Labeling theory and community care of the mentally ill in California: the relationship of social theory and ideology to public policy

The practical merit of a labeling theory approach to mental illness is examined and assessed through an exploration of its application in terms of public policy, i.e., community mental health policy in the state of California since 1968. Primary focus is placed on the impact of the deinstitutionalization of mental health services in that state, and the release of former mental patients into the community. Similarities in the fundamental ideological underpinnings of labeling theory, an associated conspiratorial model of mental illness, and contemporary California mental health policy, are presented and examples of policy input by labeling theorists and researchers are detailed. The impact of the California policy on the mentally ill is generally negatively assessed in terms of three major criteria: (1) rehabilitation; (2) reintegration; and (3) quality and continuity of care. The "translation" of several theoretical misconceptions regarding mental illness, caused by putting labeling theory into official policy, is suggested to lie at the root of many of the policy's implementation problems. The uses of social science theory and research are discussed, and caution is advised in the translation and application of social scientific theory and research to public policy proposals and programs.     

Collusion via Resale

The English auction is susceptible to tacit collusion when post‐auction interbidder resale is allowed. We show this by constructing equilibria where, with positive probability, one bidder wins the auction without any competition and divides the spoils by optimally reselling the good to the other bidders. These equilibria interim Pareto‐dominate (among bidders) the standard value‐bidding equilibrium without requiring the bidders to make any commitment on bidding behavior or postbidding spoil division.     

Innovation and Crisis in Organizational Analysis*

The study of organizations has been guided by a paradigm consisting of interrelated theoretical, methodological, and practical commitments. Theoretically, a problematic of rational structuring has dominated the field. This has been coupled with positivist methodology and a practical commitment to administrative problem-solving. The paradigm has fallen into crisis as a consequence of work on several analytical problems—action, power, levels, and process. Work on the action problem emphasizes the grounding of organizational patterns in the interactions and practices of people. Patterns are also seen in recent work as the expression of power relationships. The levels problem involves the analysis of interpenetration and interdependence between distinct sectors or layers of social structure. The concern with process involves the continuous transformation of organizational patterns. The central issue growing out of the work on these analytical problems is how to handle theoretically the production and reproduction of organizational patterns.     

Unemployment,Youth Homelessness and the Allocation of Family Responsibility

The following discussion concerns two issues relating to what is usually called youth homelessness. The first concerns the accommodation expectations for 15 to 17 year olds to reside at their parent's home, which is encouraged by the existing government's policies, and the non-indexation of the unemployment benefit for single 16 and 17 year olds. Assumptions about family responsibility are also discussed and linked with assumptions about family dependency. The second concerns the establishing of a minimum data base from which the quantification of the number of homeless youth can begin. Additional data available, however, suggests that the numbers of young people who might be expected to experience difficulty finding accommodation is much higher than first thought.