Applied economist Gerald Brock discusses the merits of an emerging school of economic thought called the New Institutional Economics (NIE). The economic market depends on many important institutions and is not a simple process of individuals freely maximizing their own interests. Economic problems are complex and cannot be fully explained by any particular model, according to NIE, which also recognizes that religious beliefs and culture shape economic institutions and the operation of the economy.
Racial discrimination is no longer legal, but the legacy of racial segregation still burdens American society, as Senator Trent Lott's comments in December revealed. The challenge now is to bury that legacy with a new one we can all celebrate.
The editor examines five new books and a conference publication to find out what the ethicists and activists are saying about Christianity's public purpose and relevance today. Robert Kraynak explores a dilemma: liberal democracy needs God, but God is not a liberal. A. James Reichley agrees with the first part of Kraynak's assertion but thinks God is a liberal. J. Daryl Charles wants Evangelicals to get a conscience informed by the great natural law tradition. Dennis Hollinger offers little political guidance. And Paul Marshall shows how relevant the biblical story is for contemporary political life, both domestically and internationally.
President Bush contends that the new terrorism and threats from rogue states like Iraq require a new American strategy for survival in this world. Yet he calls, in his administration's National Security Strategy (NSS) not simply for tightened security but for a new global order of freedom to be championed by the United States, freedom's lead nation. How the U.S. deals with Iraq will exemplify the new strategy: will it look like unilateral imperialism or cooperative internationalism? The debate over America's approach to Iraq is now full-blown. Assessing the NSS has just begun. Editor James Skillen dives into the murky waters.
Alaine Gherardi goes behind the scenes to find out what the harsh disagreement between the United States and our European allies over the newly created ICC is all about. Perplexity has arisen because of a sudden shift in policy by the Bush administration. The U.S. helped to create the ICC but has now turned its back on it. Does this reflect sound American leadership in the world or a mistaken attempt to withdraw from international responsibility at the very time the president wants America to lead the world to freedom?
