Existing research finds that increases in administrative burden reduce client access, political efficacy, and equity. However, extant literature has yet to investigate how administrative burden policies are interpreted by street-level bureaucrats (SLB), whose values and beliefs structure uses of discretion and client experiences of programs. In this article, we utilize quantitative and qualitative data to examine SLB policy preferences regarding administrative burden in Oklahoma's Promise—a means-tested college access program. Our findings demonstrate that SLB in our sample interpret administrative burden policies through the lens of political ideology. Conservative SLB express significantly more support for administrative burden policies, arguing that these policies prevent fraud and demonstrate client deservingness. In contrast, predominantly liberal SLB justify opposition to administrative burden by arguing that the requirements undermine social equity. Together, our findings reveal that SLB political ideology shapes interpretations of administrative burden and perceptions of client deservingness in Oklahoma's Promise.

No description available.

No description available.

Morocco occupies an unrivalled position in North Africa. It faces both the Atlantic and the Mediterranean and thus dominates the Strait of Gibraltar, the gate into the Mediterranean, end, thus, ultimately, into the Red Sen. and the Indian Ocean.. The area of Morocco.is about 172,104 sq. miles, or about 20,000 sq. miles larger than California. The basic population is Berber, or pre-Arab, but has been Arabized to varying degrees. All population figures for North Africa are estimates because no accurate census of the Moslem population has been made. However, the approximate figure is bine million. According to the Etude demographics et social, "It would be fruitless to give for the Moslem population a picture similar to that for the non-Moslem population. The registration for birth and death has been very incomplete."

The Obama Administration’s Pivot to Asia policy was a grand shift in focus for U.S. foreign policy and sought to lay the foundation of U.S. policy in the region for the future. This paper derives three fundamental assumptions that the Pivot policy was based upon, from the articulations of the main architects of the Pivot Policy: former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former National Security Advisor Tom Donilon. These assumptions are as follows, pivoting to the Asia-Pacific will be beneficial to the U.S., engagement with China is central to the Pivot policy and the policy is not an effort to contain China, and finally the draw down in the Middle East will happen and the Pivot policy cannot happen without this draw down. Then, this paper assesses whether they were realistic to presume. It is found that the foundation of the Pivot policy was sound, but certain actions by they Obama Administration undermined these assumptions and overall hurt the effectiveness of the Pivot policy.

Should U.S. political decision-makers decide to wage a moral war, it is not as easy a merely saying go do it. To ensure moral targeting decisions, American national political leaders must suffer the costs of monitoring in terms of time and money, and provide not only detailed direction, but also constant oversight to ensure objectives are clear and subordinates carry out directions. Military officers must ensure that their motivations align with those of their principals, and they must ensure that constraining doctrine for planning and executing combat operations is followed. Having satisfied these variables, moral targeting decisions, wherein proportionality of non-combatant casualties is weighed against target necessity, should then be easily attainable. The process of aligning motivations with respect to desired outcomes, and the process of planning strategies according to doctrine together lead to moral targeting decisions. By following the processes of getting war plans approved according to published U.S. doctrine, a deliberate dialogue is followed with direction and feedback through several steps of planning and approval that result in multiple people working on a product that results in a sort of corporate buy- in. I posit that it is difficult to follow this process and end up with targeting decisions that do not weigh harm to non-combatants against the necessity of individual targets, especially when principals and agents come together to deliberately ensure they align their motivations with respect to objectives. This theory is applicable to U.S. involvement in war, but is not necessarily generalizable to other countries. Through case studies of American involvement in Desert Storm (the first Gulf War), Operation Allied Force (NATOs air war over Serbia), and the U.S. War on Terror (campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq), I find that only in the War on Terror were moral targeting decisions consistently made by US national leaders. Furthermore, that was the only case study wherein both constraining doctrine was present and principal-agent motivations were aligned with respect to objectives. The other two cases showed that the variables were not followed and proportionality- necessity decisions were not made.

No description available.

This paper explores the historical development of the Baghdad Railway in the context of international affairs during the decline of the Ottoman Empire. Viewed from the perspectives of businessmen and diplomats, the Railway was an expensive venture with considerable economic and strategic potential. This report provides an overview of the Railway project amid growing apprehension in Europe and Great Britain about German designs. / text

Thesis (doctoral)--Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden, 1983. / Summary in Dutch. Includes bibliographical references (p. 389-404).

No description available.