Summary#3

The article “Government is different” is written by Paul Appleby. The article is about the difference of government.

In the first topic author analyses the government differences. He gives example that a good lawyer does not mean that he is a good judge. Moreover, function of a judge is different from functions of a lawyer. According to the author looking at the “temperament” and “attitude” of a judge, we cannot fully understand the judicial system of a country and its function. Because, it is asserted that courts and judges are necessary to make the judicial system. The main idea is that from judge we expect the important attitude. In sum, it is seen as effective judiciary. The main point that author makes that the government has the same system. It is claimed that government is a system, which includes “public employees”, “attitudes of the public” and “public servants”. Furthermore, government is a combination of the bureaucracy. The main idea of the author that judges have different qualifications from other government officials, and their function is also different.

In the second topic author talks about the “significance of attitudes”. The main idea of the author that government is “organized action”. The officials who are in the top position of government should act; make decisions in order to get functions done. It is conducted, that executives who are business concerned fail the government. Patriotism and zeal are important for government. According to the author person is appointed to the top position in order to secure and support the government.

The third topic is about how business is looked in the sphere of government. It is claimed that government is needed in the society for the promotion and protection of public interest. Author gives an example from his life that he has met businessmen who did not know the difference between government and business. The main idea of the author that business is focused on making own profit. Moreover, business sees the government as the “public interest”.  

There is an example from the New York Herald-Tribune (1934) that the banks offered Roosevelt to encourage him “on their behalf”. Here, author gives this example in order to prove that businessmen expect profit from government and support government on their behalf.

In last topic, author gives the “essential characteristics of government”.  According to the author “government attitude and function” are consisted from the three aspects, which makes government different: “ breadth in scope, impact, consideration”; “public accountability”; “political character”.  The main difference of government is that every employee who is hiring or discharging, every letter, conversation should be planned and thought through public investigation. Moreover, employee who can be discharged can become enemy for government, that’s why such public investigation is needed. In business-discharged employee just will be discredited.  According to the author government executives’ lives and moves have the force, moreover their action have influence on circumstances.   Furthermore, the main difference of government is “public nature”. It is asserted that a politician can become a president.  However, president should have economic, business, research understanding. He should be sociologist, scientist. The main point here is that he should have broad understanding on every sphere. The important idea of author: government is different because it is involved in politics.                        

2^nd article

The article “Exploring the determinants of decisions to privatize state prisons” is written by Norma M.Riccucci. The article about privatizing prisons and jails.

According to the author “in the beginning of the middle 1980s the privatization of jails and prisons” started spreading in the US. Moreover, there not just private and state facilities have developed, but private firms have interested in privatizing prisons, building new jails and renovating old ones. Privatizing prisons were like industry, which sharply have been grown. Furthermore, privatization of prisons has had opportunity to make changes in policy and prisons through management, it has been seen as “profit making”. However, it is asserted that “incarceration” has been taken place, but it was also function of making profit.

The main idea of the author whether privatization of prisons “cost saving” or not, and why some states prefer privatization, and others not.

In the fist topic “Trends in prison privatization”, author asserts that after the establishment of Percy amendment by US congress in 1972 privatization of prisons have confirmed as legal. Since, most states of US started privatizing prisons such as Texas (1983), Florida Tennessee (1985). Nowadays, in 30 states 151 private prisons work.  It is claimed by author that in the past ten years the ability of privatizing prisons grew from 20,000 to 143,000. 

In the second topic author tries to identify whether privatized prisons can save costs or not. The research shows that the privatization of prisons can save costs, because it is asserted that private firms have opportunity to build the cheap prisons, which can operate efficiently. The reason for that is competition, that’s why private companies can provide possible costs. However, other researches show that private sector cannot provide cost saving, and sometimes private facilities can be more expensive that public ones. Another research argues that we can’t measure the exact cost of prison. Moreover, according to this study we cannot compare the efficiency of private or public prisons.

In the third topic “Potential Determinants of Decisions to privatize” author gives reasons which are claimed by hypothesis why some state governments prefer privatizing prisons, and others not.

According to the author, there are two different ways of hypothesizes one of them is related to the “fiscal concerns”, while the second one is concerned on the “politics” and “ideology”.

Author gives four hypothesizes which are related to the fiscal concerns.

Hypothesis#1 claims that states prefer privatization of prisons, which have “high correction expenditures” rather than lower ones. According to the Greenwood, 20 years ago prison costs was consisted 1%-2% of the state budget, later it was increased to 8%-10%. Moreover, Greenwood claims that government worried about increasing costs. It is asserted by others that for government privatization of prisons was solution in order to avoid from the sharp raising prison costs.

According to the Hypothesis#2, states with lower fiscal capacity prefer privatization of prisons.

Hypothesis#3 claims states with lower tax effort does not want to privatize the prisons, while states with higher tax effort prefer the opposite decision (privatization of prisons).

Hypothesis#4 asserts that states, which have lower per capita income, are for the privatizing prisons with comparison higher ones.

Other hypothesizes are concerned on “ideology” and “politics”.

Hypothesis#5 asserts that states, which are strongly “lobbied” by private prison firms, actually, are for the privatization.

Hypothesis#6 claims that “labor relation law” plays important role, because states with strong labor relation law support the privatization of prisons.

Hypothesis#7 conducts that states with Democrat-controlled legislatures do not prefer privatizing, while states with Republican-controlled legislatures encourage privatization.

According to Hypothesis#8 states with Republican governors encourage the privatizing prisons with comparison Democrat governors.

Hypotheisis#9 asserts that states, which are based on conservative ideology, support the privatization process, rather than liberal ones.

Hypothesis#10 claims that the political culture with conservative ideology is in the side of the privatization, the liberal ideology is not.

There were done some researches based on data of 1990, it was collected from different sources “state budgets”, “US census”, “National conference of state legislatures”, “the Bureau of labor statistics” etc. The aim of making researches was to identify why some states prefer privatization of prisons and others are not, and they are claimed by hypothesizes.