scholarly journals Experts in Government: What for? Ambiguities in Public Opinion Towards Technocracy

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 520-532 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ernesto Ganuza ◽  
Joan Font
Keyword(s):  
Social Support ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Political Party ◽  
Representative Sample ◽  
Social Supports ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Party Government ◽  
Process Support ◽  
Political Disaffection

Technocratic governments and similar systems that give more voice to experts in the decision-making process are one of the potential alternatives to traditional representative party government. These alternatives have become increasingly popular, especially in countries where strong political disaffection and previous favourable pro-expert attitudes exist simultaneously. The Spanish case is one of these settings, with the emergence of a political party, Ciudadanos (Citizens), that represents these ideas. This article contributes to the understanding of public opinion support for an expert government, its main motives, and social supports. We claim that experts are not so much a decision-making alternative as they are a desired piece of the decision-making process. Support for a more significant role for experts comes especially from those that credit them with ample technical capacities, but most citizens want them to work as a piece of representative government, not as an alternative to it. The article combines two types of evidence: A survey of a representative sample of the population, including innovative questions about support to expert governments, and 10 focus groups that allow a more in-depth comprehension of the support (and criticism) of an increased role for experts. The results provide a nuanced picture of the types of expert involvement sought and their respective social support.

Decisions for Empire: Revisiting the 1882 Occupation of Egypt*

2020 ◽  
Vol 135 (572) ◽  
pp. 94-126
Author(s):  
William Mulligan
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Late Nineteenth Century ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Liberal Party ◽  
International Support ◽  
Imperial History ◽  
The Press ◽  
Late Nineteenth

Abstract The decision of Gladstone’s government to invade and occupy Egypt in 1882 remains one of the most contentious in late nineteenth-century British political and imperial history. This article examines the decision-making process in June and July 1882, revisiting Robinson and Gallagher’s influential study in the light of more recent historiographical research and previously unused sources. It looks at who made the critical decisions, what their preoccupations were, and how they were able to get Cabinet approval. Hartington and Northbrook were the two key figures, who co-operated to overturn Gladstone’s and Granville’s policy in June 1882. Yet their co-operation was momentary and they found themselves on different sides of the argument over the participation of Indian forces and international support. Although they shared a sense of Egypt’s importance to British imperial security, they each had a distinctive approach, so that the decision to occupy cannot be reduced to a conflict between Whig pragmatists and Radical idealists. The article also shows how the Alexandria riot on 11 June altered the context of decision-making by shifting the mood in the parliamentary Liberal party towards intervention. Parliament, not the press, was the crucial site of ‘public opinion’ in the Egyptian crisis in June and July 1882.

FRAGILE HEGEMONY, FLEXIBLE AUTHORITARIANISM, AND GOVERNING FROM BELOW: POLITICIANS' REPORTS IN EARLY REPUBLICAN TURKEY

2011 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 699-719 ◽  
Author(s):  
Murat Metinsoy
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Social Engineering ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Party Government ◽  
The People ◽  
State And Society ◽  
Early Republican ◽  
Turkish State

AbstractThis article scrutinizes election district and inspection district reports written by the deputies of the Turkish single-party government and the role of these reports in state decision making. Underscoring social discontent and the fragile hegemony of the new regime—both of which motivated the republican elite to monitor state and party administrations and public opinion—the article argues that the practice of reporting was neither a project of social engineering nor a practice peculiar to the Turkish state but rather a requirement of a polity concerned with the opinion of its citizens. In the absence of direct political participation of the people in government, the reports mediated between the state and society. Contrary to conventional accounts of the single-party period, the article argues that the republican elite did not govern the country through top-down decrees but instead sought to ascertain public opinion and its own administrative defects so as to consolidate its fragile hegemony. Based on these findings, I propose that we redefine the early republican state as a flexible authoritarian regime that was not detached from the society.

scholarly journals “To Respond or not to Respond, that is the Question”: The Decision-Making Process of Providing Social Support to Distressed Posters on Facebook

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 205630511875929 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamara F. Chang ◽  
Janis Whitlock ◽  
Natalya N. Bazarova
Keyword(s):  
Social Support ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Social Networking Sites ◽  
Peer Networks ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Relationship Closeness ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Relational Closeness ◽  
History Of

The aim of this study is to understand whether, why, and under what conditions young adults respond to distressed posts on social networking sites (SNSs). Semi-structured interviews with 27 participants revealed a wide range of salient factors that influenced participants’ likelihood of responding to distressed posts. By identifying the factors and mapping the conditions under which they are operational, we posit a conceptual framework useful in understanding key features of the decision-making process participants use to decide whether and how to respond to distressed SNS posts. Results suggest that relationship closeness is the first and most significant determinant of likelihood to respond. When relational closeness was high, the responses were likely to be direct and immediate. In the absence of relational closeness between respondent and poster, likelihood of responding depended on (1) perceived acuity and seriousness of content, (2) consistency in posting patterns, (3) perceived capacity to provide efficacious support, (4) history of reciprocity, (5) perceived resonance with poster or posted content, (6) perceived motivations of the poster, and (7) perceptions of other viewers. The findings have implications for understanding social support interactions and bystander interventions in peer networks on SNSs.

Establishment of Korean Nuclear Ombudsman System Importing Compensation and Insurance Concept for Residents

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyun Seok Ko ◽  
Yong Min Kim ◽  
Young Wook Lee ◽  
Dong Hoon Shin ◽  
Young Ho Cho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Power Plant ◽  
Nuclear Power Plant ◽  
Public Participation ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Nuclear Reactors ◽  
Public Hearing ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
The Public

In Korea, the nuclear power generation is grown technically well. Already, 20 nuclear reactors are operated, and approximate they supply the 40% of whole the consumption of electric power. This is the driving force of Korean industrial development. Besides, Korean Standard Nuclear Power Plant that was developed by Korean self-technique with nuclear plant technique independence, Ul-Chin 6 has started the commercial operation. Advanced Korean Standard Nuclear Power Plant, new Gori 1, 2 constructions are commenced. But, past days Korean situation is that intention of residents is neglected in the decision making process of nuclear power plant construction and operation. In existing decision making process, it is regarded as the role of public opinion is secondary, and the problem of decision making process is that public is persuaded and believed. So, in decision making process, the public opinion is considered restrictively, there is not the actual public participation. Therefore the dissatisfaction of public is increased continuously, and in Korea, bad recognition about nuclear power is getting full. The method of public participation for complement of this problem is public hearing or ombudsman system. The public hearing is ensuring public participation before decision of a case, and ombudsman is the system that elevates the public satisfaction through continuous feedback of public requirement to occur in deciding and performing the matters. In Korean situation, that present 20 nuclear reactors are operated and also the place of radioactive waste repository has been decided, not only the introduction of public hearing to decide the coming matter but also the operation of ombudsman system to continuously correct and collect the public requirements about the matter to already decided and operated is necessary. In Korea, administration type ombudsman is operated now. But, it has operated without basic element at the aspect of organization, function and phase. So it is not established a firm phase as right relief body to be believed by public with lack of independence, authority and specialty. Therefore the establishment of organization that can be the role as special ombudsman organization about sensitive and special matter like nuclear matter is necessary. Definite establishment element of ombudsman system is to introduce of congress type ombudsman element, to be permanent standing system ombudsman, to limit jurisdiction extent and have strong authority, to be able to access easily, to be composed of legal and nuclear specialist. One of important requirements of resident is compensation. So, based on the resident compensation theory about aversion equipment, ombudsman system should be established introducing the insurance theory through risk management as functional background for appropriate compensation.

Elite opinion and defence policy: air power advocacy and British rearmament during the 1930s

1980 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Uri Bialer
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Air Power ◽  
Political Concern ◽  
General Terms ◽  
Defence Policy ◽  
Negative Role ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Impact

Much has been written about the deep fear of aerial bombardment in inter-war Britain. Particular attention has been paid to the Government awareness of that danger during the late 1930s, when the threat of war advanced from the realm of military and academic speculation to the sphere of an immediate political concern. “Air power” and the concomitant possibility of aerial bombardment, to quote Correlli Barnett, then became an “obsession”; it pervaded Cabinet debates and dominated all discussions of rearmament at every level of the British decision-making process.2 Why this should have been so, is not always made clear. The Government's sensitivity to the air danger is more often assumed than explained, and comparatively few attempts have been made to analyse the root causes which were responsible for this fear in official circles. Particularly neglected, in this context, is the impact of public opinion. Broadly speaking, public opinion is considered to have played a generally negative role, retarding the process of rearmament when not obstructing it altogether. The interplay between the public's view of the “air peril” and that of the Government is thereby minimized. This article is designed to redress that balance. It aims to examine the degree to which the British public was itself sensitive to the air danger and the extent to which its fears were communicated to the men who formulated the country's defence policy. In so doing, it will argue that public opinion acted as a catalyst, affecting official views on defence policy and — in general terms — influencing the choice of the form which rearmament was to take.

Minority governments and Canada’s confused foreign investment policy

2020 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 503-515
Author(s):  
Stephen Azzi
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Foreign Investment ◽  
Foreign Capital ◽  
Investment Policy ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Economic Considerations

Three case studies demonstrate that federal limits on foreign investment in Canada have been motivated by political not economic considerations. The cases—the abortive 1963 tax on foreign takeovers, the 1973–1974 creation of the Foreign Investment Review Agency, and the 2008 and 2010 decisions to block the purchase of two Canadian companies—shared many features. All three involved minority governments that were vulnerable to shifts in public opinion. All three governments were skeptical about turning away foreign capital. Yet all three undertook measures to limit investment. All three then abandoned the policy as soon as political circumstances changed. This decision-making process helps explain why Canadian foreign investment policy has often been confused and inconsistent.

Why Japan Signed the Mine Ban Treaty: The Political Dynamics behind the Decision

Asian Survey ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 397-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenki Adachi
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
The Political ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Political Dynamics ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
Non Governmental Organizations ◽  
Mine Ban Treaty

This article clarifies the dynamics of Japan's decision-making process regarding its signing of the Mine Ban Treaty, analyzing the influence of non-governmental organizations on policymakers. It will demonstrate that this case was atypical in the Japanese decision-making process and that NGOs, with the support of domestic and international public opinion, can overcome entrenched bureaucratic policies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document