Search results

The purpose of this paper, which follows an earlier paper published in this journal, is to explore the shape and nature of plural policing through the lens of New Right ideology. It aims to reinforce the understanding that policy is driven by both neoliberalism and neoconservatism, not simply the former. In policy terms, it uses the vehicle of a faith-based initiative – the Street Pastors – to consider how the strategic line of plural policing may be shifting.

The research that informs this paper spans 2012 to the present day incorporating a multi-method evaluation, an ongoing observation with informal interviews, and two e-mail surveys directed at university students in Plymouth and Cardiff. In addition, the authors carried out a critical analysis of a research report produced by van Steden and a documentary analysis of national newspaper reports of Street Pastor activities.

In a previous paper, the authors provided evidence to support the contention of Jones and Lister (2015) that there has been a shift in the landscape of plural policing. The Street Pastors initiative is a movement from “policing by the state” towards “policing from below”. The authors suggest here that there may be evidence to speculate that another shift might occur from “policing from below” to “policing through the state”. Ultimately, the authors contend, such shifts reflect and serve the dominance of New Right ideology in social and public policy.

The research limitations of this paper are twofold. First, the surveys had very small sample sizes and so the results should be treated with caution. The authors have underlined this in detail where necessary. Second, it is informed by a series of related though discrete research activities. However, the authors regard this as a strength also, as the findings are consistent across the range. The implications relate to the way in which policy designed to encourage partnership might lead to off-loading public responsibilities on the one hand, while allowing co-option on the other hand.

The practical implications are indivisible from the social implications in the authors’ view. The neoliberal and neoconservative dimensions of the current dominant ideology are using local initiatives to save public money and reify disciplinary features of social and public policy.

The originality of this research relates to the way it was conducted, drawing together the products of discrete but related activities. It adds to the growing research landscape involving the Street Pastors, an important faith-based, publicly backed initiative. But more importantly, it underlines how the two dimensions of New Right ideology come together in practice. The example of the Street Pastors indicates, through the lens of plural policing, how voluntary and local initiatives are being used to refocus the priorities of social and public policy.

The purpose of this paper is to review the book, Why America's Top Pundits Are Wrong: Anthropologists Talk Back.

The author, himself an anthropologist, evaluates how a group of anthropologists responds to popular right‐of‐center pundits.

Why America's Top Pundits Are Wrong: Anthropologists Talk Back is just as instructive for what it reveals about the current condition of anthropology – and, for that matter, left academia – as for what it says about the lack of anthropological sophistication in popular books that purport to tell us what is right or wrong with the world and where it is heading. Freighted with postmodernism, the influence of Michel Foucault in particular, present‐day anthropology makes assumptions not unlike those of the Straussians of the far right. Thus, our left‐of‐center anthropologists have trouble locating what is so objectionable about reactionary conservatism and, at the same time, difficulties in assessing social conditions, both at home and abroad. The author ends with sketching an anthropology that would pay more attention to the psychological and environmental costs of globalization.

Notes that the 12 contributions dispense with academic jargon and try to reestablish a public presence for anthropology – a format which may reach a wider public.

This study aims to make the reader aware of recent changes in the white supremacist movement and how such changes have altered the ways in which the movement can be combatted.

The authors study the movement in two periods: from 1970 to 2005 and from 2006 onward. The authors contrast the two periods and discuss the legal and financial issues within each.

The authors find that while legal concepts such as vicarious liability and respondeat superior apply today just as they did before, new tools are needed to fight the new means of financing the movement.

The main limitation of this study is the lack of quantitative data. Because the “alt-right” became popular around 2015, there has not been enough time for the construction of detailed data sets.

While many law papers have explored the white supremacist movement, the financing side has gone under-analyzed in scholarly research. This is important in light of the rise of the internet, online payment processors, cryptocurrencies and remote organizing and fundraising.

The 2017 Charlottesville rally was organized and financed via podcasts, online forums, encrypted chats and anonymous payments. Since then, the movement has mostly gone underground and has become more violent and radical as many members have come to believe that marches and politics do not help them.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there are no papers in finance that deal extensively with this topic. The authors believe that the severity of the issue and the importance of its funding make this study a valuable source of information. The recent changes occurring within the movement are likely to become even more critical to its success or failure in the future.

This paper briefly discussed the emergence and evolution of evangelical capitalism. It contrasts it with traditional American capitalism. In addition, the paper identifies some risks of evangelical capitalism in the marketplace.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how the COVID-19 pandemic has been managed in Brazil, especially at the Federal Administrative level, with the focus being on the implications for human rights and public health in the country.

The research is built on a qualitative design made up of a case-study and review of the literature and is based on inductive reasoning.

Main conclusions were that: by not making sufficient efforts to safeguard the lives of Brazilians or to strengthen public health institutions amid the pandemic, Bolsonaro’s Administration may be violating the rights to life and health, among others, by omission; it was demonstrated that the President has worked unceasingly to bulldoze anti-COVID-19 efforts, which can be better explained through the concepts of necropolitics and neoliberal authoritarianism.

One of the limitations to this research is that this paper was not able to discuss more thoroughly which other human rights norms and principles (apart from the right to health, life and the duty to protect vulnerable populations) have possibly been violated amid the COVID-19 pandemic in the country. Overall, this research can help expand the literature on human rights in health management during and after emergency times.

This paper focuses on recent events and on urgent matters that need to be addressed immediately in Brazil. This study provides an innovative health policy/human rights analysis to build an academic account of the ongoing pandemic in the largest country in South America.

This paper contextualizes the political/economic environment in which Toronto attempted to implement community‐based policing. The analysis examines two specific restructuring projects, the Robbery Reduction Initiative and Central Field Command’s implementation of Crime Management. These projects reveal the service’s use of community policing as both a vehicle for and philosophy by which to underpin structural and operational reform. Moreover, they are clear examples of the manner in which reform initiatives, and particularly the imperative to implement community policing, were woven together in an effort to operationalize an effective policing model.

Digest of Education Statistics. 1962— . A. $7.00/U.S.; $8.75/foreign. Published by U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statis‐tics, 400 Maryland Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20202. Available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Indexed: ASI. S/N 065–000–00037–7. Su‐Docs ED 1.113: Depository Item No. 460‐A‐10. Following a pattern of collecting statistics on education which began under the direction of the U.S. Office of Education in 1870, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has issued the Digest of Education Statistics (DES) annually since 1962, except for when it published a combined edition in 1977–78.

Roots of global Terrorism are in ‘failed’ states carved out of multiracial empires after World Wars I and II in name of ‘national self‐determination’. Both sides in the Cold War competed to exploit the process of disintegration with armed and covert interventions. In effect, they were colluding at the expense of the ‘liberated’ peoples. The ‘Vietnam Trauma’ prevented effective action against the resulting terrorist buildup and blowback until 9/11. As those vultures come home to roost, the war broadens to en vision overdue but coercive reforms to the postwar system of nation states, first in the Middle East. Mirages of Vietnam blur the vision; can the sole Superpower finish the job before fiscal and/or imperial overstretch implode it?