Search results

The US central government enactment of the 1866 Post Roads Act preempted state and municipal telegraph franchise entry barriers. Like present-day telecommunication companies, local franchise regulations were an entry barrier to US telegraph companies. These pre-1866 state and municipal telegraph laws were barriers of both entry and trade between states. Barriers that would of reduced the benefits of a common market if the barriers had not been preempted by the 1866 Post Roads Act. I document what laws were preempted by the 1866 Post Roads Act, explain how these laws increased entry barriers, provide evidence that preemption was enforced, and use two counterfactuals to calculate rough estimates of the decrease in entry costs from enforcement of the act.

A “state-driven” approach suggests that colonists use census categories to rule. However, a “society-driven” approach suggests that this state-driven perspective confers too much power upon states. A third approach views census-taking and official categorization as a product of state–society interaction that depends upon: (a) the population's lay categories, (b) information intellectuals' ability to take up and transform these lay categories, and (c) the balance of power between social and state actors. We evaluate the above positions by analyzing official records, key texts, travelogues, and statistical memoirs from three key periods in India: Indus Valley civilization through classical Gupta rule (ca. 3300 BCE–700 CE), the “medieval” period (ca. 700–1700 CE), and East India Company (EIC) rule (1757–1857 CE), using historical narrative. We show that information gathering early in the first period was society driven; however, over time, a strong interactive pattern emerged. Scribes (information intellectuals) increased their social status and power (thus, shifting the balance of power) by drawing on caste categories (lay categories) and incorporating them into official information gathering. This intensification of interactive information gathering allowed the Mughals, the EIC, and finally British direct rule officials to collect large quantities of information. Our evidence thus suggests that the intensification of state–society interactions over time laid the groundwork for the success of the direct rule British censuses. It also suggests that any transformative effect of these censuses lay in this interactive pattern, not in the strength of the British colonial state.

This chapter proposes a framework explaining the evolution of property rights in land, assuming two unequal groups of actors: elites possessing means of violence and nonelite land cultivators. It then shows that all intermediary groups – those acting between the chief violence holders (i.e., rulers) and cultivators – are in effect (greater or lesser rulers and cultivators). Using this framework, this chapter explains most of the developments in the evolution of land rights in 19th century colonial Bengal. The proposed theoretical framework explains how different, hierarchically arrayed claims over land and the resulting allocation of rights was a function of asymmetries in power and information between three groups: rulers, direct cultivators, and intermediaries without their own coercive means. It explains inter alia why private property in land was not likely to emerge in this configuration, and that the (non-private) property rights of the other two groups wouldn't attain stability as long as rulers perceived an information asymmetry. In such a situation, land rights would attain neither “private,” nor “public” character.

This study aims to test the effect of a falsely balanced message (i.e. exposure to two opposing arguments) on perceived expert consensus about an interrogation practice.

Participants (N = 254) read a statement about minimization tactics and were assigned randomly to one of four conditions, where true expert consensus about the tactic was either presented as high or low, and a balanced message (i.e. read two opposing arguments about the factual nature of the tactic) was present or absent.

Results showed that exposure to balanced messages led to less perceived expert consensus; especially when true expert consensus about the tactic was high. Exposure to balanced messages also reduced public support for experts testifying about the interrogation tactic.

Such findings suggest that pairing expert knowledge (i.e. empirical evidence) about investigative interviewing issues with denials might be powerful enough to override scientific beliefs about important matters in this field.

Researchers in the field of investigative interviewing have put much effort into developing evidence-based interviewing practices and debunking misconceptions on the field. While knowledge mobilization is particularly important in this consequential, applied domain, there are some individuals who aim to hinder the advancement and reform of investigative interviewing. Falsely balancing scientific findings (e.g. minimization tactics imply leniency) with denials is but one of many practices that can distort the public’s perception of expert consensus on an issue. It is crucial for investigative interviewing researchers to recognize such strategies and develop ways to combat science denialism.

The records surrounding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) have been subject to unique treatment in their management and opening. The John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (JFK Records Act) mandated that the records would be opened in full by 2017, unless there was intervention from the sitting president. This study aims to examine the extent to which access to the JFK assassination records has been granted. It evaluates how open the archive is, and the consequences of withholding government records. It examines how the continued non-disclosure of this archive has helped to fuel the controversy and conspiracy theories surrounding Kennedy’s death.

This research was approached as traditional historical document analysis, reviewing the JFK assassination records releases from 2017–2018 and the broader landscape of access to information in America. A random sampling of the open and redacted records was used to undertake a statistical analysis on the amount of information that has been withheld. It was supplemented with freedom of information requests intended to reveal further information on the approach taken to redaction. The work was situated within a broader global literature review.

The research identified the limits to access to the JFK assassination records that exist because of the continued postponement and redaction of information by US federal government agencies. It found that the ambiguous language used for exemptions in the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the JFK Records Act has allowed agencies the freedom to interpret and limit access to information if they desired. Furthermore, agencies have had the power to hold and sanitise their own records. The work identifies how these approaches have caused questions, inconsistences, a lack of transparency and accountability in the US government. The lack of centralised processes and related explanations can be seen to fuel further controversies and conspiracies.

Using a systematic research methodology, this work presents a careful analysis of the varying processes and their implications for understanding of the events that surrounded Kennedy’s assassination. Lessons learnt can be applied to the general management of freedom of information and access to information.

This paper examines the state’s accountability to its citizens, in particular the First Peoples of settler colonial nations such as Australia, and how these responsibilities may be enacted via a process of compensatory justice in Native Title claims. We focus on the landmark Timber Creek ruling and the impacts of racialized preconceptions on the accountability outcomes of the case.

This study draws on critical race theory to reveal embedded racialised perspectives that perpetuate exclusion and discriminatory outcomes. Court documents including hearing transcripts, case judgements, witness statements, appellant and respondent submissions, expert reports and responses from First Nations leaders, form the basis of our analysis.

The case highlights how the compensation awarded to Native Title holders was based on racialised assumptions that prioritised neoliberal values, commercial activities and reaching a “socially acceptable” judgement over valuing Aboriginal uses of land. A critical analysis of court documents reveals the pervasiveness of presumed “objectivity” in the use of accounting tools to calculate economic value and the accountability implications of a process based on litigation, not negotiation. These findings reveal the hiding places offered by calculative practices that equate neoliberal priorities with accountability and reaffirm the importance of alternative accountings to resist inequitable distributive outcomes.

Novel insights, drawing on First Nations peoples’ connections to land and their perspectives on accountability and justice, are offered in this study. Our analysis of Native Title holders’ submissions to the courts alongside historical and anthropological sources leads to the conclusion that compensation decisions regarding Native Title land must be approached from the perspective of Aboriginal landowners if accountable outcomes are to be achieved.