Why Suppose? Let's Find Out: A Public Policy Research Program on Dispute Resolution
This paper argues for a research program examining control over dispute system design and models of mediation to determine how to best structure mediation in court-connected programs.
Employment dispute resolution: The case for mediation
Employment dispute resolution (EDR) addresses conflict arising out of a continuing or terminated employment relationship. Typical cases include complaints of discrimination under state and federal equal employment opportunity (EEO) law; wrongful discharge under state law; whistle-blower retaliation; workers’ compensation; wage and hour violations; occupational safety disputes; breach of contract; alleged violations of administrative policies on performance evaluation, supervision, or assignment of duties; communication problems in the chain of command; and similar matters. These claims are often outside the scope of a collective bargaining agreement. In the employer context, programs may exist in a nonunion workplace, or they may coexist with a union grievance procedure (Lipsky, Seeber, and Fincher, 2003). However, there are also programs offered by administrative agencies and courts for resolving employment disputes. Whether employer based or third party, programs may offer a variety of interventions, including an ombuds, early neutral assessment, fact finding, peer panels, mediation, or arbitration, or some combination of these. Research on and evaluation of EDR has been influenced by the extensive literature on voice and grievance systems (Bies, 1987; Folger, 1977; Greenberg, 1996; Lewicki, Weiss, and Lewin, 1992; Lewin, 1987, 1999; Sheppard, Lewicki, and Minton, 1992; Sitkin and Bies, 1993), labor grievance mediation and arbitration in collective bargaining (Dunlop and Zack, 1997; Zack, 1997; Feuille, 1995; Ury, Brett, and Goldberg, 1989), negotiation and dispute resolution (Carnevale and Pruitt, 1992; Wall and Lynn, 1993), procedural justice (Lind and Tyler, 1988; Lind and others, 1990; Lind, Kulik, Ambrose, and de Vera Park, 1993; Tyler, 1988), and dispute system design (Costantino and Merchant, 1996; Slaikeu and Hasson, 1998; Ury, Brett, and Goldberg, 1989). This review is limited to field and
Fiscal Transparency in EU Accession Countries Progress and Future Challenges
This paper discusses the findings of fiscal transparency reports on standards and codes (ROSCs) for most EU accession candidate countries. Emphasis is given to the need to establish effective and accountable medium-term budget frameworks to establish policy credibility and anchor adjustment programs to meet EU fiscal goals. Adoption of budgeting and accounting standards consistent with the IMF Government Finance Statistics Manual 2001 framework will also help link budget decisions to EU standards of fiscal reporting. More consistent and comprehensive coverage of off-budget activities is needed for assessing fiscal risk and sustainability. Finally, local government issues need to be addressed by many of these countries since EU fiscal goals are set with reference to general government. Progress in all of these areas can be monitored by keeping fiscal ROSC assessments up to date.