A contrast is often drawn between ethics and expediency in politics; however the contrast might be overdrawn. We can hold firmly to the classical notion that politicians should steer society according to some higher values, while retaining the notion of democratic accountability, just so long as electors see the same stars as political leaders do and are as keen to follow them. There are grounds for thinking that this may well be so, either for broadly utilitarian reasons or for basically idealistic ones.

Government is about the supply and demand for many goods and services, but votes or social needs are the principal signal meant to give direction to public policy. Many neo-liberal economists contest this, arguing that charges or user-fees are more efficient for allocating services. Empirical analysis shows that in principle it would be possible to impose charges on three-quarters of the goods and services financed by government. Although some charges are imposed on a wide variety of public programmes, overall governments reject marketing what is marketable. Theoretical inconsistencies in government's use of charges indicate that they reflect political inertia. The conclusion offers an analytic paradigm for interpreting charges, since an accurate interpretation of the signals sent by charges depends upon attributes specific to a given public programme.

The signals of the American legislative process cannot be understood simply by focusing on the formal and technical processes of legislative drafting. Rather, it is important to appreciate the political and institutional dynamics which affect how and to whom signals are sent, and why some signals emerging from the legislative process are clearer than others. Legislative policymaking often does not conform to the textbook ideal of deliberation and clarity. By the way that legislation is drafted, through the use of legislative history and various materials, legislators send signals to agencies, courts, their colleagues and interest groups. How bills are drafted - tight or loose - gives institutions more or less authority to make policy. Accounting for the sometimes absence of clear direction in legislation in the American system, and the consequences of that absence for agencies and courts, raises questions in a comparative context about how the structure of government affects the signals of the legislative process.

This paper analyses the reactions of a government faced with an unpredictable and unexpected crisis with possible catastrophic long-term effects: the AIDS epidemic in the United Kingdom in the 1980s. First, the AIDS epidemic is defined as a case study of government forced to cope with uncertainty, moral ambiguity and the knowledge that there are no solutions, only ways of limiting the damage. Second, it examines the evolution of policy of British ministers, who initially preferred to ignore evidence of AIDS but were forced to act by signals threatening a popular backlash. They did so by creating a programme of action based on the advice and values of the medical profession and public health experts. The conclusion argues that this kind of policy response may be generalisable. When societies are faced with problems that do not appear to be soluble but which may imperil social cohesion they seek to create an elite consensus to treat them as technical matters, so insulating the policy process from possible disruptive populist pressures.

Auditing and Evaluation are two strategies which governments may use to ascertain if existing policies and programs are being administered as they ought. They provide critical information by which to determine the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of government action and are the basis for holding accountable those responsible for the government policies and programs. The analysis compares the strengths and weaknesses of auditing and evaluation as means of monitoring accountability. Three types of accountability are discussed. Auditing makes its strongest contributing to managerial accountability through a focus on fiscal or regulatory issues.

An analytical perspective for grasping how welfare states relate to the ordinary life-pursuits of their population and how the latter relates to the welfare state is needed. What welfare states do is distinguished into social administration, social education, social reform, and social steering. Steering reaches furthest into people's lives. As such it is problematic both to integrative and aggregative theories of democracy; it can also include the possibility of calling forth more signals from the population than less ambitious democratic policies. A systematic overview of aggregate Swedish household data the major activities of households provides a basis for analysing how the population is affected by and affects the welfare state. The state appears as an important provider of work, housing, childcare, and leisure; the most effective signals from households to the state come forward when public provision and subsidy have created tight markets. From the household perspective, signals to government through individual action of various sorts, direct or mediated, appear crucial even in very organized Sweden.