尽管立法,但不执行:利普斯基的街头官僚主义理论和1909年《孟加拉消费税法》和1985年《麻醉药品和精神药物法》的某些程序性刑事规定

S. Biswas
{"title":"尽管立法,但不执行:利普斯基的街头官僚主义理论和1909年《孟加拉消费税法》和1985年《麻醉药品和精神药物法》的某些程序性刑事规定","authors":"S. Biswas","doi":"10.11114/ijlpa.v4i1.5106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Public policies are reflected in the public domain more by how laws are implemented on the ground than by what their legislative content is. The departures from legislative intent are often scripted by the non-legislative actors at the cutting edge level in public organizations and people outside of the reference frame are often at their wits’ end as to why such departures take place at all. This essay takes up two Indian laws—one provincial and the other federal—and relying upon Michael Lipsky’s theory of street level bureaucracy, seeks to explore why two critical provisions thereof remained mostly unimplemented right since their legislation. Why do the street level bureaucrats mostly intend to depart from the avowed intent? Do they really stand to gain in such a scenario of non-implementation? If so, how? These questions are discussed in an expanded way in regard to the Bengal Excise Act, 1909 and the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.","PeriodicalId":231433,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law and Public Administration","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Non-Implementation Despite Legislation: Lipsky’s Theory of Street-Level Bureaucracy and Certain Procedural Criminal Provisions of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909 and the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985\",\"authors\":\"S. Biswas\",\"doi\":\"10.11114/ijlpa.v4i1.5106\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Public policies are reflected in the public domain more by how laws are implemented on the ground than by what their legislative content is. The departures from legislative intent are often scripted by the non-legislative actors at the cutting edge level in public organizations and people outside of the reference frame are often at their wits’ end as to why such departures take place at all. This essay takes up two Indian laws—one provincial and the other federal—and relying upon Michael Lipsky’s theory of street level bureaucracy, seeks to explore why two critical provisions thereof remained mostly unimplemented right since their legislation. Why do the street level bureaucrats mostly intend to depart from the avowed intent? Do they really stand to gain in such a scenario of non-implementation? If so, how? These questions are discussed in an expanded way in regard to the Bengal Excise Act, 1909 and the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.\",\"PeriodicalId\":231433,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Law and Public Administration\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Law and Public Administration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11114/ijlpa.v4i1.5106\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Law and Public Administration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11114/ijlpa.v4i1.5106","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

公共政策在公共领域的反映更多地是通过法律在当地的实施方式,而不是通过其立法内容。背离立法意图往往是由公共组织中处于最前沿的非立法行为者编写的,而参考框架之外的人往往对为什么会发生这种背离束手无策。本文以两部印度法律为例——一部是省级的,另一部是联邦的——并依靠迈克尔·利普斯基的街头官僚主义理论,试图探索为什么其中的两个关键条款自立法以来一直没有得到实施。为什么基层官僚大多打算背离公开的意图?在这种不执行的情况下,他们真的会获益吗?如果有,怎么做?这些问题在1909年的《孟加拉消费税法》和1985年的《麻醉药品和精神药物法》中得到了广泛的讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Non-Implementation Despite Legislation: Lipsky’s Theory of Street-Level Bureaucracy and Certain Procedural Criminal Provisions of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909 and the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Public policies are reflected in the public domain more by how laws are implemented on the ground than by what their legislative content is. The departures from legislative intent are often scripted by the non-legislative actors at the cutting edge level in public organizations and people outside of the reference frame are often at their wits’ end as to why such departures take place at all. This essay takes up two Indian laws—one provincial and the other federal—and relying upon Michael Lipsky’s theory of street level bureaucracy, seeks to explore why two critical provisions thereof remained mostly unimplemented right since their legislation. Why do the street level bureaucrats mostly intend to depart from the avowed intent? Do they really stand to gain in such a scenario of non-implementation? If so, how? These questions are discussed in an expanded way in regard to the Bengal Excise Act, 1909 and the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信