Charles R. Wise

Breaking up Is Hard to Do: The Dissolution of Judicial Supervision of Public Services

Public services in many states have been placed under federal court supervision. In our 1991 PAR article, we examined the implications of the federal judicial decisions in supervising the Kansas City Metropolitan School District for the “new triumviate” governing public services—public officials, legislators, and judges. In this article, we examine judicial decisions affecting the same school district a decade later to reveal the impact of judicial supervision on the school district and to discern the implications for policy termination. We find that, once begun, judicially mandated federal court supervision of public institutions is not readily terminated, even pursuant to the wishes of the United States Supreme Court.

Public Administration Is Constitutional and Legitimate

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Constitutional Courts and Legislative‐Executive Relations: The Case of Ukraine

There is a primary debate, as yet unresolved, regarding the superi ority of presidential or parliamentary regime types for the stability of demo cratic government. Because qualitative and quantitative analyses have yet to demonstrate definitively whether one regime type is inherently more stable than the other, researchers have branched out in a number of directions. One prominent stream of research examines the role that key intervening factors have in determining regime stability, including the electoral system, federalism, and the role of the prime minister in mixed presidential-parliamentary systems. This stream of research contends that regime stability is a function of the inter play of the specific distribution of powers between the legislative and executive branches and these other intervening factors. In this paper, we identify a fourth important intervening factor?constitutional courts. Specifically, we examine the constitutional court in the transitioning nation of Ukraine to demonstrate the role that judicial institutions can play in mediating legislative-executive conflict and thereby contributing to regime stability.

Elite Attitudes and Democratic Stability: Analysing Legislators' Attitudes towards the Separation of Powers in Ukraine

Disagreements among the core actors of transition over the type of government and electoral system may create questions about the legitimacy of the emerging democratic government, the decision-making process, and the future of the political system. Such institutional indeterminacy about core procedures necessary for producing democracy may not only leave the transition incomplete, but also postpone any consolidation of democracy.2

A FULL AND FAIR CAPACITY Federal Courts Managing State Programs

Federal courts play a significant role in the management and execution of public programs. Judicial intervention is evident in examples ranging from prisons to mental hospitals to schools. To clarify the appropriateness of federal judicial intervention, the authors construct a so-called full and fair judicial and administrative capacity standard. Where state judicial and administrative capacities are evident, federal courts do well to refrain from exercising jurisdiction. The analysis of the authors also reflects consideration of the capacity of the federal judiciary to manage a state administrative scheme.

The separation of powers in Ukraine

Abstract This paper examines the passage of a new constitution in Ukraine in order to determine which factors contribute to the establishment of a stable separation of powers system at the national level. We focus on three types of factors: legacies of the past; the structure of institutions at key time periods; and the nature of dynamics between political groups. We find that while all of these factors play some role in the evolving institutional arrangements in Ukraine, negative legacies of the past can be overcome by the decisions of new political groups and the creation of new institutional arrangements.

Laying the foundation for institutionalisation of democratic parliaments in the newly independent states: The case of Ukraine

This article examines the institutionalisation of the Ukrainian Parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, since the fall of the Soviet Union. The emergence of a popularly elected legislature in post‐Soviet Ukraine stands as a cornerstone in the development of a democratic regime. While the Verkhovna Rada is by no means a mature parliament, the foundation for future institutionalisation has been laid through the establishment of a representative political process, nascent political parties, a separation of powers between the executive and the legislature, and the policy‐making capacity of the Parliament.

The consolidation of democracy in Ukraine

This article analyses the process of democratic consolidation in Ukraine. The ultimate stability of democracy has to do with the persistence and durability of democratic regimes over time, particularly through periods of conflict, crisis and strain. We identify a host of challenges newly constituted democracies face early in the process of consolidation which pose threats to the stability of democracy. In discussing the case of Ukraine, we elaborate on these threats and examine how Ukraine has faced many of these challenges. We discuss how the manner in which these threats are managed and resolved may contribute to the survivability of democracy in Ukraine over the long run. Finally, we identify the challenges and threats to Ukrainian democracy that still litter the road ahead.

Assessing Committee Roles in a Developing Legislature: The Case of the Ukrainian Parliament

The Ukrainian parliament consistently attracts scholarly attention as one of the developing parliaments in the Former Soviet Region that is succeeding with institutionalisation. This study assesses committee roles in the legislative process and discusses factors that are associated with strong or weak roles for committees. We bring evidence from the Ukrainian parliament to test traditionally hypothesised institutional factors in committee studies, such as roles of government and parties. To account for the difference between developed and developing legislatures, we add an attitudinal component to the analysis. The results confirm that traditionally hypothesised factors are important in assessing committee roles. However, important intervening factors such as strength and size of factions and the range of ideologies have to be taken into account to explain institutional dynamics in a developing legislature. In addition, an analysis of attitudes provides a valuable insight into the development of committee roles in a developing legislature.

Substantive and Procedural Dilemmas in Congressional Ethics

A series of highly publicized cases of ethical violations in Congress has produced a concerted reexamination of Congresss ethics processes. This article reviews the key arguments promoted by advocates for reforming Congress and examines the substantive and procedural dilemmas confronting members of Congress as they attempt to respond to calls for reform. These dilemmas are illustrated by examining a number of recent ethical cases in Congress. We conclude that the standards that Congress employs and the procedures its members use to enforce them are strongly influenced by the unique constitutional and political context of the institution. As legislators proceed in their efforts to institute new ethical standards, they will continually attempt to strike a balance between legitimate yet contradictory ethical, political, legislative, and procedural demands.