scholarly journals Understanding media attention paid to negotiations on EU legislative acts: a cross-national study of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 649-668 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rik de Ruiter ◽  
Rens Vliegenthart
2004 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
CLARE UNGERSON

This paper uses qualitative data from a cross-national study of ‘cash for care’ schemes in five European countries (Austria, France, Italy, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom) to consider the concepts of empowerment and independence in relation to both care-users and care-givers. The paper locates the schemes along two axes, one of regulation/non-regulation, the other whether relatives can be paid or not. Each of the schemes has a different impact both on the care relationship and on the labour market for care. In The Netherlands where relatives can be paid, for example, a fully commodified form of informal care emerges; but in Austria and Italy with low regulation, a mix of informal and formal care-givers/workers has emerged with many international migrant workers. In the UK, direct payments allow care-users to employ local care-workers who deliver care for various lengths of time; while in France a credentialised system means that care-work is delivered by qualified workers but for very short intervals. The main conclusion is that none of these schemes have a simple outcome or advantage, and that the contexts in which they occur and the nature of their regulation has to be understood before drawing conclusions about their impact on empowerment and independence on both sides of the care relationship.


1989 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 562-570 ◽  
Author(s):  
James L. Gibson

In recent years there has been a resurgence in interest in the cross-national study of public opinion. A significant component of this rekindling of attention has been the specific area of public support for the fundamental values of democracy. John Sullivan and his various colleagues have reported on political tolerance in the United States, Israel, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. In conjunction with a smattering of more limited cross-national studies, and newly-completed studies that are just now emerging, a wealth of comparative data is now available.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingvild Reymert ◽  
Jens Jungblut ◽  
Norway Siri B. Borlaug

AbstractStudies on academic recruitment processes have demonstrated that universities evaluate candidates for research positions using multiple criteria. However, most studies on preferences regarding evaluative criteria in recruitment processes focus on a single country, while cross-country studies are rare. Additionally, though studies have documented how fields evaluate candidates differently, those differences have not been deeply explored, thus creating a need for further inquiry. This paper aims to address this gap and investigates whether academics in two fields across five European countries prefer the same criteria to evaluate candidates for academic positions. The analysis is based on recent survey data drawn from academics in economics and physics in Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the UK. Our results show that the academic fields have different evaluative cultures and that researchers from different fields prefer specific criteria when assessing candidates. We also found that these field-specific preferences were to some extent mediated through national frameworks such as funding systems.


2012 ◽  
Vol 197 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 66-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matteo Giletta ◽  
Ron H.J. Scholte ◽  
Rutger C.M.E. Engels ◽  
Silvia Ciairano ◽  
Mitchell J. Prinstein

1971 ◽  
Vol 119 (553) ◽  
pp. 647-656 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph L. Fleiss ◽  
Barry J. Gurland ◽  
John E. Cooper

This paper presents some of the more important results of a factor analysis of the mental state ratings made as part of the United States–United Kingdom Diagnostic Project's cross-national study. The project was organized in order to help account for the large differences between the two countries in the admission rates for schizophrenia and for the affective disorders (see Kramer, 1969, and Zubin, 1969). The major results of the study have been reported by Cooper, Kendell et al. (1969), Gurland et al. (1969), Cooper (1970), and Cooper, Kendell, Gurland et al. (1972).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document