Search results

Literature seldom admits the importance of historical contingency and politics in the creation of hybrid organisations. Nevertheless, the circumstances of their creation play a pivotal role in the subsequent operation, priorities and success of these prolific organisations. Through a single case study, this paper aims to explore the connection between the multiple and concurrent crises that created London Transport and the subsequent balance of its institutional logics.

This case study uses in-depth data collection from multiple archival and public sources to offer quantitative and qualitative analysis of the priorities, logics and services offered by London Transport before and after its transition from a private to a hybrid organisation.

Providing London’s transport via a quasi-autonomous non-governmental monopoly was justified as being more efficient than competition. However, by applying accounting ratios to the archival records from London Transport, the authors find that there were few decisive efficiencies gained from amalgamation. Instead, the authors argue that the balance of institutional logics within the new, unified organisation showed a political response outwardly addressing market failure but primarily concerned with marginalising democratic control. This reality was obscured behind the rhetoric of rationality and efficiency as politically neutral justifications for creating a public service monopoly.

This paper challenges supposedly objective systems for judging the effectiveness of “hybrid” organisations and offers an alternative political and historical perspective of the reasons for their creation. The authors suggest that London Transport’s success in obscuring its enduring market-based institutional logics has wider resonance in the development of municipal capitalism.

The James Commission, it is widely asserted, will recommend the creation of a two‐year course, to be called ‘the Diploma in Higher Education’, which will be provided by existing Colleges of Education, and perhaps other institutions. If this vacuous title is finally adopted for the new qualification, we shall doubtless refer to it as the DHE.

The use of mental health treatment requirements (MHTRs) has not proven to be successful at meeting the mental health needs of the probation population in the UK, largely through underuse of the requirement or lack of available services. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

This paper investigates a method of meeting those needs without the use of MHTRs by embedding third sector services within the probation environment.

Results indicate a significant impact after a six-month follow-up in symptomology across measures of depression, anxiety, general distress and social functioning; also indicated is a significant result on recidivism, with 74 per cent of participants committing no further offences in the 12 months following treatment.

These results represent the only evaluation of embedded, third sector mental health services in a probation environment in the UK, and highlight a further need to embed specialist mental health services within the probation environment and generalise that practice to other forms of service structure and therapeutic methodology.

The 2005 APSR article by John Alford, Carolyn Funk, and John Hibbing presented data from the Virginia 30,000 Health & Lifestyle Questionnaire (VA30K), AARP twin studies, and an Australian twin study (ATR) to test their hypothesis that political attitudes are influenced by genetic as well as environmental factors. Political attitudes, they suggested, were expected to be highly heritable and particularly so on issues most correlated with personality. They employed survey responses from the Wilson–Patterson Attitude Inventory to measure political attitudes. To gauge heritability, they utilize the 2:1 genetic ratio between monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) twins. The authors argued that while previous studies in political attitudes had concentrated on measuring the influence of environmental variables, their test added explanatory power by considering heritability (Alford, Funk, & Hibbing, 2005).