Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Official Policies (official + policy)
Selected AbstractsThe Politics of Disciplining Water RightsDEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE, Issue 2 2009Rutgerd Boelens ABSTRACT This article examines how the legal systems of Andean countries have dealt with the region's huge plurality of local water rights, and how official policies to ,recognize' local rights and identities harbour increasingly subtle politics of codification, confinement and disciplining. The autonomy and diversity of local water rights are a major hindrance for water companies, elites and formal rule-enforcers, since State and market institutions require a predictable, uniform playing field. Complex local rights orders are seen as irrational, ill-defined and disordered. Officialdom cannot simply ignore or oppress the ,unruliness and disobedience' of local rights systems: rather it ,incorporates' local normative orders that have the capacity to adequately respond to context-based needs. This article examines a number of evolving, overlapping legal domination strategies, such as the ,marrying' of local and official legal systems in ways that do not challenge the legal and power hierarchy; and reviews the ways in which official regulation and legal strategies deny or take into consideration local water rights repertoires, and the politics of recognition that these entail. Post-colonial recognition policies are not simply responses to demands by subjugated groups for greater autonomy. Rather, they facilitate the water bureaucracy's political control and help neoliberal sectors to incorporate local water users' rights and organizations into the market system , even though many communities refuse to accept these policies of recognition and politics of containment. [source] Perspectives on adult education in QuebecNEW DIRECTIONS FOR ADULT & CONTINUING EDUCATION, Issue 124 2009Mohamed Hrimech Drawing on an analysis of official policies and initiatives, this chapter presents the specific situation of adult education in Quebec, its problems, and the solutions that have been devised. [source] Social participation in health in Brazil and England: inclusion, representation and authorityHEALTH EXPECTATIONS, Issue 3 2009Marian Barnes BA MA PhD Abstract Aim, This article offers a brief description and analysis of public participation in health in Brazil and England in order to highlight different motivators and tensions within an acceptance of participation as official policy. Sources/methods, The article draws on a range of research in both countries and an analysis of official documents relating to participation. It is based on collaboration between researchers deriving from broad programmes of work on public participation in which the authors are involved. Argument, There is a tension between different principles underpinning collective public involvement in health both within and between countries. Different aspirations or claims have been made about what such participation will achieve and there are trade-offs between design principles that have consequences for issues such as who takes part and thus also for what can be achieved. The democratic origins of public participation are more evident in the Brazilian situation than in England, but there are still questions about the inclusivity of the practices through which this is achieved. The English picture is both more diverse and dynamic, but formal decision-making power of participatory forums is less than in Brazil. Whilst social justice claims for participation have been made in both countries, there is as yet limited evidence that these have been realized. [source] Abortion and Neonaticide: Ethics, Practice and Policy in Four NationsBIOETHICS, Issue 3 2002Michael L. Gross Abortion, particularly late-term abortion, and neonaticide, selective non-treatment of newborns, are feasible management strategies for fetuses or newborns diagnosed with severe abnormalities. However, policy varies considerably among developed nations. This article examines abortion and neonatal policy in four nations: Israel, the US, the UK and Denmark. In Israel, late-term abortion is permitted while non-treatment of newborns is prohibited. In the US, on the other hand, late-term abortion is severely restricted, while treatment to newborns may be withdrawn. Policy in the UK and Denmark bridges some of these gaps with liberal abortion and neonatal policy. Disparate policy within and between nations creates practical and ethical difficulties. Practice diverges from policy as many practitioners find it difficult to adhere to official policy. Ethically, it is difficult to entirely justify perinatal policy in these nations. In each nation, there are elements of ethically sound policy, while other aspects cannot be defended. Ethical policy hinges on two underlying normative issues: the question of fetal/newborn status and the morality of killing and letting die. While each issue has been the subject of extensive debate, there are firm ethical norms that should serve as the basis for coherent and consistent perinatal policy. These include 1) a grant of full moral and legal status to the newborn but only partial moral and legal status to the late-term fetus 2) a general prohibition against feticide unless to save the life of the mother or prevent the birth of a fetus facing certain death or severe pain and suffering and 3) a general endorsement of neonaticide subject to a parent's assessment of the newborn's interest broadly defined to consider physical harm as well as social, psychological and or financial harm to related third parties. Policies in each of the nations surveyed diverging from these norms should be the subject of public discourse and, where possible, legislative reform. [source] | ||||||||||