Economic Transformations Towards Sustainability
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
1. Debbie Abrahams, Labour Party, United Kingdom 2
1. Debbie Abrahams, Labour Party, United Kingdom 2. Malik Ben Achour, PS, Belgium 3. Tina Acketoft, Liberal Party, Sweden 4. Senator Fatima Ahallouch, PS, Belgium 5. Lord Nazir Ahmed, Non-affiliated, United Kingdom 6. Senator Alberto Airola, M5S, Italy 7. Hussein al-Taee, Social Democratic Party, Finland 8. Éric Alauzet, La République en Marche, France 9. Patricia Blanquer Alcaraz, Socialist Party, Spain 10. Lord John Alderdice, Liberal Democrats, United Kingdom 11. Felipe Jesús Sicilia Alférez, Socialist Party, Spain 12. Senator Alessandro Alfieri, PD, Italy 13. François Alfonsi, Greens/EFA, European Parliament (France) 14. Amira Mohamed Ali, Chairperson of the Parliamentary Group, Die Linke, Germany 15. Rushanara Ali, Labour Party, United Kingdom 16. Tahir Ali, Labour Party, United Kingdom 17. Mahir Alkaya, Spokesperson for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, Socialist Party, the Netherlands 18. Senator Josefina Bueno Alonso, Socialist Party, Spain 19. Lord David Alton of Liverpool, Crossbench, United Kingdom 20. Patxi López Álvarez, Socialist Party, Spain 21. Nacho Sánchez Amor, S&D, European Parliament (Spain) 22. Luise Amtsberg, Green Party, Germany 23. Senator Bert Anciaux, sp.a, Belgium 24. Rt Hon Michael Ancram, the Marquess of Lothian, Former Chairman of the Conservative Party, Conservative Party, United Kingdom 25. Karin Andersen, Socialist Left Party, Norway 26. Kirsten Normann Andersen, Socialist People’s Party (SF), Denmark 27. Theresa Berg Andersen, Socialist People’s Party (SF), Denmark 28. Rasmus Andresen, Greens/EFA, European Parliament (Germany) 29. Lord David Anderson of Ipswich QC, Crossbench, United Kingdom 30. Barry Andrews, Renew Europe, European Parliament (Ireland) 31. Chris Andrews, Sinn Féin, Ireland 32. Eric Andrieu, S&D, European Parliament (France) 33. -
GENERAL ELECTIONS in NETHERLANDS 12Th September 2012
GENERAL ELECTIONS IN NETHERLANDS 12th September 2012 European Elections monitor Victory for the pro-European parties in the General Elections in the Netherlands Corinne Deloy Translated by helen Levy The People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), the liberal party led by outgoing Prime Minister Mark Rutte came first in the general elections on 12th September in the Netherlands. The party won 26.5% of the vote, the highest score in its history and won 41 seats (+10 than in the previous elections that took place on 9th June 2010). “It is an Results exceptional victory because he is the leader of the biggest party in office. There are many European countries in which the leaders lost the elections as this crisis rages,” analyses Andre Krouwel, a political expert at the Free University of Amsterdam. The liberals took a slight lead over the Labour Party (PvdA) led by Diederik Samsom, which won 24.7% of the vote and 39 seats (+9). At first the electoral campaign, which focused on the crisis, turned to the advantage of the most radical opposition forces, and those most hostile to the European Union (Socialist Party and the Freedom Party). Over the last few days however the situation developed further and the pro-European forces recovered ground. Together the Liberals and Labour rallied 80 seats, i.e. an absolute majority in the States General, the lower chamber in the Dutch Parliament. The populist parties suffered a clear rebuttal. On Turnout was slightly less than that recorded in the the right the Freedom Party (PVV) won 10.1% of last general elections on 9th June 2010 the vote, taking 15 seats (-9). -
ESS9 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed
APPENDIX A3 POLITICAL PARTIES, ESS9 - 2018 ed. 3.0 Austria 2 Belgium 4 Bulgaria 7 Croatia 8 Cyprus 10 Czechia 12 Denmark 14 Estonia 15 Finland 17 France 19 Germany 20 Hungary 21 Iceland 23 Ireland 25 Italy 26 Latvia 28 Lithuania 31 Montenegro 34 Netherlands 36 Norway 38 Poland 40 Portugal 44 Serbia 47 Slovakia 52 Slovenia 53 Spain 54 Sweden 57 Switzerland 58 United Kingdom 61 Version Notes, ESS9 Appendix A3 POLITICAL PARTIES ESS9 edition 3.0 (published 10.12.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Denmark, Iceland. ESS9 edition 2.0 (published 15.06.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden. Austria 1. Political parties Language used in data file: German Year of last election: 2017 Official party names, English 1. Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (SPÖ) - Social Democratic Party of Austria - 26.9 % names/translation, and size in last 2. Österreichische Volkspartei (ÖVP) - Austrian People's Party - 31.5 % election: 3. Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) - Freedom Party of Austria - 26.0 % 4. Liste Peter Pilz (PILZ) - PILZ - 4.4 % 5. Die Grünen – Die Grüne Alternative (Grüne) - The Greens – The Green Alternative - 3.8 % 6. Kommunistische Partei Österreichs (KPÖ) - Communist Party of Austria - 0.8 % 7. NEOS – Das Neue Österreich und Liberales Forum (NEOS) - NEOS – The New Austria and Liberal Forum - 5.3 % 8. G!LT - Verein zur Förderung der Offenen Demokratie (GILT) - My Vote Counts! - 1.0 % Description of political parties listed 1. The Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, or SPÖ) is a social above democratic/center-left political party that was founded in 1888 as the Social Democratic Worker's Party (Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei, or SDAP), when Victor Adler managed to unite the various opposing factions. -
Who Revived the Basic Income Debate? Investigating the Role of Social Media in the Political Agenda-Setting Process
Who revived the basic income debate? Investigating the role of social media in the political agenda-setting process Naam: Erwin Gielens ANR: 853440 Collegejaar: 2017-2018 Research master social and behavioral sciences Sociology track Begeleider: dr. F. Roosma 1 Abstract This study addresses the lack of scholarly attention for the role of social media in the political agenda- setting process. It is expected that social media help draw attention of politicians by making some issues more visible and increasing their urgency. Taking the basic income debate on Twitter as a case study, I find that high public attention coincides with high political attention, although debate integration and leadership do not meaningfully predict these spikes in attention. The content of conversations reveals that politicians engage in discussion because Twitter cues the public relevance of particular issue, facilitates the diffusion of information and lowers barriers to participation in public debate. Politicians that support the issue are more likely to respond to public attention, while opposing politicians tend to refrain from engagement until impending political consequences make the issue urgent. The overall implication is that social media can modulate the impact of traditional media coverage on political agendas. Acknowledgements This thesis would not have seen the light of day without the invaluable help of many friends, family and colleagues. First and foremost, my gratitude goes out to dr. Femke Roosma and prof. dr. Peter Achterberg, my supervisors who helped to assemble, develop and finetune the idea that finally made its way to print. Their supervision struck me as a good cop – bad cop experience, marked by the encouraging words of dr. -
Comparative Political Data Set, 1960-2019 Codebook
1 Codebook: Comparative Political Data Set, 1960-2019 Codebook: COMPARATIVE POLITICAL DATA SET 1960-2019 Klaus Armingeon, Sarah Engler and Lucas Leemann The Comparative Political Data Set 1960-2019 (CPDS) is a collection of political and institutional data which have been assembled in the context of the research projects “Die Handlungsspielräume des Nationalstaates” and “Critical junctures. An international comparison” directed by Klaus Armingeon and funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation. This data set consists of (mostly) annual data for 36 democratic OECD and/or EU- member countries for the period of 1960 to 2019. In all countries, political data were collected only for the democratic periods.1 The data set is suited for cross-national, longitudinal and pooled time-series analyses. The present data set combines and replaces the earlier versions “Comparative Political Data Set I” (data for 23 OECD countries from 1960 onwards) and the “Comparative Political Data Set III” (data for 36 OECD and/or EU member states from 1990 onwards). A variable has been added to identify former CPDS I countries. For additional detailed information on the composition of government in the 36 countries, please consult the “Supplement to the Comparative Political Data Set – Government Composition 1960-2019”, available on the CPDS website. The Comparative Political Data Set contains some additional demographic, socio- and economic variables. However, these variables are not the major concern of the project and are thus limited in scope. For more in-depth sources of these data, see the online databases of the OECD, Eurostat or AMECO. When using data from this data set, please quote both the data set and, where appropriate, the original source. -
Codebook: Government Composition, 1960-2019
Codebook: Government Composition, 1960-2019 Codebook: SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPARATIVE POLITICAL DATA SET – GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION 1960-2019 Klaus Armingeon, Sarah Engler and Lucas Leemann The Supplement to the Comparative Political Data Set provides detailed information on party composition, reshuffles, duration, reason for termination and on the type of government for 36 democratic OECD and/or EU-member countries. The data begins in 1959 for the 23 countries formerly included in the CPDS I, respectively, in 1966 for Malta, in 1976 for Cyprus, in 1990 for Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia, in 1991 for Poland, in 1992 for Estonia and Lithuania, in 1993 for Latvia and Slovenia and in 2000 for Croatia. In order to obtain information on both the change of ideological composition and the following gap between the new an old cabinet, the supplement contains alternative data for the year 1959. The government variables in the main Comparative Political Data Set are based upon the data presented in this supplement. When using data from this data set, please quote both the data set and, where appropriate, the original source. Please quote this data set as: Klaus Armingeon, Sarah Engler and Lucas Leemann. 2021. Supplement to the Comparative Political Data Set – Government Composition 1960-2019. Zurich: Institute of Political Science, University of Zurich. These (former) assistants have made major contributions to the dataset, without which CPDS would not exist. In chronological and descending order: Angela Odermatt, Virginia Wenger, Fiona Wiedemeier, Christian Isler, Laura Knöpfel, Sarah Engler, David Weisstanner, Panajotis Potolidis, Marlène Gerber, Philipp Leimgruber, Michelle Beyeler, and Sarah Menegal. -
Europe's Evolving Deterrence Discourse
EUROPE’S EVOLVING DETERRENCE DISCOURSE EDITED BY AMELIA MORGAN AND ANNA PÉCZELI Center for Global Security Research Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory February 2021 EUROPE’S EVOLVING DETERRENCE DISCOURSE EDITED BY AMELIA MORGAN AND ANNA PÉCZELI Center for Global Security Research Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory King's College London Science Applications International Corporation February 2021 EUROPE’S EVOLVING DETERRENCE DISCOURSE | 1 This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in part under Contract W-7405-Eng-48 and in part under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. The views and opinions of the author expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. ISBN-978-1-952565-09-0 LCCN-2020922986 LLNL-TR-815694 TPG-60099 2 | AMELIA MORGAN AND ANNA PÉCZELI Contents About the Contributors 2 Preface Brad Roberts 7 Introduction Amelia Morgan and Heather Williams 8 The (Incomplete) Return of Deterrence Michael Rühle 13 The German Debate: The Bundestag and Nuclear Deterrence Pia Fuhrhop 27 The Dutch Debate: Activism vs. Pragmatism Michal Onderco 39 French Perspectives on Disarmament and Deterrence Emmanuelle Maitre 51 Nuclear Deterrence and Arms Control: A NATO Perspective Jessica Cox and Joseph Dobbs 66 Defining the Needed Balance of Deterrence and Arms Control in Europe Anna Péczeli 74 Restoring the Balancing Act: Disarmament and Deterrence in the New Era Łukasz Kulesa 93 Rethinking the Impact of Emerging Technologies on Strategic Stability Andrea Gilli and Mauro Gilli 105 Artificial Intelligence and Deterrence: A View from Europe Laura Siddi 121 A Practitioner’s Perspective: Modern Deterrence and the U.S.–U.K. -
Candidate Selection Procedures for the European Elections
DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES DIRECTORATE C - CITIZENS’ RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS Candidate selection procedures for the European elections STUDY Abstract This study was prepared by the Centre d’étude de la vie politique (Cevipol), part of the Institute for European Studies (IEE) and the Faculté des sciences sociales et politiques (FSP) of the Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB). It provides a systematic and thorough account of candidate selection procedures for the European elections. It covers four aspects: (1) a general overview of candidate selection procedures in the major parties of all EU Member States; (2) a detailed account of the candidate selection procedures for a sample of countries/parties, based on an analysis of the formal and informal practices; (3) an investigation into the relations between national political parties, political groups in the EP, and the European political parties; and (4) the provision of recommendations as to how to improve the democratic quality of candidate selection for the European elections. PE 519.206 EN This document was requested by the European Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs. AUTHORS PILET Jean-Benoit VAN HAUTE Emilie KELBEL Camille RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR Petr NOVAK Policy Department C: Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN Translation: FR ABOUT THE EDITOR To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its monthly newsletter please write to: [email protected] Manuscript completed in May 2015. © European Parliament, Brussels, 2015. This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. -
Codebook CPDS III 1990-2012
Codebook: COMPARATIVE POLITICAL DATA SET III 1990-2012 Klaus Armingeon, Laura Knöpfel, David Weisstanner and Sarah Engler The Comparative Political Data Set III 1990-2012 is a collection of political and institutional data. This data set consists of (mostly) annual data for a group of 36 OECD and/or EU- member countries for the period 1990-20121. The data are primarily from the data set created at the University of Berne, Institute of Political Science and funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation: The Comparative Political Data Set I (CPDS I). However, the present data set differs in several aspects from the CPDS I dataset. Compared to CPDS I Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus (Greek part), Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia have been added. The present data set is suited for cross-national, longitudinal and pooled time series analyses. The data set contains some additional demographic, socio- and economic variables. However, these variables are not the major concern of the project and are thus limited in scope. For more in-depth sources of these data, see the online databases of the OECD. For trade union membership, excellent data for European trade unions is provided by Jelle Visser (2013). When using the data from this data set, please quote both the data set and, where appropriate, the original source. This data set is to be cited as: Klaus Armingeon, Laura Knöpfel, David Weisstanner and Sarah Engler. 2014. Comparative Political Data Set III 1990-2012. Bern: Institute of Political Science, University of Berne. Last updated: 2014-09-30 1 Data for former communist countries begin in 1990 for Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Hungary, Malta, Romania and Slovakia, in 1991 for Poland, in 1992 for Estonia and Lithuania, in 1993 for Lativa and Slovenia and in 2000 for Croatia. -
Appendix 1A: List of Government Parties September 12, 2016
Updating the Party Government data set‡ Public Release Version 2.0 Appendix 1a: List of Government Parties September 12, 2016 Katsunori Seki§ Laron K. Williams¶ ‡If you use this data set, please cite: Seki, Katsunori and Laron K. Williams. 2014. “Updating the Party Government Data Set.” Electoral Studies. 34: 270–279. §Collaborative Research Center SFB 884, University of Mannheim; [email protected] ¶Department of Political Science, University of Missouri; [email protected] List of Government Parties Notes: This appendix presents the list of government parties that appear in “Data Set 1: Governments.” Since the purpose of this appendix is to list parties that were in government, no information is provided for parties that have never been in government in our sample (i.e, opposition parties). This is an updated and revised list of government parties and their ideological position that were first provided by WKB (2011). Therefore, countries that did not appear in WKB (2011) have no list of government parties in this update. Those countries include Bangladesh, Botswana, Czechoslovakia, Guyana, Jamaica, Namibia, Pakistan, South Africa, and Sri Lanka. For some countries in which new parties are frequently formed and/or political parties are frequently dissolved, we noted the year (and month) in which a political party was established. Note that this was done in order to facilitate our data collection, and therefore that information is not comprehensive. 2 Australia List of Governing Parties Australian Labor Party ALP Country Party -
Latvia by Kārlis Bukovskis and Andris Sprūds
Latvia by Kārlis Bukovskis and Andris Sprūds Capital: Riga Population: 1.98 million GNI/capita, PPP: US$ 24,220 Source: World Bank World Development Indicators. Nations in Transit Ratings and Averaged Scores 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 National Democratic 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Governance Electoral Process 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 Civil Society 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 Independent Media 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Local Democratic 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 Governance Judicial Framework 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.50 and Independence Corruption 3.00 3.25 3.25 3.50 3.25 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Democracy Score 2.07 2.18 2.18 2.14 2.11 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.04 NOTE: The ratings reflect the consensus of Freedom House, its academic advisers, and the author(s) of this report. If consensus cannot be reached, Freedom House is responsible for the final ratings. The ratings are based on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing the highest level of democratic progress and 7 the lowest. -
Pdf/Lisbon Strategy Evaluation En.Pdf
étopia, revue d’écologie politique 2013 centre d’animation et de recherche en écologie politique étopia n° 12 Table des matières Dossier : semestriel L’écoLogie poLitique n° se manifeste varia Philippe Lamberts 9 > partie 4 : points De > Tom Dedeurwaerdere, l’écologie vue phiLosophiques Aurélie Maréchal, sur L’écoLogie Isabelle Durant 122013 > partie 1 : Le nouveau contemporaine 193 manifeste poLitique politique se D’ecoLo 13 Emilie Hache, Michel Hellas, Quentin DelvaL, Alain José Daras, Roald Lipietz, Catherine Larrère, Wyckmans & Christophe Derenne & Christophe Derenne Olivier Petit manifeste > partie 2 : autour Du > partie 5 : une histoire manifeste D’ecoLo 43 De L’écoLogie en 4 Aurélie Maréchal, Matthias manifestes 237 El Berhoumi, Edgar Szoc, Manifeste pour une Eric Luyckx, John Pitseys, Démocratie Nouvelle, 1973 Olivier Biérin, Jonathan Piron, Cédric Chevalier Manifeste des Amis & Benoit Lechat de la Terre, 1977 Déclaration Exprimant les principes fondamentaux du > partie 3 : points Mouvement Ecolo, 1985 De vue poLitiques sur L’écoLogie Charte des Verts Européens, contemporaine 113 2006 Pierre Radanne, Joseph Confavreux, Pierre Lauret, Mathieu Potte- Bonneville, Pierre Zaoui, Alain Lipietz, Per Gahrton, 9 782875 510426 manifeste se politique l’écologie Paul-Marie Boulanger Diffusion PUN. & Edouard Gaudot tél. : 081 72 48 84 1 r12.indb 1 23/07/13 10:29 Etopia – Revue d’écologie politique étopia centre d’animation et de recherche en écologie politique Espace kegeljan, av. de Marlagne 52 à 5000 Namur t. : 00 32 81 22 58 48 - f. : 00 32 81 23 18 47 www.etopia.be [email protected] Direction de la publication : Christophe Derenne, directeur d’Etopia Comité de direction : Christophe Derenne, Isabelle Durant, Philippe Lamberts, Benoît Lechat, Edgar Szoc.