Accountability in the UK Public Sector

Accountability in the UK Public Sector To what extent has the public sector become more or less accountable as a  result of the changes since 1980s in the way in which the public sector is  organised and managed? The following will discuss whether the public sector has become more or less accountable as a result of changes in its organisation and management since the 1980s. There have been at face value some profound changes to the public sector since the 1980s yet whether those changes have had a great impact on the public sectors accountability, or have been merely cosmetic changes will be examined below. As will be outlined below, the public sector was greatly affected by privatisation, de-regularisation, or greater central government scrutiny, as well as changes in the ways in which it was organised and managed. The differences and similarities in the methods in which both Conservative and Labour governments have wanted to change the way the public sector is organised and managed has been critical for the levels of accountability within the various parts of the public sector. The public sector accounts for a major share of the economy, the majority of government spending, alongside the bulk of the provision of public goods and services to the majority of the British population. The public sector had a tradition of not being readily accountable to the people it supposedly served, even though it could be held to account by government ministers and Parliament (Comfort, 1993 p. 491). The public sector was widely seen as being provider-centred rather than citizen-centred, an attitude, that still persists even if the emphasis of public sector organisation and management has changed (Watmore, 2005 p. 32). Since the 1980s, the aim of successive governments was to make the civil service as efficient as it is politically impartial. Central government would also focus its attention on local councils, which were responsible for a quarter of public sector spending and service provision. Councils were also accountable to the electorate, facing local elections every yea r besides being accountable to central government their performance and reliant on central funding. However, local councils have the ability to raise their own revenue from local taxation which is crucial for their organisation and management, whilst causing conflict or debates with central government. Ultimately, local councils would believe that their accountability to central government takes precedence to their accountability to the local electorate. After all, central government can abolish any council it wants, as Margaret Thatcher did (Savage and Atkinson, 2001 p.17). In 1979, the public sector was larger in size and scope than at present. The public sector did not just comprise of government departments, the civil service, or the services provided by central and local government. The public sector also included nationalised industries such as the railways, coal and steel, as well as ailing private sector firms such as British Leyland that were nationalised to keep people employed and factories open. Margaret Thatcher came to power with the intention of radically altering Britain’s economy and society, alterations that reshaped the public sector. Thus, changing the organisation and management of those parts of the public sector that unlike British Telecommunications that could not be quickly privatised, or those parts that unlike the coal industry were not left to go into extinction. The Thatcher government’s adoption of neo-liberal monetarist economic policies was intended to change the ethos and management of the public sector almo st as much it was intended to change the private sector (Fisher, Denver Benyon, 2003 pp 7 –8). Thatcherism could not dismantle the public sector, nor could it reverse the welfare state. However, the parts of the public that could not be privatised were opened to internal markets to make their organisation and management more efficient, if not more accountable (Jenkins, Independent, 2 April 1987). The enterprises that left the public sector became less accountable to the general public through Parliament, although their organisation and management became more accountable to their new shareholders. By the time the Conservatives left office in 1997, public owned enterprises produced only 2 % of gross domestic product. That compares to 12% in 1979 (Bannock, Baxter Davis, 2003 p. 309). The remnants of the public sector would become more accountable by spending budgets more effectively, reducing waste and error whilst cutting unnecessary expenditure. Government departments were set more stringent budgets, whilst both Conservative and New Labour governments have set performance stan dards for the public sector to achieve to improve efficiency if not directly increasing or decreasing accountability. The Conservatives wished to make high spending councils more submissive to central government and were rate capped if they refused to curtail their spending. Organisation and management had to be changed to avert the punishment from Westminster rather than being more accountable to the public (Coxall, Robbins Leach, 2003, p. 43). Local government was probably the segment of the public sector that has had its accountability increase the most since the 1980s. Higher unemployment and the perceived unpopularity of cutting spending on the NHS meant that welfare spending could not be cut as much as Thatcher had intended. On the other hand, the Conservatives were able to maintain tight control of local government. Funding was reduced or made conditional on working â€Å"with other public and private agencies† (Stoker, 1999 p. 1). Conversely, whilst elected local authorities were made more accountable to central government, more functions were being transferred to unelected bodies known as quangos. These quangos were spending  £ 40 billion of public money annually by 1996 with little or no accountability compared to local government or central government departments (Fisher, Denver Benyon, 2003 p. 263). Councils lost some of their greatest capital assets with the increased sales of councils during the 1980s . Thatcher had promoted these sales to increase the number of homeowners and reduce the size of the public sector without much concern about the dwindling supply of affordable housing for the poorest members of society. Conservative success in promoting home ownership through selling off council houses was shown by the 15 % increase between 1979 and 1997 (Coxall, Robbins Leach, 2003 p. 42). Councils were made more accountable for the way the remaining council houses were organised and managed, even though they had far less control of budgets, sales of council housing, and the proceeds of those sales than ever before. The Conservatives were also keen in promoting the transfer of council housing to social landlords and housing associations. Since 1997, New Labour has not tried to reverse any of those transfers of housing stock back into the public sector. In fact, New Labour has tried to expand joint public and private schemes in its efforts to increase service provision and efficiency rather than accountability (Fisher, Denver Benyon, 2003 p. 272). Accountability within the public sector for the way it is organised and managed has increased since the 1980s due to the increase in inspection and intervention from central government. The Conservatives were as enthusiastic about inspecting schools, councils and hospitals as they about greater consumer or citizen choice, market approaches and selling off what public sector assets they could. Whilst individual schools and hospitals were given greater opportunities for self-management, they were also faced with meeting performance targets, and more frequent inspections. Not only did the government want greater accountability; Parliament increased its ability to scrutinise government departments and the public sector through the expansion of the select committee system. These committees have been able to uncover much that both Conservative and New Labour government ministers would have liked to have left unknown, whilst gaining greater information from the public sector. Ministers have wanted more information from public sector management when going before select committees, increasing the pressure for public sector organisation and management to be fully accountable to the minister (Coxall, Robbins Leach, 2003 p. 245). New Labour has extended the roles and remits of inspectorates such as Ofsted, the Audit Commission and the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate. All these inspectorates have increased the accountability of public sector organisation and management, often in its attempts to meet or exceed government targets (Seldon Kavanagh, 2005 p. 77). New Labour put most of its inspectorates together under the auspices of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department of Work and Pensions to assess local councils under the Comprehensive Performance Assessment scheme, to make them accountable for their failings or to praise them for their successes. Poor performing councils can face greater levels of inspection whilst the best performing councils can have the ir inspections reduced. The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate has had considerable success in making Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit more effective and councils more accountable (DWP, 2003 pp. 38-9). The 1980s not only witnessed the growth of inspection and scrutiny, it also witnessed the emergence of New Public Management to make public sector administrators more efficient by forcing them to work along private sector lines rather than more traditional public sector ones. Operating along the principles of the market economy did not make public sector organisation and management more accountable, hence the increasing use of inspectorates and nation wide performance standards (Davis, 2005 p. 11). Advances in IT have provided the basis for the public sector to improve its organisation and management, and allow for the collection of greater levels of management information for its various scrutinisers. Of course, more advanced IT allows the public sector to become citizen focused and offers the possibility of decentralised decision-making and even online benefit claims or queries from the general public. Improved IT and technology can raise the public expectation of better services. The NHS for instance has to ration new treatments that everybody wants as it has a limited budget. Accountability has to be amended to adapt to changing circumstances and technologies. New Labour has attempted to make both private and public sector companies and organisations more accountable for the electronic data they hold through the Freedom of Information Act and Data Protection Act (Watmore, 2005 p.33). The government has another motivation for developing better IT within the public sector, it can reduce the infrastructure, resources, and staff needed to provide public services. Better management of resources has allowed the Treasury to gain  £6 billion a year between 1999 and 2004 from the disposal of public sector assets. Gordon Brown also believes that greater efficiency means that 84,000 civil servants were no longer needed, a decision that provoked anger from public sector trade unions (Davies, 2005 p.11; Simpson, 2005 p. 14). Therefore, it can be successfully argued that public sector organisation and management has become increasingly accountable since the 1980s. The Thatcher and Major governments made the public sector more accountable, or at least the parts of it that could not be privatised. Thatcher’s changes were not primarily concerned with promoting accountability, that was just a consequence of her aim of reducing the public sector, curtailing trade union power and increasing control over local councils. The Major government did introduce the Citizens Charter to make public service providers more accountable to the public. New Labour has continued the trend of increasing the accountability of public sector organisation and management, although more for reasons of efficiency than any ideological attack on the public sector. The public sector has become increasingly accountable to central government, although its accountability to the general public is less obvious despite legislation such a s the Data Protection Act, which gives the public greater rights to information and making complaints. The culture within the public sector has also changed to some extent from being provider-centred to being citizen-centred. Bibliography Bannock G, Baxter R E Davis E, (2003) The Penguin Dictionary of Economics 7th edition, Penguin, London Comfort N (1993) Brewer’s Politics, a phrase and fable dictionary, Cassell, London Coxall B, Robbins L Leach R, (2003) Contemporary British Politics 4th edition, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke Davies W, Is efficient government necessarily good government? Public Service Director, January 2005, A GovNet Communication, London Department for Work and Pensions (2003) – Departmental Report 2003, The Stationary Office, London Fisher J, Denver D Benyon J, (2003) Central Debates in British Politics, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow Jenkins P, â€Å"Waking Up From the Long Communist Nightmare†, Independent, 2 April 1987 Savage S P and Atkinson R, (2001) Public Policy under Blair, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke Seldon A Kavanagh D, (2005) The Blair Effect 2001-5, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Simpson J, ‘Selling Britain by the pound’, Public Service Director, January 2005, A GovNet Communication, London Stoker G, (1999) The New Management of British Local Governance, Macmillan, Basingstoke Watmore I, ‘Using IT to transform Government’, Public Service Director, January 2005, A GovNet Communication, London

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Essay

Due Process of the law, a legal principle, is a guaranteed right that was provided to us by the Constitution and it simply means we have protections. These rights that are guaranteed to us are â€Å"life, liberty and property without a chance to defend them†; some also believe that we also have the right to a â€Å"pursuit of happiness†. (Bill of Rights). When we think about Due Process we need to think fair process or fair procedures. This practice is known as Procedural Due Process. â€Å"Standing by itself, the phrase â€Å"due process† would seem to refer solely and simply to procedure, to process in court, and therefore to be so limited that â€Å"due process of the law† would be what the legislative branch enacted to be† (Heritage.org/constitution) . The Fifth Amendment states that we have the right to due process. Which if you are accused of a crime it means that the accusers must show fair and reasonable circumstances. Due process means that you have the rights to show cause and be taken to court swiftly. This process is called an arraignment. This right is one of the guarantees of the Fifth Amendment. The Constitution clearly defined and separated federal and state powers. The Constitution also provides the protection of individual rights which include but are not limited to a trial by jury if it is a criminal case. Because of the fifth and the fourteenth amendment we have certain guaranteed due process of law simply means that we have protection against a chance deprivation of life, liberty or property. The fourteenth amendment is the actual key that opens the door for the federal government to make sure that the states laws are lining up with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Clause In other words and basically means â€Å"fundamental fairness†.(Constitution and the Bill of Rights). The definition of fairness is the condition of being just and impartial. That is what is alluded to and a guaranteed of the federal and state laws and is inclusive. In 1787 a United States Constitution was drafted with a system of checks and balances by the creation of the executive, legislative and federal judicial branches of government. The Framers of the Constitution did not consider it a necessity to include a specific right in the bill of rights. At first when the Bill of Rights was put together it was not inclusive of  all people. Especially, people of color remembering they were slaves and owned by the framers of the Constitution. It wasn’t until the Civil War was won by the North was the Bill of Rights and the Constitution revised and amendments were added. The thirteenth amendment was the one that made sure that there was no longer slavery. By the end of the eighteenth century, citizens felt that a written constitution was an absolute must. The Constitution was not inclusive of certain rights. â€Å"There was an absence of specific guarantees of individual rights such as the right to free speech, freedom of religion, due process of law, and freedom from governmental search and seizure.† (Legal Dictionary,Due Process). Federalist and Anti-Federalist had very lively debates the Federalist was against and the Anti-Federalist were for the bill of rights. The leader of the Federalist was Alexander Hamilton, he was so opposed to including the bill of rights because he did not see the necessity. The federalist most of them were slave owners there was no need to list specific rights since the national government could execute only the limited powers authorized to it in the Constitution. (Samaha 31-32) The limitation of federal government powers ensured individuals from federal interference. James Madison, convinced the bill of rights was necessary to ensure acceptance of the Constitution, started to draft the original bill of rights. Hurtado v. California was decided in 188, this particular case rejected the idea of due process. This case involved Joseph Hurtado and Jose Estuardo what was so interesting about this case is that these two gentlemen were friend. Jose Hurtado was seeing Joseph Hurtado wife. When he asked him to leave town Hose simply replied that he would. He didn’t leave but continued to see Joseph wife. Joseph responded by shooting him once in the chest, then in the back,(Cortner 1981, 18,19). What makes this case a rejection of the due process is that the state of California refused to follow the process of a grand jury indictment by grand jury review. The prosecutors made the decision to indict Mr. Hurtado. This was a clear violation of the fifth and the fourteenth amendment. They indicted him using† charging by information† method. A long story short Hurtdo was sentenced to be hung by his neck by the judge. The decision was upheld by the state court. Hurtdo appealed to the United States Supreme Court and they decided to uphold the lower court decision. Their thought was that the state criminal procedure was a local matter and  none of the federal government business. Much to my surprise I thought they would overrule the state’s decision. This case was a clear violation of Joseph Hurtdo fifth and fourteenth amendment. The Supreme Court ruled in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965) the â€Å"intent† was to protect certain private areas from governmental interferences. The Supreme Court ruling in the Connecticut statue did prohibit the use of contraceptives was unconstitutional under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Individual rights such as the right to marry, the right to choose whether to keep a child or to abort the child,(Roe vs. Wade), is the choice of the individual and not the government. Another case that I want to discuss is the Scottsboro Boys whose rights were taken advantage of. They were people of color who were accused of throwing so white boys off the train and also accused of raping two white girls. There were nine of them one was only twelve, another was blind in one eye and only had ten percent vision in the other eye. These gentlemen were tried and convicted to death by electrocution. There was popular support for the Scottsboro boys. A long story short it was ruled that denying a right in the Bill of Rights violates fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions† (Samah,33) It embraced within the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.† I think that it is so important that the fore fathers of our country put in place the Fifth Amendment and the fourteenth amendment guarantee us due process. Due process helps the citizens of the United States from being taken advantage of. By that I mean that the courts would do what they willed against the constituents of the United States, especially people of color. Due process helps to protect a person against unfair and false accusations. Federalist Paper: Federalist No. 84. New York: McLean’s Edition, 1787. Criminal Procedure: The meaning of Due Process

Hitler Able to Establish a Dictatorship

Was Hitler Able to Establish a Dictatorship Because He Banned Other Political Parties? BY 002910 â€Å"Hitler was able to establish a dictatorship because he banned other political parties†. Do you agree? Explain your answer. The rise of Hitler as a dictator was one Involving many deferent factors. The political parties caused him a very challenging problem, and by banning them it undoubtedly helped him secure all-out rule. But was It the only reason why Hitler managed to establish himself as a dictator, and If not, Is It the main one?Hitler knew that the many opposition parties would pose him ND his government a real threat. He Instantly acted against them by getting Hindering to pass a decree stating they had to be Informed 48 hours In advance If a political meeting was to be held. This let Hitler take control of his political surroundings as It meant he would know when and where to go to break up a political meeting. It gave the Mans a strong foothold In the election that w as approaching and a good starting point to establishing his dictatorship as he was already limiting what others could do and was getting his way.However, he only got 4% of the vote at the election. With other political parties still around to vote for Hitler could never have had a dictatorship as he did not have a mandate to rule. Therefore, eradicating the other parties would appear to be how he became a dictator. We must consider what it is to be a dictator, and with any sort of political opponent around a dictatorship is implausible to establish. First, all choice of opinion must be taken away. In this way, banning political parties has to be a good reason why Hitler managed to become Germany's all out ruler.On top of this clear idea that e could never have absolute power with political parties still around is the fact that the Enabling Act, which to an extent was the blockage of power for any other party, really sealed Hitter's position as Germany's next dictator. What he said now became law, and he could do whatever he wanted as long as it didn't anger Hindering, the Industrialists or the Army too much. In this sense, it looks like when Hitler finally banned the formation of political parties on 14th July it was this that gave him the status as a dictator of Germany . He made the laws, and there was no other view to go against his.However, we must look at the other reasons why Hitler secured this power. By no means was banning political parties the only reason why he became an all-out ruler. Even if he had banned the political parties, without the support of the other groups which got him into power he wouldn't last long as Chancellor. The Night of the Long Knives is one of the main reasons why he became a dictator as It kept on side those who had the power to overthrow him. Room's proposals to take over all German businesses did not sit well with the Industrialists as they would lose all their rower, money and influence.He also wanted to merge the Army Into the S. A. , onto popular move with the Army generals. By choosing to arrest and kill Room Hitler made sure that he held onto power; without sling with these groups they could well have forced Hindering to sack him as Chancellor. But by choosing the Army and Industrialists over his own party he showed that, although there were no longer any political parties, Hitler was still not the dictator of Germany as he was being forced to but did still have outside factions to impress.Therefore, it was also the death of Hindering and the oath by the Army which made Hitler the dictator of Germany. With no one above him to get rid of him, Hitler could then declare himself F;here and make the Army swear an oath to defend him. Now the outside groups had no one to complain to if they didn't like what was going on. They were also now bound to follow him; the Army had to give their lives to him, which meant no threat of any military coup, and the Industrialists could not speak out against him as they could be arrested and sent to concentration camps.Yes, the banning of political parties gave Hitler the opportunity to declare himself ruler, but that opportunity could have been taken away if he hadn't managed to keep them onside throughout. Hindering could still have been pressured into sacking Hitler as Chancellor (he had done this to others many times before in the previous years), thus stopping Hitler getting the chance to become supreme ruler all together. As well as this, Just banning political parties would never have been enough to become a dictator due to one very obvious blockage; the Reichstag.With it still in the country the country was still democratic as the parties had a say in how the country was run. Hitler could not ban any political parties without getting rid of the Reichstag first. It was this that the Enabling Act actually got rid of so that Hitler could start to rule the country on his own. It was not actually the banning of political parties in Germany that set in motion the wheels of dictatorship but the demolition of democracy and the Whimper constitution.But at the same time this could also be seen as a reason why the banning of political parties as the reason why Hitler established himself as F;here. In reality, the Reichstag is made up of political parties, so getting rid of it could be seen as getting rid of the parties. This could be both for and against the statement in the question, but I believe that the Reichstag has to be treated as a separate thing. In conclusion, I think that although Germany's political parties did pose a major problem to Hitler and that banning it did help him to become a dictator, by no means is it the sole reason why he became one.Really, the Night of the Long Knives is more important as it is the point when everything could have collapsed for the Nazis. The start of Hitter's rule was all about pleasing those around him and trying to stay in power. Therefore, keeping the Army and Industrialists on side at this point was key to making sure he lasted out Hinderers life. The Reichstag is a mixture of both sides of the argument, but it still backs up the point that banning political parties was not the only reason why Hitler became a dictator and isn't the main reason why either.

The Mixtec An Ancient Culture of Southern Mexico

The Mixtecs are a modern indigenous group in Mexico, with a rich ancient history. In pre-Hispanic times, they lived in the western region of the state of Oaxaca and part of the states of Puebla and Guerrero and they were one of the most important groups of Mesoamerica. During the Postclassic period (AD 800-1521), they were famous for their mastery of artworks such as metalworking, jewelry, and decorated vessels. Information about Mixtec history comes from archaeology, Spanish accounts during the Conquest period, and Pre-Columbian codices, screen-folded books with heroic narratives about Mixtec kings and nobles. The Mixtec Region The region where this culture first developed is called the Mixteca. It is characterized by high mountains and narrow valleys with small streams. Three zones form the Mixtec region: Mixteca Alta (High Mixteca) with an elevation ranging between 2500 and 2000 meters (8200-6500 feet).Mixteca Baja (Low Mixteca), between 1700 and 1500 m (5600-5000 ft).Mixteca de la Costa (Mixtec Coast) along the Pacific coast. This rugged geography didnt allow for easy communication across the culture, and probably explains the great differentiation of dialects within the modern Mixtec language today. It has been estimated that at least a dozen different Mixtec languages exist. Agriculture, which was practiced by the Mixtec peoples at least as early as 1500 BC, was also affected by this difficult topography. The best lands were limited to the narrow valleys in the highlands and few areas on the coast. Archaeological sites like Etlatongo and Jucuita, in the Mixteca Alta, are some examples of early settled life in the region. In later periods, the three sub-regions (Mixteca Alta, Mixteca Baja, and Mixteca de la Costa) were producing and exchanging different products. Cocoa, cotton, salt, and other imported items including exotic animals came from the coast, while maize, beans, and  chiles, as well as metals and precious stones, came from the mountainous regions. Mixtec Society In pre-Columbian times, the Mixtec region was densely populated. It has been estimated that in 1522 when the Spanish conquistador, Pedro de Alvarado—a soldier in Hernan Cortà ©ss army—traveled among the Mixteca, the population was over a million. This highly populated area was politically organized into independent polities or kingdoms, each ruled by a powerful king. The king was the supreme governor and leader of the army, assisted by a group of noble officials and counselors. The majority of the population, however, was made up of farmers, artisans, merchants, serfs, and slaves. Mixtec artisans are famous for their mastery as smiths, potters, gold-workers, and carvers of precious stones. A codex (plural codices) is a pre-Columbian screen-fold book usually written on bark paper or deerskin. The majority of the few Pre-Columbian codices that survived the Spanish conquest come from the Mixtec region. Some famous codices from this region are  the Codex Bodley, the Zouche-Nuttall, and the Codex Vindobonensis (Codex Vienna). The first two are historical in content, whereas the last one records Mixtec beliefs about the origin of the universe, their gods, and their mythology. Mixtec Political Organization Mixtec society was organized in kingdoms or city-states ruled by the king who collected tribute and services from the people with the help of his administrators who were part of the nobility. This political system reached its height during the Early Postclassic period (AD 800-1200). These kingdoms were interconnected with each other through alliances and marriages, but they were also involved in wars against each other as well as against common enemies. Two of the most powerful kingdoms of this period were Tututepec on the coast and Tilantongo in the Mixteca Alta. The most famous Mixtec king was Lord Eight Deer Jaguar Claw, ruler of Tilantongo, whose heroic actions are part history, part legend. According to Mixtec history, in the 11th century, he managed to bring together the kingdoms of Tilantongo and Tututepec under his power. The events that led to the unification of the Mixteca region under Lord Eight Deer Jaguar Claw are recorded in two of the most famous Mixtec codices: the Codex Bodley, and the Codex Zouche-Nuttall. Mixtec Sites and Capitals Early Mixtec centers were small villages located close to productive agricultural lands. The construction during the Classic Period (300-600 CE) of sites like Yucuà ±udahui, Cerro de Las Minas, and Monte Negro on defensible positions within the high hills has been explained by some archaeologists as a period of conflict among these centers. About a century after Lord Eight Deer Jaguar Claw united Tilantongo and Tututepec, the Mixtec expanded their power to the Valley of Oaxaca, a region historically occupied by Zapotec people. In 1932, the Mexican archaeologist Alfonso Caso discovered in the site of Monte Albà ¡n—the ancient capital of the Zapotecs—a tomb of Mixtec nobles dating to the 14th-15th century. This famous tomb (Tomb 7) contained an amazing offering of gold and silver jewelry, elaborately decorated vessels, corals, skulls with turquoise decorations, and carved jaguar bones. This offering is an example of the skill of Mixtec artisans. At the end of the pre-Hispanic period, the Mixtec region was conquered by the Aztecs. The region became part of the Aztec empire and the Mixtecs had to pay tribute to the Aztec emperor with gold and metal works, precious stones, and the turquoise decorations for which they were so famous. Centuries later, some of these artworks were found by archaeologists digging in the Great Temple of Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztecs. Sources Joyce, AA 2010, Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and Chatinos: Ancient peoples of Southern Mexico. Wiley Blackwell.Manzanilla, Linda and L Lopez Lujan, eds. 2000, Histà ³ria Antigua de Mà ©xico. Porrua, Mexico City.