Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T17:57:44.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Expertise and Comparative Politics: Reply to Feldman and Gould

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Susan Sterett
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Comments and Debate
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , Winter 1992 , pp. 101 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 1992 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Richard L. Abel & Philip S. C. Lewis, “Putting Law Back into the Sociology of Lawyers,” in id., eds., Lawyers in Society, vol. 3: Comparative Theories (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987).Google Scholar

2 See, e.g., Skocpol, Theda, “Bringing the State Back in,”in Peter Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, & Theda Skocpol, eds., Bringing the State Back in (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985).Google Scholar

3 Feldman, David & Gould, Mark, “Legalism and English Administrative Law: Comment on Sterett,” Law & Soc. Inquiry. 17 89 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Magali Sarfatti Larson, “The Production of Expertise and the Constitution of Expert Power,”in Thomas Haskell, ed., The Authority of Experts (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984).Google Scholar

5 Terence C. Halliday, Beyond Monopoly (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987); Michael Powell, From Patrician to Professional Elite (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988).Google Scholar

6 Much of that discussion or simply action goes on internally to administration in the United States as well. Suzanne Weaver, Decision to Prosecute (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1981); R. Shep Melnick, Regulation and the Courts (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1983); Terry Moe, “Interests, Institutions, and Positive Theory: The Politics of the NLRB,” 2 Stud. Am. Pol Develop. 236 (1987).Google Scholar

7 Susan Sterett, “Legality in Britain and the United States: Toward an Institutional Explanation,”Comp. Pol. Stud. (forthcoming).Google Scholar

8 Arthur Stinchcombe, Constructing Social Theories (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968).Google Scholar

9 Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] A.C. 997; Ridge v. Baldwin [1964] A.C. 40.Google Scholar

10 Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service [1984] 3 All E.R. 935.Google Scholar

11 Bromley L.B.C. v. Greater London Council [1982] 2 W.L.R. 62.Google Scholar

12 British Oxygen v. Board of Trade [1971] A.C. 610.Google Scholar

13 JUSTICE/All Souls Committee on Administrative Law in the United Kingdom, Administrative Justice: Some Necessary Reforms (Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press, 1988).Google Scholar

14 Id. at 150–57.Google Scholar

15 Harry Woolf, Protecting the Public: The New Challenge (London: Hamlyn Trust, 1990).Google Scholar

16 Theda Skocpol & Margaret Somers, “The Uses of Comparative History in Macrosocial Inquiry,” 22 Comp. Stud. Soc'y & Hist. 174 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar