Prospects for the new US administration: what can social science offer? Debate

A trans-Atlantic panel of social scientists addresses the question of what social science might offer the new President of the United States in various areas of policy and government action. Andrew Rudalevige's analysis of the scholarship on managing the presidency leads him to state that 'most of the major happenings of the Bush years were essentially administrative in nature. That is likely to continue. Thus, how and whether presidents achieve the sort of advice and responsiveness they desire from the bureaucracy has important implications not only for the kinds of policy the government implements, but for assessing democratic governance itself'. George Edwards examines presidential strategies for government with the conclusion that 'Social science shows us that there is no silver bullet' when a president is trying to obtain the support of the public or Congress. Jenel Virden points out that in 2008 women turned out to vote more than men, voted for Obama more than men, and were strongly hopeful that under the new administration prospects would improve. Having engaged so successfully with this sector of the population, the Obama administration is under pressure to recognize and address its needs. Robert Singh points out that there are necessary reservations about the utility of social science in informing an Obama foreign policy, but nonetheless elaborates propositions and principles that could usefully frame the administration's approach. Dilys Hill provides an overview and draws the debate to a close. The discussion in these pages is based on the 2009 Academy of Social Sciences annual debate, convened by Philip Davies and hosted by the Eccles Centre for American Studies at the British Library (Davies et al, 2009)

Helping Disadvantaged Youth in Education

The Far North Queensland (FNQ) region spans a large, diverse geographical area: from small, isolated islands in the Torres Strait, across remote Aboriginal communities in Cape York, rural towns on the Atherton Tablelands and Coastal areas stretching from the Northern tip of Queensland to beyond the farming areas of Innisfail and Tully. The largest urban centre is Cairns with a growing population of over 160,000. The region incorporates the highest numbers of indigenous school students in Queensland, some of the lowest socio-economic areas in the state and the most difficult geographical areas in Australia in which to deliver a range of government services. In 2002, the Queensland Government released the White Paper Queens/and the Smart State: Edllcation and Training Reforms for tile Future (ETRF) outlining landmark education and training reforms focused on 19 actions to be implemented through partnerships between young people, parents, employers, schools, TAFE Institutes, universities and other stakeholders. The White Paper (2002) also heralded the introduction of new laws to ensure that all young people in Queensland would be earning or learning. This new legislation, the Youth Participation in Education a11d Training Act, 2003, and Training Reform Act, 2003 was scheduled to come into effect from January 2006. In July 2003, 20 schools in seven districts across Queensland commenced trialling the reforms. In July 2004, all Queensland Education Districts were required to develop District Youth Achievement Plans (DYAPs) and prioritise strategies to support young people between 15 and 17 years to remain in learning or earning. These requirements included the formation of DYAP Local Management Committees (LMCs) comprising a diverse cross-section of all ETRF Stakeholders who attend meetings on a regular basis and multiple learning communities. DYAP LMCs were to identify actions for new learning communities to facilitate multiple pathways for all young people and ensure they were successfully implemented. This chapter describes the governance processes used throughout the trial phase of the DYAP initiative. It maps the programme's successes against the desired policy outcomes and analyses the policy implementation in terms of academic literature including Considine's (2005) notions of new forms of network governance and 'action channels and .... sets of boundaries' (p. 13). Considine (200S: 13) suggests that new forms of network governance offer a robust model of public administration in that they can • respond flexibly to local conditions (Giguere, 2003: 22); • achieve lower regulatory costs by stimulating collective action (Ostrom, 1998); • reduce transaction costs associated with fragmented service delivery (Sullivan and Skelcher, 2002: 20); and • increase legitimacy through increased participation in decision-making (Rhodes, 1990; Walsh, 2001: Ill). Considine (2005) defines networks as 'the connections that express a social world based upon partnerships, collaborations and inter-dependencies.' (p. 4) and suggests there are three ways or 'domains' in which networks can influence policy and programme development. First, there are those networks generated through joint mandates or resource dependencies. Second, there are networks of individuals with organisational roles and third, are interagency or 'delivery' networks where diverse agents collaborate in 'the provision of a common programme or service' (p. 9). This third type of network, according to Considine (2005), 'implies a new regime of strategies and methods to create joint management and integration of services ... [where] members of the network co-produce in some way' (p. 9). The Far Northern Queensland districts' DYAP processes indicate a network of the third type