1-3 of 3 Results  for:

  • Keywords: autonomy and control x
Clear all


Koen Verhoest, Sandra van Thiel, and Steven F. De Vadder

Agencification is the creation of semi-autonomous agencies: organizations charged with public tasks like policy implementation, regulation, and public service delivery, operating at arm’s length from the government. Although not a new development, agencification became very popular from the 1980s on as part of the New Public Management reforms. Three types of agencies can be distinguished, based predominantly on their formal legal features. Type 1 agencies have some managerial autonomy but do not have their own legal identity separate from the state or their parent ministry. Type 2 agencies are organizations and bodies with managerial autonomy that have their own legal identity separate from the state or their parent ministry. Type 3 organizations have their own legal identity vested in, and defined by, private law and are established by, or on behalf of, the government in the form of a private law corporation, company, or a foundation, but they are predominantly controlled by government and are at least partially involved in executing public tasks. Specific characteristics of agencies differ between countries and findings show few systematic patterns: similar tasks are charged to different types of agencies. A crucial element in the functioning of agencies is the formal and de facto interplay of autonomy and control, and how this can be explained in a static and dynamic way. Studies about agencification list three main categories of its effects: economic, organizational, and political effects. However, there is still a lot that needs to be studied about agencification, its forms, and its effects.


Mohammed H. Abdulla and Edward J. Johns

A potential role for the renal innervation was first described in 1859 by Claude Bernard, who observed an increase in urine flow following section of the greater splanchnic nerve, which included the renal nerves. Subsequent studies provided little further clarity, leading Homer Smith in 1951 to declare that the renal innervation had little or no significance in controlling kidney hemodynamic or excretory function. However, since the 1960s, there has been increased attention to how the renal nerves may contribute to the deranged control of blood pressure and heart function cardiovascular diseases. The efferent (sympathetic) nerves have neuroeffector junctions which provide close contact with all vascular and tubular elements of the kidney. Activation of the sympathetic nerves at the resistance vessels, that is, the interlobular arteries afferent and even arterioles, modulates both renal blood flow and glomerular filtration rate; at the juxtaglomerular granular cells, they cause renin release and subsequent angiotensin II generation, and at the tubules there is a neurally stimulated increase in epithelial cell sodium transport. Less is known of the role of the afferent nerves, which primarily innervate the renal pelvis, and to a lesser degree the cortex and medulla. Their role is uncertain but sensory information passing to the brain can influence renal efferent nerve activity, forming the basis of both inhibitory and excitatory reno-renal reflexes. Increasingly, it is perceived that in a range of cardiovascular diseases such as cardiac failure, chronic renal disease, and hypertension, there is an inappropriate sympatho-excitation related to alterations in afferent renal nerve activity, which exacerbates the disease progression. The importance of the renal innervation in these disease processes has been emphasized in clinical studies where renal denervation in humans has been found to reduce blood pressure in resistant hypertensive patients and to ameliorate the progression of cardiac and kidney diseases, diabetes, and obesity and hypertension. The importance of both systemic and renal inflammatory responses in activating the neurohumoral control of the kidney is a continuing source of investigation.


Brahm Norwich and George Koutsouris

Inclusive education has become a prominent international ideal and value in educational policies and practices. It is a seemingly simple concept about opportunities, equality, and solidarity that has wide global appeal. However, inclusion as applied to education connects with various social and political values that have been contested over many decades. One issue that underlies inclusion as a value is whether it represents a single coherent value or multiple values that can come into tension leading to dilemmas that need to be resolved. This issue is often overlooked in considerations about inclusive education but does affect various key issues about differentiation in the design of curricula and assessment, the location of provision, and how difference is identified and labeled and about participation in the social interaction between students who are different. This is an issue that needs to be addressed.