). Forms of government by associated attributes Descriptions of governments can be based on the following attributes: By elements of where decision-making power is held Aristarchic attributes Governments with Aristarchy attributes are traditionally controlled and organise d by a small group of the most-qualified people, with no intervention from the m ost part of society; this small group usually shares some common trait. The oppo site of an Aristarchic government is Kakistocracy. Term Definition Aristocracy Rule by elite citizens; a system of governance in which a person who rules in an aristocracy is an aristocrat. It has come to mean rule by "the aristocracy" who are people of noble birth. An aristocracy is a government by th e "best" people. A person who rules in an aristocracy is an aristocrat. Aristocr acy is different from nobility, in that nobility means that one bloodline would rule, an aristocracy would mean that a few or many bloodlines would rule, or tha t rulers be chosen in a different manner. Geniocracy Rule by the intelligent; a system of governance where creativity , innovation, intelligence and wisdom are required for those who wish to govern. See Aristocracy of the wise. Kratocracy Rule by the strong; a system of governance where those strong en ough to seize power through physical force, social maneuvering or political cunn ing. The process can mimic darwinian selection. Meritocracy Rule by the meritorious; a system of governance where groups are selected on the basis of people's ability, knowledge in a given area, and contr ibutions to society. Timocracy Rule by honor; a system of governance ruled by honorable citizen s and property owners. Socrates defines a timocracy as a government ruled by peo ple who love honor and are selected according to the degree of honor they hold i n society. This form of timocracy is very similar to meritocracy, in the sense t hat individuals of outstanding character or faculty are placed in the seat of po wer. European-feudalism and post-Revolutionary America are historical examples o f this type; the city-state of Sparta provided another real-world model for this form of government. Technocracy Rule by the educated or technical experts; a system of governanc e where people who are skilled or proficient govern in their respective areas of expertise in technology would be in control of all decision making. Doctors, en gineers, scientists, professionals and technologists who have knowledge, experti se, or skills, would compose the governing body, instead of politicians, busines smen, and economists.[10] In a technocracy, decision makers would be selected ba sed upon how knowledgeable and skillful they are in their field.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Federal Systems and Accommodation of Distinct Groups: a Comparative Survey of Institutional Arrangements for Aboriginal Peoples
    1 arrangements within other federations will focus FEDERAL SYSTEMS AND on provisions for constitutional recognition of ACCOMMODATION OF DISTINCT Aboriginal Peoples, arrangements for Aboriginal GROUPS: A COMPARATIVE SURVEY self-government (including whether these take OF INSTITUTIONAL the form of a constitutional order of government ARRANGEMENTS FOR ABORIGINAL or embody other institutionalized arrangements), the responsibilities assigned to federal and state PEOPLES1 or provincial governments for Aboriginal peoples, and special arrangements for Ronald L. Watts representation of Aboriginal peoples in federal Institute of Intergovernmental Relations and state or provincial institutions if any. Queen's University Kingston, Ontario The paper is therefore divided into five parts: (1) the introduction setting out the scope of the paper, the value of comparative analysis, and the 1. INTRODUCTION basic concepts that will be used; (2) an examination of the utility of the federal concept (1) Purpose, relevance and scope of this for accommodating distinct groups and hence the study particular interests and concerns of Aboriginal peoples; (3) the range of variations among federal The objective of this study is to survey the systems which may facilitate the accommodation applicability of federal theory and practice for of distinct groups and hence Aboriginal peoples; accommodating the interests and concerns of (4) an overview of the actual arrangements for distinct groups within a political system, and Aboriginal populations existing in federations
    [Show full text]
  • Reconceptualizing Corporate Boards M
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics Economics 2013 Boards-R-Us: Reconceptualizing Corporate Boards M. Todd Henderson Stephen Bainbridge Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/law_and_economics Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation M. Todd Henderson & Stephen Bainbridge, "Boards-R-Us: Reconceptualizing Corporate Boards" (Coase-Sandor Institute for Law & Economics Working Paper No. 646, 2013). This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHICAGO COASE-SANDOR INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER NO. 646 (2D SERIES) Boards-R-Us: Reconceptualizing Corporate Boards Stephen M. Bainbridge and M. Todd Henderson THE LAW SCHOOL THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO July 2013 This paper can be downloaded without charge at: The University of Chicago, Institute for Law and Economics Working Paper Series Index: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/index.html and at the Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection. BOARDS-R-US: RECONCEPTUALIZING CORPORATE BOARDS Stephen M. Bainbridge and M. Todd Henderson* Abstract State corporate law requires director services be provided by “natural persons.” This Article puts this obligation to scrutiny, and concludes that there are significant gains that could be realized by permitting firms (be they partnerships, corporations, or other business entities) to provide board services.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States ————
    No. 18-893 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— WEST VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES, Petitioner, v. STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA ex rel. MARGARET L. WORKMAN, MITCH CARMICHAEL, President of the West Virginia Senate; DONNA J. BOLEY, President Pro Tempore of the West Virginia Senate; RYAN FERNS, Majority Leader of the West Virginia Senate; LEE CASSIS, Clerk of the West Virginia Senate; and the WEST VIRGINIA SENATE, Respondents. ———— On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia ———— REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ———— MARK A. CARTER Counsel of Record DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 707 Virginia Street, East Chase Tower, Suite 1300 Charleston, WV 25301 (304) 357-0900 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner June 6, 2019 WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................ ii ARGUMENT ........................................................ 1 I. THIS COURT SHOULD CONSIDER PETITIONER’S GUARANTEE CLAUSE ARGUMENT ............................................. 1 II. THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1257 TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI .......... 7 CONCLUSION .................................................... 12 (i) ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page(s) Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) ................................... 5, 6 Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135 (1892) ................................... 6 Carmichael v. Workman, No. 18-1189 (March 11, 2019) .................. 10, 11 Izumi v. U.S. Phillips Corp., 510 U.S. 27 (1993) ....................................passim Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1 (1849) .......................... 5 Mecham v. Gordon, 751 P.2d 957 (1988) .................................. 3 Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Spencer Sunshine*
    Journal of Social Justice, Vol. 9, 2019 (© 2019) ISSN: 2164-7100 Looking Left at Antisemitism Spencer Sunshine* The question of antisemitism inside of the Left—referred to as “left antisemitism”—is a stubborn and persistent problem. And while the Right exaggerates both its depth and scope, the Left has repeatedly refused to face the issue. It is entangled in scandals about antisemitism at an increasing rate. On the Western Left, some antisemitism manifests in the form of conspiracy theories, but there is also a hegemonic refusal to acknowledge antisemitism’s existence and presence. This, in turn, is part of a larger refusal to deal with Jewish issues in general, or to engage with the Jewish community as a real entity. Debates around left antisemitism have risen in tandem with the spread of anti-Zionism inside of the Left, especially since the Second Intifada. Anti-Zionism is not, by itself, antisemitism. One can call for the Right of Return, as well as dissolving Israel as a Jewish state, without being antisemitic. But there is a Venn diagram between anti- Zionism and antisemitism, and the overlap is both significant and has many shades of grey to it. One of the main reasons the Left can’t acknowledge problems with antisemitism is that Jews persistently trouble categories, and the Left would have to rethink many things—including how it approaches anti- imperialism, nationalism of the oppressed, anti-Zionism, identity politics, populism, conspiracy theories, and critiques of finance capital—if it was to truly struggle with the question. The Left understands that white supremacy isn’t just the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis, but that it is part of the fabric of society, and there is no shortcut to unstitching it.
    [Show full text]
  • Courts and Consociations, Or How Human Rights Courts May De-Stabilize Power-Sharing
    The European Journal of International Law Vol. 24 no. 2 © The Author, 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of EJIL Ltd. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: [email protected] Courts and Consociations, or How Human Rights Courts May De-stabilize Power-sharing Settlements Downloaded from Christopher McCrudden and Brendan O’Leary* http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/ Abstract 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 at Columbia University Libraries on June 27, 2013 rights institutions, and to what extent consociational power-sharing may be justified to pre- serve peace and the integrity of political settlements. In three critical cases, the European Court of Human Rights has considered equality challenges to important consociational prac- tices, twice in Belgium and, most recently, in Sejdić and Finci, concerning the constitutional arrangements established for Bosnia Herzegovina under the Dayton Agreement. The Court’s recent decision in Sejdić 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 consid- erably less flexibility in reaching a settlement.
    [Show full text]
  • The Syntheist Movement and Creating God in the Internet Age
    1 I Sing the Body Electric: The Syntheist Movement and Creating God in the Internet Age Melodi H. Dincer Senior Thesis Brown University Department of Religious Studies Adviser: Paul Nahme Second Reader: Daniel Vaca Providence, Rhode Island April 15, 20 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgments. 3 Introduction: Making the Internet Holy. .4 Chapter (1) A Technophilic Genealogy: Piracy and Syntheism as Cybernetic Offspring. .12 Chapter (2) The Atheist Theology of Syntheism . 49 Chapter (3) Enacted Syntheisms: An Ethics of Active Virtuality and Virtual Activity. 96 (In)Conclusions. 138 Works Cited. 144 3 Acknowledgments I would briefly like to thank anyone who has had a hand—actually, even the slightest brush of a finger in making this project materialize outside of the confines of my own brain matter. I would first like to thank Kerri Heffernan and my Royce Fellowship cohort for supporting my initial research on the Church of Kopimism. My time in Berlin and Stockholm on behalf of the Royce made an indelible mark on my entire academic career thus far, without which this thesis would definitely not be as out-of-the-box as it is proud to be. I would also like to thank a few professors in the Religious Studies department who, whether they were aware of it or not, encouraged my confidence in this area of study and shaped how I approached the religious communities this project concerns. Specifically, thank you to Prof. Denzey-Lewis, who taught my first religious studies course at Brown and graciously sponsored my Royce research amidst her own travels. Also, infinite thanks and blessings to Fannie Bialek, who so deftly modeled all that is good in this discipline, and all that is most noble in the often confusing, frustrating, and stressful task of teaching “hard” topics.
    [Show full text]
  • Human-Computer Interaction and Sociological Insight: a Theoretical Examination and Experiment in Building Affinity in Small Groups Michael Oren Iowa State University
    Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Graduate Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 2011 Human-computer interaction and sociological insight: A theoretical examination and experiment in building affinity in small groups Michael Oren Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd Part of the Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Oren, Michael, "Human-computer interaction and sociological insight: A theoretical examination and experiment in building affinity in small groups" (2011). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 12200. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/12200 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Human-computer interaction and sociological insight: A theoretical examination and experiment in building affinity in small groups by Michael Anthony Oren A dissertation submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Co-Majors: Human Computer Interaction; Sociology Program of Study Committee: Stephen B. Gilbert, Co-major Professor William F. Woodman, Co-major Professor Daniel Krier Brian Mennecke Anthony Townsend Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 2011 Copyright © Michael Anthony Oren, 2011. All
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a Stakeholder-Shareholder Theory of Corporate Governance: a Comparative Analysis Katharine V
    Hastings Business Law Journal Volume 7 Article 4 Number 2 Summer 2011 Summer 1-1-2011 Towards a Stakeholder-Shareholder Theory of Corporate Governance: A Comparative Analysis Katharine V. Jackson Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_business_law_journal Part of the Business Organizations Law Commons Recommended Citation Katharine V. Jackson, Towards a Stakeholder-Shareholder Theory of Corporate Governance: A Comparative Analysis, 7 Hastings Bus. L.J. 309 (2011). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_business_law_journal/vol7/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Business Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TOWARDS A STAKEHOLDER- SHAREHOLDER THEORY OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Katharine V. Jackson* Most of the groups and individuals affected by the behavior of American public corporations do not have a voice in their governance. Just as governments retreat from regulating these entities, whether by political choice or as a result of globalization and regulatory arbitrage,1 stakeholders' 2 ability to shape corporate behavior themselves remains weak. Government empowers only one corporate stakeholder group- employees-to bargain with corporations for terms in their own interest. 1. See Eugene D. Genovese, Secularism in the General Crisis of Capitalism, 42 AM. J. JURIS. 195, 202 (1997) (multinational corporations are coming to control the "world economy, over which.,.. centralized national governments have less and less control."); Larry CatA Backer, Multinational Corporations, TransnationalLaw: The United Nations ' Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations as a Harbinger of Corporate Social Responsibility in International Law, 37 CoLUM.
    [Show full text]
  • The United States and Latin America: Shaping an Elusive Future
    THE UNITED STATES AND LATIN AMERICA: SHAPING AN ELUSIVE FUTURE Donald E. Schulz March 2000 ***** The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. This report is cleared for public release; distribution is unlimited . ***** Special thanks are due Colonel Joseph Nuñez, General (ret.) Fred Woerner, Douglas Lovelace, Gabriel Marcella, Max Manwaring, and Richard Millett for their constructive comments and suggestions on an earlier draft. Needless to say, any errors of comission or omission are entirely the responsibility of the author. ***** Comments pertaining to this report are invited and should be forwarded to: Director, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 122 Forbes Ave., Carlisle, PA 17013-5244. Copies of this report may be obtained from the Publications and Production Office by calling commercial (717) 245-4133, FAX (717) 245-3820, or via the Internet at [email protected] ***** Most 1993, 1994, and all later Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) monographs are available on the SSI Homepage for electronic dissemination. SSI’s Homepage address is: http://carlisle-www.army .mil/usassi/welcome.htm ***** The Strategic Studies Institute publishes a monthly e-mail newsletter to update the national security community on the research of our analysts, recent and forthcoming publications, and upcoming conferences sponsored by the Institute. Each newsletter also provides a strategic commentary by one of our research analysts. If you are interested in receiving this newsletter, please let us know by e-mail at [email protected] or by calling (717) 245-3133.
    [Show full text]
  • Forms of Government (World General Knowledge)
    Forms of Government (World General Knowledge) Anarchism A system that advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary institutions. These are often described as stateless societies, although several authors have defined them more specifically as institutions based on non-hierarchical or free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and/or harmful. Anarchy A society without a publicly enforced government or political authority. Sometimes said to be non-governance; it is a structure which strives for non-hierarchical, voluntary associations among agents. Anarchy is a situation where there is no state. Autocracy Autocracy is a system of government in which supreme power (social and political) is concentrated in the hands of one person or polity, whose decisions are subject to neither external legal restraints nor regularized mechanisms of popular control Aristocracy Rule by the nobility; a system of governance where political power is in the hands of a small class of privileged individuals who claim a higher birth than the rest of society. Anocracy A regime type where power is not vested in public institutions (as in a normal democracy) but spread amongst elite groups who are constantly competing with each other for power. Adhocracy Rule by a government based on relatively disorganised principles and institutions as compared to a bureaucracy, its exact opposite. Absolute monarchy A traditional and historical system where the monarch exercises ultimate governing Downloaded from www.csstimes.pk | 1 Forms of Government (World General Knowledge) authority as head of state and head of government. Many nations of Europe during the Middle Ages were absolute monarchies.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Administration
    Public administration PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information. PDF generated at: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:53:59 UTC Contents Articles Main article 1 Public administration 1 In academia 12 Master of Public Administration 12 Doctor of Public Administration 13 Supporting articles 16 Administrative law 16 Build-Operate-Transfer 23 Civil society 26 Regulatory economics 35 Government 40 Public safety 54 Public services 54 References Article Sources and Contributors 57 Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 59 Article Licenses License 60 1 Main article Public administration Public administration refers to two meanings: first, it is concerned with the implementation of government policy; second, it is an academic discipline that studies this implementation and prepares civil servants for working in the public service.[1] As a "field of inquiry with a diverse scope" its "fundamental goal... is to advance management and policies so that government can function."[2] Some of the various definitions which have been offered for the term are: "the management of public programs";[3] the "translation of politics into the reality that citizens see every day";[4] and Public administration is both an academic discipline and a field of "the study of government decision making, the practice; the latter is depicted in this picture of US federal public servants at a meeting. analysis of the policies themselves, the various inputs that have produced them, and the inputs necessary to produce alternative policies."[5] Public administration is "centrally concerned with the organization of government policies and programmes as well as the behavior of officials (usually non-elected) formally responsible for their conduct"[6] Many unelected public servants can be considered to be public administrators, including heads of city, county, regional, state and federal departments such as municipal budget directors, human resources (H.R.) administrators, city managers, census managers, state mental health directors, and cabinet secretaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Anti-Primacy: Sharing Power in American Corporations
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2015 Anti-Primacy: Sharing Power in American Corporations Robert B. Thompson Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1527 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2687218 This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Business Organizations Law Commons Anti-Primacy: Sharing Power in American Corporations Robert B. Thompson Abstract: Prominent theories of corporate governance frequently adopt primacy as an organizing theme. Shareholder primacy is the oldest and most used of this genre. Director primacy has grown dramatically, presenting in at least two distinct versions. A variety of alternatives have followed—primacy for CEOs, employees, creditors. All of these theories can’t be right. This article asserts that none of them are. The alternative developed here is one of shared power among the three actors named in corporations statutes with judges tasked to keep all players in the game. The debunking part of the article demonstrates how the suggested parties lack legal or economic characteristics necessary for primacy. The prescriptive part of the article suggests that we can better understand the multiple uses of primacy if we recognize that law is not prescribing first principles for governance of firms, but rather providing a structure that works given the economic and business environment in place for modern corporations where there is separation of function and efficiencies of managers as a starting point.
    [Show full text]