264 Reviews/Comptes rendus
Alternative Federal Budget Papers 1997
by Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and
CHOICES: A Coalition for Social Justice. Ottawa:
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 1997.
Pp. 403. $19.95.
In this book the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, together with CHOICES: A Coalition for
Social Justice, present an alternative budget to the
federal government budget for the fiscal year 199798. It is the third exercise of this nature coordinated
by this group. The project took several months and
involved, among others, representatives from labour,
education, church, health care, farm, environmental, Aboriginal, student and women’s groups. It was
financed primarily by the Canadian Labour Congress
and its affiliates. Organizations supplying additional
funding included the Canadian Association of University Teachers and the Confederation des syndicats
nationaux.
The budget prepared in the exercise challenges
the current government’s course in fiscal and monetary policy. It proposes to reverse the trend in
downsizing government and calls for a more active
government role in economic and social affairs to
promote full employment, eradicate poverty, reduce
inequality, protect civil and other rights (including
labour rights), and ensure strong programs in health
care, education and the social safety net. At the same
time it proposes to raise taxes paid by high income
groups, corporations and banks and make other tax
changes to more equitably distribute the burden of
the cost of government.
The cost of the programs proposed in the alternative budget is estimated at $25.9 billion over the
1997-98 and 1998-99 fiscal years. It is estimated
that 70 percent of the required revenue would be
generated by a rapidly growing economy, stimulated
by the fiscal and monetary policies proposed in the
budget. The remaining revenue would be raised
through selective tax measures and improved tax
collection methods. The tax measures include a
wealth transfer tax, an excess profits tax on banks
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
and other financial institutions, limitations to corporate business deductions, additional tax brackets
on high incomes, reduction of RRSP deductibility
and a carbon tax.
The budget proposes a shift in monetary policy
to further reduce short-term interest rates and keep
them low. It urges the Bank of Canada to absorb a
greater share of the public debt which, it argues,
would reduce debt charges and contribute to a reduction in the deficit.
In spite of the large increase in program spending contained in the alternative budget, the budget
deficit is projected at $16.6 billion in 1997-98, falling to $9.6 billion in the following year and to $2.1
billion by the year 2000-01, which is not significantly different from Finance Minister Paul Martin’s
projections in his 1997-98 budget.
The alternative budget is presented in the first
part of the book. The other sections include a detailed explanation of the proposed policies, an edited transcript of a round-table discussion by several economists on the issue of job creation, background papers for the budget, and papers on selective issues including pensions, taxation and the current economic situation. The book lists 164 individuals who have endorsed this alternative budget,
including economists, political scientists, sociologists, public administrators, social workers, philosophers and historians.
The authors acknowledge that “guardians of economic orthodoxy” have dismissed their alternative
budgets as unrealistic. Their stated objectives, however, are that readers will begin to more aggressively
question current government fiscal, monetary, and
budgetary policies and mobilize forces to bring pressure on the government to change its course.
Many readers may not agree with the agenda of
this group, the course of action contained in the alternative budget, its underlying philosophy, specific
policies and economic projections. The book,
VOL . XXIV , NO . 2 1998
Reviews/Comptes rendus
265
however, does contain many ideas and a range of
policy options deserving objective assessment by
government decisionmakers and academics.
J.C. STRICK, Department of Economics, University
of Windsor
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – A NALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
VOL. XXIV, NO. 2 1998
266 Reviews/Comptes rendus
Health Care Policy in Contemporary America
edited by Alan I. Marcus and Hamilton Cravens.
University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press 1997. Pp. viii, 156. $15.95US.
pense of losses incurred by others. Economic limits
imposed an increasingly Malthusian tone on public
policy discussions, especially those in the health
care arena.
That you cannot always tell a book by its cover —
or its title — is exemplified in this volume of essays on health care policy issues by historians of
science and technology. The term “health care
policy” readily conjures up images in North America
of governments increasingly grappling with issues
of cost, access and the quality of health care. Yet,
this volume of historical essays on a wide range of
health-care-related topics — including breast cancer and AIDS activism, the regulation of saccharin,
mental health deinstitutionalization, unionization
and health care insurance, medical eugenics and
genetics, health fraud, and the self-help recovery
movement in mental health — affords the reader a
subtle yet important opportunity to reflect on the
lessons of social history for contemporary health
care policy debates. The fact that the book was previously published as a special issue of the Journal
of Policy History may help to resolve this apparent
conflict between title and content.
A correlate of these two implications is perhaps
the most important contribution of this volume to
discourse on public policy in general and health care
policy in particular: that policy reflects cultural values and is, indeed, a creation — for better or for
worse — of prevailing social values and assumptions regarding the appropriate roles of government,
the individual, and society as a whole. Indeed, extending the argument made by the authors of this
volume, the development of public policy depends
on the central role of values and normative processes both in defining the nature of compelling social “problems” and in establishing the array of “solutions” available to address them.
What are the connections between these extremely varied topics, rooted in social historical
analysis and present-day health care policy debates?
First, as stated in the book’s introduction, the essays draw attention to the importance of historical
perspective on health care matters: “What historians can do is trace differences. They can document
changes in perception and reality ... They provide
perspective” (p. 2). One of the major patterns that
emerges in this set of historical analyses is the shift
in health care policy toward a focus on the individual: “Beginning in the 1950s there emerged a
subtle yet critical reconceptualization as the individual rather than the group began to figure prominently as the central policy-planning unit” (p. 2).
Secondly, and in a related development, a sense of
the resource limits imposed on public policies began to emerge, creating a zero sum game in which
the gains made by one individual came at the exCANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
This insight should come as no surprise to observers of US and Canadian health care policy debates. In the US, individualistic values have prevented the formulation of a more coherent national
health care policy, and powerful quantitative projections routinely generate dire predictions of resource shortages and economic catastrophe created
by “runaway” health care costs. In contrast, north
of the border a stronger Canadian emphasis on collectivism rather than individualism has created a
universal health care system, albeit one that is now
under pressure to contain costs as the federal government increasingly turns over health care policy
responsibility to the provinces. In spite of these cost
pressures, however, there has not emerged the crisis rhetoric more common in the US, due in part to
the historically strong Canadian sense of the power
of political will to solve emerging social problems.
The collected essays in this volume illuminate
interesting historical facts and facets of how health
and health care have been defined, shaped and addressed — including the role of social forces, movements, accidents, special interests and historical
trends. As is typical of many edited volumes, the
VOL . XXIV , NO . 2 1998
Reviews/Comptes rendus
quality of the essays is a bit uneven, and there is no
uniform conceptual framework provided to pull
them together. A summary of the implications of
each contribution to the emerging theme of the overall book would have made it easier for the reader to
appreciate the analysis the authors had in mind.
Nevertheless, these essays provide an important set
of insights into how current social norms, forces and
institutions define the problems to be addressed by
policy processes and how they respond to — and, in
267
turn, are shaped by — prevailing definitions of
health and health care. Taken together, they help us
to realize that the current debates over health care
policy are the children and grandchildren of the dilemmas, debates and discussions of our ancestors
in the public policy arena.
PHILLIP G. CLARK, Program in Gerontology and the
Rhode Island Geriatric Education Center, The University of Rhode Island
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – A NALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
VOL. XXIV, NO. 2 1998
268 Reviews/Comptes rendus
Lone Parent Incomes and Social Policy
Outcomes: Canada in International Perspective
by Terrance Hunsley. Kingston, ON: School of
Policy Studies, Queen’s University, 1997. Pp. viii,
121.
Welfare state good; free market bad. This aphorism
is a fair summary of Terrance Hunsley’s views regarding the remedy to the plight of lone parent families in modern industrial nations. Countries with
“advanced social policies,” that is to say, countries
that have greater redistribution of income, more
generous social programs and active affirmative
policies promoting gender equality, have been more
successful in alleviating the problems faced by lone
parent families. Canada, with less-than-advanced
social policies, has failed to respond adequately to
the dilemma of lone parents, according to Hunsley.
This monograph will be of interest to a fairly wide
audience of academics, social policy theorists, social activists and journalists. It presents a range of
interesting and useful comparative data relevant to
the situation of lone parents in about ten nations with
similar attributes. In particular, Hunsley constructs
hypothetical lone parent “cases” and examines the
outcomes (in terms of subsidies and final incomes)
in each case for each of the comparator nations. This
exercise could be profitably employed in other social policy reports.
come) as a poverty line. Using this purely relative
gauge, Canada, Australia and the United States are
shown to have the highest poverty rates. This is no
surprise since the other countries in the reference
group (especially Sweden, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Germany and France) are more aggressively
redistributionist than Canada. The reader might
fairly ask: Is relative poverty all that matters? Isn’t
it useful to compare the percentages of each population not able to cover basic needs? Isn’t it possible that someone below the relative cut-off in Canada
might have a higher living standard than someone
above the line in another country with a more compressed distribution of income? Why is relative ranking more important than actual standards of living?
None of these questions are answered. Those readers who see any distinction at all between poverty
and inequality will be disappointed with Hunsley’s
near obsession with inequality. An additional
question to ponder: Why aren’t the inequality measures “age-adjusted” in order to factor out possible
demographically caused differences in inequality?
However, the case in favour of the central thesis,
that lone parents in Canada are worse off than those
in the modern welfare states of Europe, is weak.
There are important gaps in the evidence and the
information that is presented does not strongly support the hypothesis.
In the one comparison of the actual final income
of model units (a “real” social policy outcome),
Canada fares very well — much better, on average,
than such vaunted welfare states as Sweden, The
Netherlands, Denmark and France. (However, even
there, the comparison is flawed by omitting cost information — rental accommodation, for example —
in the various cities. In other words, Canadian social
programs do a better job covering the basic needs
of lone parents and provide them with a higher standard of living than most other countries. Hunsley
downplays this important result. For him, what is
important is that other countries do a better job of
improving the relative position of their lone parents.
The major but by no means only problem is the
exclusive use of inequality measures and the failure
to acknowledge the importance of “real” indicators
of living standards. For example, when comparing
the post-transfer “poverty” rates of lone parents
across the reference countries, Hunsley uses the
well-known LIS measure (50 percent of median in-
Some other points are worthy of mention.
Hunsley is insufficiently critical of the data he uses.
As we know, income data from any one country is
flawed due to under-reporting, in-kind transfers and
underground activities. International comparisons
would involve additional complications. As well,
Hunsley might have reminded the reader that real-
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
VOL . XXIV , NO . 2 1998
Reviews/Comptes rendus
ity is a very imperfect indicator of social policy
outcomes. We can never know what would have happened in the absence of this or that policy, especially in the long run. More generous policies may
reduce inequality and improve other current measures but may have an adverse impact on self-esteem
and work effort. Recipients may end up worse off
than had there been a less generous policy and we
may have, in fact, higher inequality in the long run.
Finally, Hunsley’s incorrect use of the term
“deconstruction” and his claim that two incomes in
a family are now a necessity for an adequate standard of living (a popular myth) detract somewhat from
the effort.
269
On the positive side, his analysis of current social assistance programs (discouraging formal, reported earnings and encouraging informal, unreported income sources as well as distorting behaviour away from part-time employment) and his emphasis on the importance of cooperative, mutual aid
arrangements provide very useful advice to social
policy planners.
C HRISTOPHER S ARLO , Department of Economics,
Nipissing University
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – A NALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
VOL. XXIV, NO. 2 1998
270 Reviews/Comptes rendus
Busting Bureaucracy to Reclaim Our Schools
by Stephen B. Lawton and Joseph Freedman,
Heather-jane Robertson. Montreal: The Institute for
Research on Public Policy, 1995. Pp. 158.
In this fourth IRPP monograph on education,
Stephen Lawton argues that charter schools are a
way to escape the bureaucratic bondage that imprisons Canadian schools. Heather-jane Robertson takes
him to task for the analysis and Joe Freedman suggests that Lawton did not go far enough on the “How
do we get it done” issue. In a short concluding chapter, Lawton responds to the two discussants of his
essay.
This is a lively, interesting exchange. Facts, findings and data are referred to, wild charges are made
and ultimately Lawton acknowledges being a bit
harsh on unions. While some issues are laid out, I
am not sure that on the basis of the discussion, readers will be more able to judge, as series editor
Stephen T. Easton suggests in his introduction,
whether we should move toward reform and change
or stick with the status quo. The real issue in fact
may be the exact nature and type of reform needed.
In his provocative essay Lawton states at the outset that most people only accept major change in
the face of impending disaster or crisis. This raises
the question “If you believe this is true, might that
predispose you to overstate your case?” Lawton
outlines the nature of the disaster/crisis concerning
Canadian education.
As Lawton sees it, the school system is not effective — dropout rates are too high, youth leave
school with inadequate literacy and numeracy skills,
school violence is a problem and Canadian students
have poor achievement scores compared to students
in other industrial countries. Nor is it efficient —
the number of students per teacher in Canada has
declined but the cost per pupil has escalated greatly,
while other nations spend less but get better results.
The management and governance of schools has
been captured by an educational bureaucracy servCANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
ing its own interests and dominated by so many
rules, rights, rigidities and constraints that improvements to the quality of education are unlikely, if not
impossible. This educational bureaucracy operates
with a personalistic or relativistic idea of ethics and
morality which, at the end of the day, amounts to a
bland, weak commitment to shallow sets of universal values and objectives. It definitely does not serve
parents who want their children to know the discipline of a firm moral code. Finally, Lawton sees the
system as unaffordable in terms of total provincial
and federal debt. Our fiscal crisis (Canada as bankrupt, broke) forces us to change but the real crisis is
a moral one about an education system that does
not involve parental control, family values and the
intense commitment that these parents and families
have to sets of beliefs and practices.
Lawton’s solution follows directly from his analyses of the crises. If schools are fundamentally moral
orders, then why not have groups of parents contract directly with teachers about what and how to
teach their children? These charter schools would
reflect the unique values and objectives of their organizing groups or communities, including instructional practices and achievement goals. Governments could ensure that common societal interests
were included within school charters. Lawton reviews the charter or contract experience and structures in New Zealand and the United States and
while it is too early for thorough evaluation results,
feels that governments have barred aspects of education that many want — religious orientation, firm
standards in values and learning. Restructuring principles are suggested: parents must be able to ensure
education is compatible with their family’s values;
bureaucratic oversight limited to steering, not rowing; governments have minimal “common good”
requirements; no monopolies; community control
and governance; accountability and full deregulation of higher education. In a concluding section of
the initial essay, implementation is covered by brief,
general suggestions under the headings changing
schools, funding, teaching and government.
VOL . XXIV , NO . 2 1998
Reviews/Comptes rendus
Heather-jane Robertson disputes the disaster/
crisis interpretation of education. She points out,
quite correctly, that Canadian high school dropout
rates have dropped and much of the premature
school leaving has more to do with social background or non-school factors than with school effectiveness. Robertson also notes that if the aged,
foreign-born and disabled are removed from the literacy analysis, the high illiteracy interpretation is
not sustainable. Similarly, the cost of education figures are placed within a broader social context which
leads to a different interpretation than an expensive,
unaffordable and wasteful system. Robertson then
notes the considerable amount of public support that
exists for schools, a fact acknowledged earlier by
Lawton and evident in the recent Ontario teachers
strike. With so much support, how can the disaster/
crisis interpretation or the questioning of the integrity and legitimacy of the overall education system,
be sustained?
Unfortunately, Robertson does not leave well
enough alone and proceeds to attack Lawton’s motives. His purpose is described as ideological, neoconservative, smoke and mirrors, marketplace politics. School choice receives a fairly scathing commentary. Robertson suggests it is a blatant attempt
to enshrine privilege and advantage.
Joe Freedman, on the other hand, loves Lawton’s
analysis so much that he wishes it had gone further
into how to get it done, that is, to discuss the implementation of charter schools. Freedman throws Alberta into the charter-school movement. He also discusses barriers to implementation from officials,
educational leaders, parents and teachers. Finally,
Lawton is lauded and a key implementation strategy
is advocated — simply bypass, not assault, the public education monopoly colossus.
In his response, Lawton dismisses the strong
empirical component of Robertson’s commentary
because she offers no reform solutions. Presumably,
discussants were asked to comment on Lawton’s
271
essay and not to write their own essay analyzing the
state of public education and outlining improvements, which in hindsight might have been a good
idea. Lawton instead focuses on the weak ideological agenda charge by quoting a few passages from
Genesis and again raising the issue of our moral and
ethical heritage.
As a researcher I must admit that it is hard to
sort out ethical and moral issues or to discriminate
between different political or ideological agendas.
Several times in the monograph authors noted the
absence of data on the issue they were addressing
but pressed on with their analysis or commentary
nevertheless. Stephen Lawton feels that the absence
of good dropout and achievement data means that
something is being hidden and there is a fearful resistance to change. Lawton and Robertson both acknowledge that we do not have the data to evaluate
the payoffs from investments in education.
Robertson indicates that Alberta Education has
stated there is no evidence that charter schools are
more effective than regular schools; that it is too
early to tell what will happen to student achievement as a result of American school-choice experiments or to know why there is some evidence in New
Zealand of negative consequences and as yet no evidence of improvement. Presumably, there is also no
research evidence relating to the social reproduction of the class structure, which Robertson suggests
is behind the charter-school movement. And what
evidence would be required to document which
schools or systems served all children, their communities and democracy, that is, benefit us all?
It is on the research questions that the IRPP can
make a substantial contribution. In the pursuit of its
mission the IRPP can undertake independent research, disseminate results and encourage non-partisan discussion. The discussion in this monograph
was lively, interesting and a bit too partisan.
SID GILBERT, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Guelph
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – A NALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
VOL. XXIV, NO. 2 1998
272 Reviews/Comptes rendus
Teacher Activism in the 1990s
edited by Susan Robertson and Harry Smaller. Toronto, ON: James Lorimer & Company, 1996. Pp. xi,
218. $19.95.
Of the nine chapters in this book five deal with the
Canadian scene and four offer limited international
perspectives. Most follow a similar format: a description of unacceptable government actions followed by teacher (read: teacher union) reaction. The
basis of protest throughout the book is established
in the opening chapter by Larry Kuehn:
Globalization and diminished government gets
translated into cuts in spending on public education. Cuts to service and falling quality get further translated into privatization of education, as
those who can afford it invest in better chances
for their children. Privatized, two-tier education
destroys an essential function of public school
— preparation for all to be active participants in
a democratic society.
For those who have read Barlow and Robertson
(1994), the argument is familiar. Of course, there is
much evidence that North American educational practice does little to reinforce democratic social principles (Apple 1993; McLaren 1989). Yet, the idea of a
public education system is potentially democratic; the
idea of a private one is not. Privatization and schoolbusiness partnerships are upon us, and the threat this
poses to public education and democracy garners little
press.
Perhaps the most intriguing chapter in the book
is by Francis Fowler. She articulates three types of
unions (pp. 192-193): unions as bargaining agents,
as social partners with employing agencies, and as
political bodies which understand their work as
largely political. While other chapters attempt to
portray teachers’ unions as more than bargaining
agents, with measured success, unions do not emerge
as possessors of a social vision. However, Fowler
describes an umbrella French teachers’ union —
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
Fédération de l’Education Nationale (FEN) that
differs from those in North America. The FEN describes itself as a “humanistic trade union,” whose
central goal is the emancipation of all men and
women. She quotes a 1991 article by the SecretaryGeneral of the FEN (p. 195): “Trade unions must
make demands, but those demands have no meaning unless they are part of a vision of society with a
moral meaning which is based upon certain values.”
I suggest that a union with a clearly articulated social vision would garner more public support than
one that deals largely with the working circumstances of its members.
It is easy to read the book as a series of stories of
large unions opposing big government. Yet amid
these stories there is much that should stimulate
public debate. What are the consequences of corporate intrusion into public education? How does globalization threaten democracy. Why does the public accept the need for government fiscal restraint
when the economy seems vibrant and many large
corporations are making record profits? Why are we
(in Canada, at least) so willing to believe government explanations of public problems and
marginalize the perspectives of organized labour and
other interest groups?
The book might more appropriately have been
titled “Teacher (Re)activism in the 1990s.” In this
sense, many could argue that it is about teacher conservatism, rather than teacher activism. But this is
unfair, for it assumes that teachers will oppose anything that alters their circumstances, without offering critical analysis of government policy. The authors of this volume attempt to do just that.
REFERENCES
Apple, M.W. (1993), Official Knowledge: Democratic
Education in a Conservative Age (New York:
Routledge).
VOL . XXIV , NO . 2 1998
Reviews/Comptes rendus
273
Barlow, M. and H.-J. Robertson (1994), Class Warfare:
The Assault on Canada’s Schools (Toronto: Key Porter Books).
McLaren, P. (1989), Life in Schools: An Introduction to
Critical Pedagogy in the Foundations of Education
(Toronto: Irwin Publishing).
D AVID MAC K INNON, School of Education, Acadia
University
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – A NALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
VOL. XXIV, NO. 2 1998
274 Reviews/Comptes rendus
God in the Classroom: The Controversial Issue
of Religion in Canada’s Schools
by Lois Sweet. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart,
1997. Pp. xv, 272. $29.99
Should Canadians fund religious schools? Lois
Sweet poses this vexing question with a focus on
Ontario, where the provincial government supports
schools for Roman Catholics. The courts have repeatedly rejected pleas from Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus to fund their schools, but
have ruled that the province may fund such schools
if it so wishes. As a consequence, the issue has been
pushed from the legal realm to the political arena,
where it is comprehended less in religious terms than
in light of two potent currents in educational politics. One current is the “choice” movement for
schools to respond more readily to the various curricular wants of parents. The other is the
multicultural insistence on cultural equity and the
need to inject more diversity into our classrooms.
But these politics offer few easy solutions to the
question of religion since, as Sweet recognizes, one
can justify under the banners of choice and
multiculturalism either a single, all-inclusive public system or a myriad of separate schools. Canadians have some hard thinking to do, and this book
will assist them.
Sweet has done her homework, producing a work
that is well-researched, balanced, and insightful. She
begins with a detailed history of religion in Canadian schools, and then confronts the contemporary
scene by interviewing and observing students, teachers, administrators, and activists in numerous
schools throughout Canada (and in The Netherlands). Certainly no one can accuse Sweet of penning a polemic. Pondering her experiences, she
struggles with the issues, and is often pulled in different directions.
Her final verdict, running against the grain of
most commentators, is that Canadians ought to ac-
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
commodate the demands of religious groups. Sweet
recommends two things. First, all public schools
should teach, in a secular fashion, religious studies,
ensuring that students attain a modicum level of “religious literacy.” Second, Ontario ought to follow
the lead of Alberta and The Netherlands by funding
a series of religious alternative schools that remain
part of a local public school board. Her reasoning is
rooted in a compromise between competing values.
While wanting Ontario schools to be integrating,
cosmopolitan institutions that promote critical thinking and tolerance, she fears that continuing to relegate religion to the private sector may trigger a
growth of illiberal parochial schools that are unaccountable to the public. Further, Sweet argues, religious thought is integral to the spiritual lives of many
Canadians and is a primary wellspring of world culture, and thus ought to be part of any education. And
since religion undergirds many of Canada’s minority cultures, she sees a need for religious schools in
order to preserve those cultures.
Reading this important book will thoroughly alert
educators and policymakers to the pros and cons of
separate schooling, and may inspire some to rethink
the practical meaning of “diversity” in education.
My only complaint is that Sweet at times embraces
a breathless “multicultural talk” that substitutes
pieties and emotional exhortations for cool-headed
analysis. For instance, when applauding the ideal
of a multicultural education, too often she equates
exposure to classmates from an assortment of ethnic ancestries with exposure to intellectual variety.
Multicultural education may have its symbolic
value, but as yet is not known for philosophical
openness or rigour. But stylistic concerns aside, this
book should be read by all Canadians with an interest in how public schools should adapt to our changing times.
SCOTT DAVIES, Department of Sociology, McMaster
University
VOL . XXIV , NO . 2 1998