Comparative Perspectives

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terri E. Givens
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Race Relations ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Racial Equality ◽  
European Politics ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
The Public ◽  
History Of ◽  
Antidiscrimination Policy

Despite a long history of colonialism, slavery, immigration, and ethnic conflict in Europe, issues of racism and discrimination have only recently gained the attention of policy makers in many European countries. In this chapter, I will examine how the issue of race has been dealt with in the literature related to European politics and discuss the development of “race relations” or antidiscrimination policy, particularly the situation in France, Britain, and Germany. I will focus on the development of antidiscrimination prior to harmonization under the EU’s racial equality directive (RED) as an example of the public policy implications of immigration and race in Europe.

Partisipasi Masyarakat dalam Proses Kebijakan Daerah

2012 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-177
Author(s):  
Abdullah Manshur
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Public Participation ◽  
Policy Evaluation ◽  
Policy Process ◽  
Policy Formulation ◽  
Problem Situation ◽  
Policy Cycle ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
The Public ◽  
Policy Making Process

Public policy is a decision to deal with a particular problem situation, that identifies the objectives, principles, ways, and means to achieve them. The ability and understanding of policy makers in the policy-making process is very important for the realization of public policy of rapid, accurate and adequate. The product to suit the needs of the public policy, public participation in the policy process is needed in the policy cycle, from policy formulation to policy evaluation. This paper attempts to review the importance of community participation and other forms of public participation in the policy process, in particular, policy areas.

scholarly journals Climate scientists set the bar of proof too high

2021 ◽  
Vol 165 (3-4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisabeth A. Lloyd ◽  
Naomi Oreskes ◽  
Sonia I. Seneviratne ◽  
Edward J. Larson
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Public Communication ◽  
Central Question ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
The Public ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Policy Context ◽  
Standards Of Proof

AbstractStandards of proof for attributing real world events/damage to global warming should be the same as in clinical or environmental lawsuits, argue Lloyd et al. The central question that we raise is effective communication. How can climate scientists best and effectively communicate their findings to crucial non-expert audiences, including public policy makers and civil society? To address this question, we look at the mismatch between what courts require and what climate scientists are setting as a bar of proof. Our first point is that scientists typically demand too much of themselves in terms of evidence, in comparison with the level of evidence required in a legal, regulatory, or public policy context. Our second point is to recommend that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommend more prominently the use of the category “more likely than not” as a level of proof in their reports, as this corresponds to the standard of proof most frequently required in civil court rooms. This has also implications for public policy and the public communication of climate evidence.

Aging Ethnicity, and the Public: Policy Implications

1985 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Peter Kong-ming New ◽  
J. Neil Henderson ◽  
Deborah K. Padgett
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
The Public

Legal and Public Policy Implications for the Future of Comparative Advertising: A Look at U-Haul v. Jartran

1989 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 124-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caryn L. Beck-Dudley ◽  
Terrell G. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Comparative Advertising ◽  
The Public ◽  
Industry Regulation ◽  
Trademark Infringement ◽  
Private Action ◽  
Lanham Act ◽  
Legal Fees

This article investigates the regulatory environment for comparative advertising in terms of industry regulation, government regulatory agencies, and private court actions under state law and the federal Lanham Act. Major legal issues are trade disparagement and defamation, trademark infringement and dilution, and deception. The Lanham Act offers protection and redress for parties injured by false, misleading or unfair comparative advertising. Legal theory for application of Lanham to comparative advertising is detailed and implications of the U-Haul vs. Jartran case, where Lanham was applied with U-Haul's being awarded more than forty million dollars in damages and legal fees, are discussed. Several public policy issues are raised including whether the FTC's private action policy serves the public interest given legal risks and costs of defending law suits.

Ownership Redirection in Franchised Channels

1992 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rajiv P. Dant ◽  
Patrick J. Kaufmann ◽  
Audhesh K. Paswan
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
The Public ◽  
Dual Distribution ◽  
Do So

Since the typical franchise arrangements permit the more powerful franchisors to simultaneously act as suppliers as well as competitors to their franchisees, apprehensions about potential opportunistic behaviors and allegations of antitrust violations are not uncommon. In turn, this unique structuring of franchises with dual distribution has drawn considerable scrutiny from the public policy platform. In particular, the ownership redirection hypothesis—that the powerful franchisors will reacquire the best franchised outlets relegating only the marginal units to franchisees—has received special attention because it verbalizes the worst fears associated with franchising. This paper provides an evaluation of this hypothesis. To do so, we examine (1) the key premises of the hypothesis from the perspectives of a number of related literatures and (2) the available empirical evidence on the hypothesis. Both aspects of the appraisal point to a number of unresolved issues with important public policy implications.

Why media companies insist they're not media companies, why they're wrong, and why it matters

First Monday ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Napoli ◽  
Robyn Caplan
Keyword(s):  
Policy Implications ◽  
The Political ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Media Companies ◽  
Communications Technologies ◽  
Common Position ◽  
Social Media Platforms ◽  
History Of ◽  
Semantic Distinction

A common position amongst social media platforms and online content aggregators is their resistance to being characterized as media companies. Rather, companies such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter have regularly insisted that they should be thought of purely as technology companies. This paper critiques the position that these platforms are technology companies rather than media companies, explores the underlying rationales, and considers the political, legal, and policy implications associated with accepting or rejecting this position. As this paper illustrates, this is no mere semantic distinction, given the history of the precise classification of communications technologies and services having profound ramifications for how these technologies and services are considered by policy-makers and the courts.

Dynamics of Representation: The Case of US Spending on Defence

1996 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Wlezien
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Policy Decisions ◽  
Public Preferences ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
The Public ◽  
Dynamic Policy ◽  
Over Time

The representation of public preferences in public policy is fundamental to most conceptions of democracy. If representation is effectively undertaken, we would expect to find a correspondence between public preferences for policy and policy itself. If representation is dynamic, policy makers should respond to changes in preferences over time. The integrity of the representational connection, however, rests fundamentally on the expectation that the public actually notices and responds to policy decisions. Such a public would adjust its preferences for ‘more’ or ‘less’ policy in response to what policy makers actually do, much like a thermostat. Despite its apparent importance, there is little research that systematically addresses this feedback of policy on preferences over time. Quite simply, we do not know whether the public adjusts its preferences for policy in response to what policy makers do. By implication, we do not fully understand the dynamics of representation. This research begins to address these issues and focuses on the relationships between public preferences and policy in a single, salient domain.

scholarly journals What are the public policy implications of a neurobiological view of addiction?

Addiction ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 107 (7) ◽  
pp. 1199-1200 ◽  
Author(s):  
CORAL E. GARTNER ◽  
ADRIAN CARTER ◽  
BRAD PARTRIDGE
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
The Public
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document