The Riksdag,the state bureaucracy and the administration of hospitals in eighteenth‐century Sweden

Traditionally, the Norwegian modernization process has been presented as a success story that focuses on how social movements and democratized political institutions in the 19th and 20th centuries laid the foundations for a society and culture with an emphasis on social equality. The paper offers an alternative analysis of this process, based not on the issue of material equality and inequality, but on the concepts of normality and deviance. A comparison of the development of the Norwegian national education policy since the middle of the 19th century with the Danish and Swedish experiences involves the exclusion of the dissimilar as a distinct feature of the Norwegian policy. ‘Disability’ was constructed as a category of deviance by public policies and administrative and professional practice. The professions – particularly teachers and doctors – were important actors who offered alternative conceptions of normality and disability. However, the constructions that they selected were those that were in closest dialogue with the particular challenges confronted by the Norwegian modernisation process: first the liberal, then the social democratic construction. Because the national conditions confronting the Scandinavian modernization processes differed from each other, so did the related constructions of disability.     

American education‐the image in the mirror

Solon T. Kimball. Culture and the Educative Process: An Anthropological Perspective. New York: Teachers College Press, 1974. x + 285 pp. $10.00 (cloth).

George D. Spindler, ed. Education and Cultural Process: Toward an Anthropology of Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1974. xii + 559 pp. Tables, figures, appendixes and indexes. $6.95 (paper).     

The Reagan “Mandate,” Public Law and the Ethics of Policy Change

The development of post-election polling techniques makes it possible to examine the nature of electoral mandates more precisely, and therefore to compare them with the mandate claims of winners. On that basis, we can more accurately assess the limits of the “administrative presidency” in individual cases. This article first summarizes the evidence regarding the 1980 Reagan mandate, and then proceeds to describe prominent cases in which his administration tried (with uneven success) to reverse or greatly re-orient purported statutory intent. Finally, it sketches some propositions regarding the appropriate limits of policy change in the absence of changes in organic statutes, and evaluates the cases discussed in light of these propositions, suggesting that a legitimate part of executive discretion revolves around how to reach statutory goals but not whether to pursue them. It concludes that the limits of what has to be permissible for effective operation of the system are probably broader than critics of any particular president's policy positions may prefer to see.