scholarly journals Is there a decline of democracy in the EU between 2004 and 2016? The relevance of data selection: a replication study of Smolka (2021) and comparison of democracy measures

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lukas Lemm
Keyword(s):  
Original Data ◽  
Replication Study ◽  
Selection Problem ◽  
Data Selection ◽  
Measurement Tools ◽  
Democracy Measurement ◽  
The Eu

AbstractIs there a Decline of Democracy? Democracy measurement provides the basis for answering this question. However, there are different measurement tools based on different meanings of democracy that have been shown to vary in their concept validity. Therefore, it is relevant to examine whether the results of the different measurement tools converge or diverge with respect to a potential decline of democracy. Smolka (2021) finds a decline of democracy for new and old EU states based on standardized data from the Democracy Barometer. A re-analysis using the original data of the Democracy Barometer and the Democracy Matrix can hardly replicate these results. A comparison of further measurements shows that the instruments diverge rather than converge. I therefore conclude with some thoughts on overcoming the selection problem that arises in light of these contrasts.

Anonymized Firm Data under Test: Evidence from a Replication Study

2005 ◽  
Vol 225 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joachim Wagner
Keyword(s):  
Cross Sections ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Original Data ◽  
Replication Study ◽  
Firm Level ◽  
Level Data ◽  
Practical Usefulness ◽  
Order Of Magnitude ◽  
Anonymized Data ◽  
Firm Data

SummaryThis paper contributes to the literature on the use of anonymized firm level data by reporting results from a replication study. To test for the practical usefulness of anonymized data I selected two of my published papers based on different cross sections of firm data. The data used there were anonymized by micro aggregation. I replicated the analyses reported in the papers with the anonymized data, and then compared the results to those produced with the original data. Frequently, the reported levels of statistical significance differ. Furthermore, statistically significant coefficients sometimes differ by order of magnitude. Therefore, at least for the moderate sample sizes used here micro-aggregated firm data should not be considered as a tool for empirical research.

Who Governs in the Council? Determinants of Ministerial Participation in Council Meetings

2020 ◽  
pp. 088832541990052
Author(s):  
Jan Kovář ◽  
Kamil Kovář
Keyword(s):  
Original Data ◽  
Legislative Elections ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Member States ◽  
Popular Support ◽  
Low Level ◽  
The Government ◽  
Visegrád Countries ◽  
Country Specific ◽  
The Eu

The Council of the EU is the primary institution through which ministers of member states can express their positions on Commission proposals and vote upon legislation. This article first examines the extent to which ministers actually attend Council meetings before moving toward investigating the determinants of ministerial participation in over a period covering almost thirteen years between May 2004 and December 2016. It aims to identify determinants of why ministers from the Visegrad countries participate at some meetings and are absent from others. Using an original data set containing information about 940 Council meetings as well as several country-specific characteristics, we show that, on average, at about four out of every six meetings, ministers are absent. The results of our regressions indicate a pattern in which holding the office of the EU’s rotating presidency, the number of b-points on the agenda, and the size of the government increase the likelihood of ministerial participation in meetings. In contrast, high levels of popular support for Eurosceptic parties and holding of national legislative elections decrease the probability of ministerial attendance. Moreover, meetings of Council formations related to policy areas with a low level of EU competence are significantly less likely to be attended by ministers.

scholarly journals Accession 8 Migration and the Proactive and Defensive Engagement of Social Citizenship

2011 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 329-347 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOANNE COOK ◽  
PETER DWYER ◽  
LOUISE WAITE
Keyword(s):  
Social Deprivation ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Original Data ◽  
Social Citizenship ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Urban Neighbourhoods ◽  
Local Host ◽  
Local Impact ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

AbstractFollowing the expansion of the European Union in 2004 unprecedented numbers of Accession 8 migrants from Central and Eastern Europe entered the UK. These migrants are often concentrated in particular urban neighbourhoods, which are already routinely home to diverse communities and/or characterised by high levels of social deprivation. Using original data from a study in a northern English city, this paper explores the ways in which established communities experience and make sense of the local impact of new migration within their neighbourhoods. The belief that newly arrived migrants are in competition with established communities for finite local jobs and welfare resources is central to the expressed concerns of established communities about the potential for A8 migration to have a localised negative impact.Utilising Ellison's (2000) theoretical insights, the paper argues that established communities’ concerns, rather than being simply an expression of xenophobic intolerance, have their basis in how the expansion of the EU facilitates opportunities for the ‘proactive engagement’ of citizenship status among A8 migrants, whilst often triggering a more ‘defensive engagement’ among members of local host communities.

Affirmative gender equality policies in Central and Eastern Europe: Moving beyond the EU requirements

2020 ◽  
pp. 135406882090678
Author(s):  
Vera Beloshitzkaya
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Gender Equality ◽  
Original Data ◽  
New Democracies ◽  
Eastern European ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Party Positions ◽  
Feminist Movements ◽  
Theory Of Democracy ◽  
The Eu

What affects the adoption of affirmative gender equality measures across Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries, given that the European Union directives do not require them? Drawing on mandate theory of democracy and using original data on party positions on gender equality in eight postcommunist countries observed over 25 years, I argue that CEE political parties and their position on the issue are the answer to this empirical puzzle. Contrary to the earlier scholarship on new democracies that finds only limited mandate fulfillment (Roberts 2010; Stokes, 2001), the study shows that parties in government act responsively when it comes to gender equality promotion. My findings also demonstrate that it is parties, not feminist movements that drive the adoption of affirmative action policies in the region

Centre-left parties and the European Union

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabelle Hertner
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Original Data ◽  
Principal Agent ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Main Research ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Multi Level ◽  
The Eu

This introductory chapter outlines the challenges that centre-left parties face in the European Union, explaining that the EU limits their room for manoeuvre. It then explains how the analysis fits into and builds on existing research on intra-party democracy, centre-left parties in Europe, the Europeanisation of political parties, and multi-level party politics. Next, this chapter briefly introduces the principal-agent framework that will be applied to Labour, PS and SPD throughout the book. Finally, the introductory chapter outlines the main research questions that this study addresses, the methodology, including the sources used and original data collection, and introduces the format and structure of the book.

EU practices on measuring human rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 523-541
Author(s):  
Markus Möstl ◽  
Maddalena Vivona ◽  
Isabella Meier ◽  
Klaus Starl
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Policy Cycle ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Policy Area ◽  
Evidence Based Policy ◽  
Measurement Tools ◽  
The Eu

Numerous articles of the Treaty on European Union oblige the European Union (EU) to respect, protect, and fulfil human rights. Reliable human rights information is indeed crucial for any policy area and during any stage of the policy cycle in order to serve evidence-based policy-making. Chapter 22 analyses how the EU is currently satisfying its need for human rights information, and presents the main opportunities, but also the key challenges in this respect. It is argued that human rights measurement tools using human rights indicators can provide reliable human rights information. The authors provide concrete recommendations on how to make use of the opportunities and overcome the identified challenges of measuring human rights.

scholarly journals Positioning the Nordic Countries in European Union Environmental Policy

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 393-419
Author(s):  
Sanna C. Sääksjärvi
Keyword(s):  
Policy Process ◽  
Original Data ◽  
Nordic Countries ◽  
Hazardous Substances ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Policy Positions ◽  
Policy Context ◽  
Multilevel Perspective ◽  
Floods Directive ◽  
The Eu

The influence of the Nordic countries on the European Union’s (EU's) policy processes has been researched from various angles, but there is a lack of research that comprehensively examines all policy positions advanced by Nordic actors within a given policy context. This article introduces a new design for studying policy positions and influence in the EU and examines the phenomenon from a multilevel perspective using an original data set compiled in connection to three directives: the Floods Directive on the assessment and management of flood risks, the Environmental Liability Directive, and the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive. The analysis reveals that the Nordic countries follow a certain pattern of influencing EU policy that deviates from other states participating in the consultations. Nordic governmental actors exert a strong technical but weak directional influence in the chosen context but are, overall, more successful than Nordic organizational actors at influencing the policy process.

Alternative Action Organizations During Hard Economic Times: A Comparative European Perspective

2018 ◽  
Vol 62 (6) ◽  
pp. 733-738 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Kousis ◽  
Stefania Kalogeraki ◽  
Camilo Cristancho
Keyword(s):  
Global Financial Crisis ◽  
Original Data ◽  
Event Analysis ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Political Consequences ◽  
Alternative Action ◽  
Organization Analysis ◽  
Hard Times ◽  
The Global Financial Crisis ◽  
The Eu

The aim of this Special Issue is to offer new systematic analyses on European alternative (non)economic solidarity practices since the global financial crisis, that have attracted limited media and scholarly attention. Its seven articles are devoted to multidimensional analyses providing complementary perspectives on alternative action organizations across Europe and rest on Action Organization Analysis, a new hubs-website approach extending Protest Event Analysis. They deal with the emergence and continuity of alternative action organizations in different contexts, while they focus on its multiple tactics and the ways in which they address crisis-related needs under diverse conditions of vulnerability and hardship. Our contributions rely on original data produced in the context of Work Package 6 of the EU-funded FP7 project “Living with Hard Times: How Citizens React to Economic Crises and Their Social and Political Consequences” (LIVEWHAT), conducted across nine European countries.

Managing the knowledge created by the users trough Geospatial User Feedback system. The NEXTGEOSS use case

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alaitz Zabala Torres ◽  
Joan Masó Pau ◽  
Xavier Pons
Keyword(s):  
Vegetation Index ◽  
Feedback System ◽  
Original Data ◽  
User Feedback ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
User Perspective ◽  
Related Information ◽  
Resource Description ◽  
Sentinel 2 ◽  
The Eu

<p>First approach to metadata was based on producer's point of view, since producers were responsible for documenting and sharing metadata about their products. Since 2012 (started in EU FP7 GeoViQua project), the Geospatial User Feedback approach described the user perspective on datasets/services (GUF, OGC standard in 2016). In the past users of the data gained knowledge about and with the data, but they lacked the means to easily and automatically share this knowledge in a formal way.</p><p>In the EU H2020 NextGEOSS project, the NiMMbus system has been matured as an interoperable solution to manage and store feedback items following the OGC GUF standard. NiMMbus can be used as a component for any geospatial portal, and, so far, has been integrated in several H2020 project catalogues or portals (NextGEOSS, ECOPotential, GeoEssential and GroundTruth2.0).</p><p>User feedback metadata complements producer's metadata and adds value to the resource description in a geospatial portal by collecting the knowledge gained by the user while using the data for the purpose originally foreseen by the producer or an innovative one.</p><p>The current GEOSS platform provide access to endless data resources. But to truly assist decision making, GEOSS wants to add a knowledge base. We believe that the NiMMbus system is a significant NextGEOSS contribution is this direction.</p><p>This communication describes how to extend the GUF to provide a set of knowledge elements and connect them to the original data creating a network of knowledge. They can be citations (publications and policy briefs), quality indications (QualityML vocabulary and ISO 19157), usage reports (code and analytical processes), etc. The NiMMbus offers tools to create different levels of feedback starting with comments, providing citations or extract quality indicators for the different quality classes (positional, temporal and attribute accuracy, completeness, consistency) and share them to other users as part of the user feedback and usage report. Usage reports in GUF standards can be extended to include code fragments that other users can apply to reproduce a previous usage. For example, in ECOPotential Protected Areas from Space map browser (continues on H2020 e-Shape project) a vegetation index optimum to observe phenological blooms can be encoded by a user in the layer calculation using a combination of original Sentinel-2 bands. The portal stores that in a JavaScript code (serialized as JSON) that describes which layers and formula were used. Once a user validated the new layer, can decide to make it available to everyone by publishing it as an open source JavaScript code in the NiMMbus system. From then on, any other user of the portal can import it and use it. As the usage description is a full feedback item, the user creating the dynamic layer can also describe any other related information such as comments or advertise a related publication.</p><p>The system moves the focus to sharing user of the data and complements the producers documentation with the richness of the knowledge that user gain in their data driven research. In addition to augment GEOSS data the system enables a social network of knowledge.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document