DOCSLIB.ORG

Think Tank Visibility in Policy Advisory Systems

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Think Tank Visibility in Policy Advisory Systems Think tank visibility in policy advisory systems. Author: Jesper Dahl Kelstrup ([email protected]). T08P06 - Comparing policy advisory systems. Session 1: Wednesday, July 01th 16h15 - 18h15 (Santa Agnese SA325). Think Tank Visibility in Policy Advisory Systems Paper for International Conference on Public Policy in Milan 1-3 July 2015 Panel : T08P06 - Comparing policy advisory systems Session 1: Wednesday, July 01th 16h15 - 18h15 (Santa Agnese SA325) Author: Jesper Dahl Kelstrup, Assistant Professor, Roskilde University, Denmark ([email protected]). Please do not cite or quote without permission. Abstract Previous contributions to the literature on policy advisory systems have discussed how location (Halligan, 1995) and policy content (Craft & Howlett, 2012) can be used to characterise members of policy advisory systems. This paper supplements these concepts with an analytical study of the visibility of think tanks in different policy advisory systems. Think tanks are relevant to the study of policy advice for two reasons. First, think tanks might contribute towards expanding the space for policy advice (Medvetz, 2012) provided that they become visible to policy-makers in public policy debates. Second, as the literature on varieties of capitalism and knowledge regimes emphasises, institutional differences between coordinated and liberal market economies may be important for understanding comparative variation in policy advice (J. L. Campbell & Pedersen, 2014). Analytically the paper studies quantitative differences in think tank activities (events, publications and newspaper impact) to indicate comparative differences in the visibility of these organisations. The analysis reveals variation between the think tank visibility in Germany, the United Kingdom, Denmark and the level of the European Union (EU) in the period 2006-2012, but this variation does not follow the coordinative-liberal distinction. The analysis discusses further avenues for analysing the variation in the spaces that think tanks inhabit in different policy advisory systems which should be explored in future research. Key words: Policy advisory system, think tank, visibility, comparative variation, European Union. 1 Think tank visibility in policy advisory systems. Author: Jesper Dahl Kelstrup ([email protected]). T08P06 - Comparing policy advisory systems. Session 1: Wednesday, July 01th 16h15 - 18h15 (Santa Agnese SA325). Introduction In recent decades more think tanks that attempt to influence policy-making have been created across Europe. The increase in the number of think tanks can be interpreted as an expansion of the space in which policy ideas and advice is made available to policy-makers (Medvetz, 2012). This interpretation lies in continuation of the increased focus on content (as a supplement to location) in policy advisory system (e.g. Craft & Howlett, 2012). For the purpose of promoting comparative studies of policy advisory systems, the paper uses original quantitative data to compare think tank activities in coordinated (Germany and Denmark) and liberal market economies (United Kingdom and the EU). Two theoretical literatures are used to inform the framework for analysis. First, sociological understandings of knowledge production are used to argue that policy advisory systems are influenced by spaces of think tanks (Medvetz, 2012) in which think tanks can operate as epistemic arbiters (Seabrooke, 2014). Second, the distinction between coordinated and liberal market economies in the literature on varieties of capitalism (Hall & Soskice, 2001) is used to create the expectation that think tank visibility varies depending on the type of market economy. The methods section selects four cases of policy advisory systems and the think tanks to include in the analysis on the basis of existing indexes and a minimum criterion of think tank activity. Three types of activities including the events hosted by think tanks, the publications that they issue and their newspaper citations are selected as indicators of visibility. The analytical section compares quantitative indications of think tank events, publications and newspaper citations in the four coordinated and liberal systems in the period 2006-2012. The analysis reveals variation between the four individual cases but also finds that this variation does not follow the coordinative-liberal distinction. Think tanks and policy advisory space Many of the contributions to the think tank literature have been concerned with how to conceptualise think tanks (Dickson, 1972; McGann & Weaver, 2002; Medvetz, 2008; Pautz, 2011; Rich, 2004; Smith, 1991; Stone, 1996, 2001, 2007; Stone, Denham, & Garnet, 1998; Stone & Denham, 2004; Weaver, 1989). The think tank literature, however, suffers from what Giovanni Sartori has termed a ‘travelling problem’ (Sartori, 1970: 1033f) i.e. that approaches inherit different concepts, definitions and typologies that have already been defined and re-defined differently in the existing public policy literature. A problem found in many of the attempts to define think tanks is that they do not use what Sartori calls ‘universal conceptualisations’ (Sartori, 1970: 1044). One of the reasons for the lack of general conceptualisations is that the most common definitions as well as the literature have a bias towards the United States. As Diane Stone writes the understanding of what constitutes a think tank is highly ‘reflective of the socio-political context in which think-tanks were first constituted’ (Stone, 2007: 260). It is commonly agreed that think tanks raise questions about the interaction between science and interests in policy-advice. Whereas some contributions define think tanks as ‘independent’ organisations (McGann & Weaver, 2000; Rich, 2004) others question their independence from economic or political interests (Pautz, 2012; Stone, 2007). This paper broadly understands think tanks as organisations which claim autonomy and attempt to 2 Think tank visibility in policy advisory systems. Author: Jesper Dahl Kelstrup ([email protected]). T08P06 - Comparing policy advisory systems. Session 1: Wednesday, July 01th 16h15 - 18h15 (Santa Agnese SA325). influence public policy by mobilising research (cf. Kelstrup, 2014 for an elaboration of this discussion). In the context of policy advisory systems it is interesting to go beyond definitions of think tanks and to elaborate how these organisations act in policy advisory systems. This agenda has been advanced by Thomas Medvetz who conceptualises how think tanks operate in a space of expertise and created their own ‘space of think tanks’. Sociologically, a space of think tanks can be thought of as an interstitial field that transcends other fields and allows think tanks to gather, balance and assemble academic, political, media and economic capital (Medvetz, 2012: 137ff). If think tanks can convince potential stakeholders that it is likely to influence policy-making over time it provides them with incentives to support the think tank and to build a new market for policy advice. The roles of think tanks are therefore relational to other organisations such as public bureaucracies, media organisations, corporations and universities. And the roles of the policy advisors employed at think tanks balance those other professions namely the public official, the journalist, the businessman and the academic scholar. From a sociological perspective it is therefore reasonable to associate think tanks with a range of practices across these fields. The space of think tanks and the organisations operating in it can exchange of more than one type of capital. Many think tanks simultaneously offer intellectual credibility (academic field), perceived impact (media field), policy knowledge (political field) and market compatibility (economic field) (Medvetz, 2012). These forms of capital are attractive for organisations in other fields. A university for example would usually want the capitals from the three other fields. But it is restricted in attaining that capital themselves because it would risk questioning their academic capital which is crucial for its existence if they went too far in relying on policy knowledge (rather than academic), on private funding (rather than public) and media impact (rather than scholarly). Political decision-makers are likely to look for solutions beyond narrow communities amongst other things because they are concerned how they are positioned in a dynamic political debate. Think tanks are important to policy advisory systems because they relate to new dynamics in policy advice. Although it is reasonable to assume that government have more control over ‘inside’ than ‘outside’ agents (Halligan, 1995), the ability of government to pick ideas/content that is established in public discourse by outside agents such as think tanks, paradoxically, give decision- makers more control than were they only to rely on advice within a narrower advisory system. This occurs for example in periods of “economic, social or political crisis, change(s) in government” where a “policy window of opportunity” can arise in which policymakers demand “a concrete solution to an urgent problem” (Braun, Chudnovsky, Ducote, & Weyrauch, 2010: 89) that may be provided by outsiders. A further step in understanding the roles that think tanks can play in policy advisory systems concerns the activities that they perform in order to become visible and relevant for other agents. Here it is interesting to refer to the literature on professional knowledge production. One contribution
Load more

Recommended publications
  • EU Renegotiation: Fighting for a Flexible Union How to Renegotiate the Terms of the UK’S Membership of the EU
    EU Renegotiation: Fighting for a Flexible Union How to renegotiate the terms of the UK’s Membership of the EU (Quotation in title taken from President Glyn Gaskarth September 2013 ii © Civitas 2013 55 Tufton Street London SW1P 3QL Civitas is a registered charity (no. 1085494) and a company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales (no. 04023541) email: [email protected] Independence: Civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil Society is a registered educational charity (No. 1085494) and a company limited by guarantee (No. 04023541). Civitas is financed from a variety of private sources to avoid over-reliance on any single or small group of donors. All the Institute’s publications seek to further its objective of promoting the advancement of learning. The views expressed are those of the authors, not of the Institute. i Contents Acknowledgements ii Foreword, David Green iii Executive Summary iv Background 1 Introduction 3 Chapter One – Trade 9 Chapter Two – City Regulation 18 Chapter Three – Options for Britain 26 Chapter Four – Common Fisheries Policy 42 Chapter Five – National Borders and Immigration 49 Chapter Six – Foreign & Security Policy 58 Chapter Seven – European Arrest Warrant (EAW) 68 Conclusion 80 Bibliography 81 ii Acknowledgements I would like to thank Tamara Chehayeb Makarem and Susan Gaskarth for their support during the compilation of this paper and Dr David Green and Jonathan Lindsell of Civitas for their comments on the text. iii Foreword Our main aim should be the full return of our powers of self-government, but that can’t happen before the referendum promised for 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • OPENING PANDORA's BOX David Cameron's Referendum Gamble On
    OPENING PANDORA’S BOX David Cameron’s Referendum Gamble on EU Membership Credit: The Economist. By Christina Hull Yale University Department of Political Science Adviser: Jolyon Howorth April 21, 2014 Abstract This essay examines the driving factors behind UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s decision to call a referendum if the Conservative Party is re-elected in 2015. It addresses the persistence of Euroskepticism in the United Kingdom and the tendency of Euroskeptics to generate intra-party conflict that often has dire consequences for Prime Ministers. Through an analysis of the relative impact of political strategy, the power of the media, and British public opinion, the essay argues that addressing party management and electoral concerns has been the primary influence on David Cameron’s decision and contends that Cameron has unwittingly unleashed a Pandora’s box that could pave the way for a British exit from the European Union. Acknowledgments First, I would like to thank the Bates Summer Research Fellowship, without which I would not have had the opportunity to complete my research in London. To Professor Peter Swenson and the members of The Senior Colloquium, Gabe Botelho, Josh Kalla, Gabe Levine, Mary Shi, and Joel Sircus, who provided excellent advice and criticism. To Professor David Cameron, without whom I never would have discovered my interest in European politics. To David Fayngor, who flew halfway across the world to keep me company during my summer research. To my mom for her unwavering support and my dad for his careful proofreading. And finally, to my adviser Professor Jolyon Howorth, who worked with me on this project for over a year and a half.
    [Show full text]
  • Liberal Guide to Brexit
    Report 04/2016 Where next? A liberal, free-market guide to Brexit Raoul Ruparel, Stephen Booth, Vincenzo Scarpetta About the Authors Raoul Ruparel Open Europe is a non-partisan and independent policy Co-Director think tank, committed to crafting and putting into action solutions to the European Union’s most pressing challenges. Open Europe’s Co-Director, Raoul is also a contributing We are committed to European Union reform. Our vision author for Forbes, writing on European economics for a slimmed-down, outward looking and dynamic EU rests and politics, and a member of the British Chamber of on four principles: Commerce Economic Advisory Group. • Boost jobs and growth. Enable and encourage free trade – internally and globally. Regulate business less, but better. • Embrace democracy. Be transparent and accountable to citizens, recognising the crucial Stephen Booth role of national parliaments. Cut the cost of Co-Director Brussels. • Focus on the big questions. Do not interfere in Stephen has led Open Europe research projects on areas that could be equally well handled at the EU regulation, justice and home affairs and the UK’s national or local level. trade with the EU. Stephen also directed Open Europe’s • Be flexible. Allow powers to flow back to the policy work on EU migration and free movement, which member states, and let some countries integrate featured prominently in the Prime Minister’s recent more than others. immigration speech. Disclaimer Open Europe will remain neutral in the EU Referendum campaign, confining ourselves to commenting as Vincenzo Scarpetta accurately as we can on the arguments and facts Policy Analyst advanced on both sides of the debate.
    [Show full text]
  • IEA Brexit Prize: the Plan to Leave the European Union by 2020 by Daniel
    IEA Brexit Prize: The plan to leave the European Union by 2020 by Daniel. C. Pycock FINALIST: THE BREXIT PRIZE 2014 IEA BREXIT PRIZE 3 3 Executive Summary 3 A Rebuttal to Targeting Exchange Rates with Monetary Policy I – THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS FOR LEAVING THE EUROPEAN UNION 6 V – FISCAL POLICY: SPENDING PRIORITIES The Constitutional Processes of Leaving the AND TAX REFORMS 28 European Union On the repatriation of, and necessary reforms to, The articles of the proposed “Treaty of London” Value Added Tax 2017 On the Continuation of Current Corporation Tax The impact of BREXIT on the United Trends, and Reforms to Individual Taxation Kingdom’s Trade Position On The Desirable Restructuring of Income Tax The European Union, Unemployment, and Rates: The History of the Laffer Curve Trading Position post-withdrawal On Government Spending and the Need to Improve GAAP use in Cost Calculations II – THE IMPACT OF BREXIT ON THE UNITED KINGDOM’S TRADE POSITION 10 Suggestions for savings to be made in Defence, Health, Welfare, and Overall Spending Trends in UK Trade with the EU and the Commonwealth, and their shares of Global VI.I – ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE 34 GDP The Mismatch of Policy with Hypothesis: Climate The UK and the Commonwealth: The Return of Change, Energy and the Environment an Imperial Trading Zone? The Unintended Consequences of the European The Trends of Trading: The UK’s Future Union’s Environmental Policies. Exports & Those of Trading Organisations Fracking, Fossil Fuels, and Feasibility: How to Unemployment in the European Union,
    [Show full text]
  • A Global Maritime Power
    A Global Maritime Power Building a Better Future For Post-Brexit Britain Nusrat Ghani MP, Benjamin Barnard, Dominic Walsh, William Nicolle A Global Maritime Power Building a Better Future For Post-Brexit Britain Nusrat Ghani MP, Benjamin Barnard, Dominic Walsh, William Nicolle Policy Exchange is the UK’s leading think tank. We are an independent, non-partisan educational charity whose mission is to develop and promote new policy ideas that will deliver better public services, a stronger society and a more dynamic economy. Policy Exchange is committed to an evidence-based approach to policy development and retains copyright and full editorial control over all its written research. We work in partnership with academics and other experts and commission major studies involving thorough empirical research of alternative policy outcomes. We believe that the policy experience of other countries offers important lessons for government in the UK. We also believe that government has much to learn from business and the voluntary sector. Registered charity no: 1096300. Trustees Diana Berry, Alexander Downer, Pamela Dow, Andrew Feldman, David Harding, Patricia Hodgson, Greta Jones, Edward Lee, Charlotte Metcalf, David Ord, Roger Orf, Andrew Roberts, George Robinson, Robert Rosenkranz, William Salomon, Peter Wall, Simon Wolfson, Nigel Wright. A Global Maritime Power About the Author Nusrat Ghani MP is the Conservative MP for Wealden and a Senior Fellow at Policy Exchange. She previously served in the Department of Transport as Minister for Maritime between January 2018 and February 2020, during which time she became the first female Muslim Minister to speak from the House of Commons despatch box.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a New Pact for Europe
    TOWARDS A NEW PACT FOR EUROPE The New Pact for Europe project is supported by a large transnational consortium including the King Baudouin Foundation, Bertelsmann Stiftung, Allianz Kulturstiftung, BMW Foundation, Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, European Cultural Foundation, European Policy Centre, “la Caixa” Foundation, Network of European Foundations, Open Estonia Foundation, Open Society Initiative for Europe, Stiftung Mercator and Svenska Kultur Fonden Promoting the European Debate [email protected] www.newpactforeurope.eu TOWARDS A NEW PACT FOR EUROPE SECOND REPORT October 2014 NEW PACT FOR EUROPE: SECOND REPORT TOWARDS A NEW PACT FOR EUROPE A publication of the King Baudouin Foundation, the Bertelsmann Stiftung and the European Policy Centre (EPC) RAPPORTEUR Janis A. Emmanouilidis, European Policy Centre (EPC) EDITING Jacki Davis, Meade Davis Communication COORDINATION Gerrit Rauws, Director KING BAUDOUIN FOUNDATION Stefan Schäfers, European Programme Advisor Anneke Denecker, Assistant COORDINATION Joachim Fritz-Vannahme, Director BERTELSMANN STIFTUNG Andrej Stuchlik, Project Manager GRAPHIC DESIGN Margarida Oliveira, Forma Design ILLUSTRATION Inês do Carmo This publication can be downloaded free of charge from www.kbs-frb.be, www.epc.eu and www.newpactforeurope.eu This publication is available free of charge: order online from www.kbs-frb.be, by e-mail sent to [email protected] or by calling or faxing the King Baudouin Foundation’s Contact Centre T +32 70 233 728, F +32 70 233 727 Legal deposit: D/2893/2014/35 ORDER NUMBER:
    [Show full text]
  • An Open Europe in a Multipolar World: Lessons from the Portuguese Experience European Democracy in Action
    Álvaro de VASCONCELOS Álvaro de Vasconcelos has been the di- rector of the Institute of Security Studies of the European Union in Paris since May 2007. An Open Europe in a Multipolar World: Lessons from the Portuguese Experience European Democracy in Action Álvaro de VASCONCELOS An Open Europe in a Multipolar World: Lessons from the Portuguese Experience This paper, written on the occasion of the Portuguese Presidency, discus- ses the options available to the Union to establish itself as a major actor on the world scene. Based on an analysis of twenty years of EU mem- bership, it describes how international issues fit with Portuguese thinking about Europe. In the light of the current re-emergence of multi-polarity, it examines ways for the Union to strengthen multilateralism, the strategic cornerstone of EU foreign policy, and discusses the key linkage between internal and external policy issues. www.notre-europe.eu e-mail : [email protected] Studies & 60 Research Studies & 60 An Open Europe in a Multipolar World: Research Lessons from the Portuguese Experience BY ÁLVARO DE VASCONCELOS ÁLVARO DE VASCONCELOS Born in Porto, Portugal, in 1944, he headed the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (IEEI), of which he is a co-founder, from 1981 Notre Europe to 2007. He has been the director of the Institute of Security Studies of the European Union in Paris since May 2007. Over the past ten years, he has been much involved in the Notre Europe is an independent think tank devoted to European integration. Under coordination of EuroMeSCo, the 50- the guidance of Jacques Delors, who created Notre Europe in 1996, the association member strong Euro-Mediterranean aims to “think a united Europe.” network of foreign and security policy research centres which Our ambition is to contribute to the current public debate by producing analyses constitutes a confidence-building and pertinent policy proposals that strive for a closer union of the peoples of measure and provider of expertise Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit: Theresa May's Red Lines Get Tangled up in Her Red Tape. A
    Insight Brexit: Theresa May’s Red Lines Get Tangled up in Her Red Tape. A Commentary on the White Paper Polly Ruth Polak* ABSTRACT: The 29 March 2017 is now set to become the historical day Art. 50 TEU was triggered for the first time ever. Equally, unprecedented negotiations, in which the United Kingdom and the Eu- ropean Union will settle their divorce, will follow. With the aim of proving that the UK Government has the necessary negotiating strategy, it recently published a White Paper on its exit from and new partnership with the EU. Despite the promises, this Paper is far from providing certainty and clarity. However, it is also a step away from a previous superficial and simplistic approach to Brexit. In this Insight, I explain why the White Paper is riddled with contradictions and why, nonetheless, this confusing and vague exposition of what the UK will be seeking to achieve from its withdrawal is a welcome though disguised acknowledgment of the complexities that Brexit will entail. KEYWORDS: Brexit – White Paper – hard and soft – Art. 50 TEU – Theresa May – negotiations. I. Introduction After the notification of the intention of the UK to exit the EU, it would surely be interesting to know what the United Kingdom’s Brexit negotiating strategy is, as well as the expected outcome. Particularly as, so far, the lack of acknowledging the conse- quences surrounding the whole ordeal or “political chutzpah” has been painfully obvious.1 An immensely complex and uncharted procedure, Brexit has been over- simplified since the very beginning. Clear examples are the simplicity of the ballot question summarized in an “in or out” vote2 or the internal constitutional battle for British sovereignty formulated in terms of “Parliament v Government”.3 * Phd Researcher, Salamanca University, [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • The Reluctant European
    SPECIAL REPORT BRITAIN AND EUROPE October 17th 2015 The reluctant European 20151017_SRBRITEU.indd 1 05/10/2015 16:26 SPECIAL REPORT BRITAIN AND EUROPE The reluctant European Though Britain has always been rather half-hearted about the European Union, its membership has been beneficial for all concerned, argues John Peet. It should stay in the club THE QUESTION THAT will be put to British voters, probably in the au- CONTENTS tumn of 2016, sounds straightforward: “Should the United Kingdom re- main a member of the European Union, or leave the European Union?” 4 How referendums can go (The final clause was added last month at the insistence of the Electoral wrong Commission, which decided the question might look biased without it.) Herding cats When David Cameron, Britain’s Conservative prime minister, first pro- 5 Euroscepticism and its roots posed a referendum in early 2013, he was hoping that the answer would The open sea ACKNOWLEDGMENTS also be straightforward. Once he had successfully renegotiated some of Britain’s membership terms, the electorate would duly endorse him by 6 Britain’s clout in Brussels Besides those mentioned in the text, Not what it was the author would like to thank the voting to stay in. following for their help: Andy But referendums are by theirnature chancy affairs, as a string ofpre- 7 Costs and benefits Bagnall, Matthew Baldwin, Steven vious European examples have shown (see box later in this article). Mr Common market economics Blockmans, Stephen Booth, Hugo Cameron is well aware that the September 2014 referendum on Scottish Brady, Helen Campbell, Martin 9 The euro zone Donnelly, Monique Ebell, Matthew independence, an issue about which he said he felt far more strongly Elliott, Jonathan Faull, Maurice than he does about the EU, became a closer-run thing than expected.
    [Show full text]
  • A British Agenda for Europe Designing Our Own Future
    A B r i t i s h A g e n d a f o r E u r o p e : D e s i g n i n g o u r o w n f u t u r e A British Agenda for Europe Designing our own future A Chatham House Commission Report Chatham House, 10 St James’s Square, London SW1Y 4LE T: +44 (0)20 7957 5700 E: [email protected] www.chathamhouse.org.uk F: +44 (0)20 7957 5710 www.chathamhouse.org.uk Charity Registration Number: 208223 A British Agenda for Europe Designing Our Own Future The Chatham House Commission Report on Europe after Fifty: Policy Implications for Britain Chair: Sir Stephen Wall 1 www.chathamhouse.org.uk Chatham House has been the home of the Royal Institute of International Affairs for over eight decades. Our mission is to be a world-leading source of independent analysis, informed debate and influential ideas on how to build a prosperous and secure world for all. © Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2008 Chatham House (the Royal Institute of International Affairs) is an independent body which promotes the rigorous study of international questions and does not express opinion of its own. The opinions expressed in this publication are the responsibility of the authors. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the copyright holder.
    [Show full text]
  • Defence and Security After Brexit Understanding the Possible Implications of the UK’S Decision to Leave the EU Compendium Report
    Defence and security after Brexit Understanding the possible implications of the UK’s decision to leave the EU Compendium report James Black, Alex Hall, Kate Cox, Marta Kepe, Erik Silfversten For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR1786 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif., and Cambridge, UK © Copyright 2017 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover: HMS Vanguard (MoD/Crown copyright 2014); Royal Air Force Eurofighter Typhoon FGR4, A Chinook Helicopter of 18 Squadron, HMS Defender (MoD/Crown copyright 2016); Cyber Security at MoD (Crown copyright); Brexit (donfiore/fotolia); Heavily armed Police in London (davidf/iStock) RAND Europe is a not-for-profit organisation whose mission is to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org www.rand.org/randeurope Defence and security after Brexit Preface This RAND study examines the potential defence and security implications of the United Kingdom’s (UK) decision to leave the European Union (‘Brexit’).
    [Show full text]
  • Information Guide Euroscepticism
    Information Guide Euroscepticism A guide to information sources on Euroscepticism, with hyperlinks to further sources of information within European Sources Online and on external websites Contents Introduction .................................................................................................. 2 Brief Historical Overview................................................................................. 2 Euro Crisis 2008 ............................................................................................ 3 European Elections 2014 ................................................................................ 5 Euroscepticism in Europe ................................................................................ 8 Eurosceptic organisations ......................................................................... 10 Eurosceptic thinktanks ............................................................................. 10 Transnational Eurosceptic parties and political groups .................................. 11 Eurocritical media ................................................................................... 12 EU Reaction ................................................................................................. 13 Information sources in the ESO database ........................................................ 14 Further information sources on the internet ..................................................... 14 Copyright © 2016 Cardiff EDC. All rights reserved. 1 Cardiff EDC is part of the University Library
    [Show full text]