The process of political decision-making on climate change and journalism in Japan

2013 ◽  
pp. 217-240
Author(s):  
Tokuhisa Yoshida
2020 ◽  
pp. 251-258
Author(s):  
Anders Esmark

Taking up the case of climate change, the conclusion considers the argument for moretechnocracy in the face of ‘the end world as we know it’. Climate change is probably the strongest case for a technocratic model of political decision-making. At the very least, insufficient political adherence to the scientific evidence on climate change is an almost commonsensical part of the problem of in the current state of affairs. While fully acknowledging this problem, the chapter argues that attention to the destructive and mutually reinforcing interplay of technocracy and populism is necessary also in to the all-important challenge of climate change.


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-171
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Poderati ◽  
Shutian Ou

Abstract This article argues that climate change policies should be designed as far as possible with the involvement of civil society at large, as it is an existential problem that concerns the whole of humanity. It is suggested that in the Chinese context, the legal system and political decision-making processes could better address climate change for example, through the participatory processes promoted by the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992 and subsequent instruments. The article explores the possibility of adopting a hybrid approach in China by developing an interactive platform linking the relevant components of civil society in order to gather critical expertise and insights from the community as a whole. A hybrid approach would be directed at combining the current top-down approach with a bottom-up approach, which would potentially contribute to an increase in transparency and accountability in legislative and political decision-making processes to produce the best possible legal approaches and policy strategies for addressing climate change.


2014 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 250-259
Author(s):  
Etienne Verhoeyen

Met dit boek levert Frank Seberechts een nagenoeg volledige studie af van een van de minder fraai kanten van de Belgische samenleving in 1940: de administratieve arrestatie en de wegvoering naar Frankrijk van enkele duizenden personen (de ‘verdachten’), Belgen of in België verblijvende vreemdelingen. De extreem-rechtse en pro-Duitse arrestanten hebben na hun vrijlating dit feit politiek in hun voordeel uitgebaat, waardoor volledig in de schaduw kwam te staan dat de overgrote meerderheid van de weggevoerden joodse mensen waren die in de jaren voor de oorlog naar België waren gevlucht. Dat het beeld van de wegvoeringen niet volledig is, is grotendeels te wijten aan het feit dat de meeste archieven die hierop betrekking hebben tijdens de meidagen van 1940 vernietigd werden. Met name de politieke besluitvorming over de wegvoeringen vertoont nog steeds schemerzones, zodat het vastleggen van verantwoordelijkheden ook vandaag nog een gewaagde onderneming is.________Deportations and the deported during the Maydays in 1940 By means of this book Frank Seberechts provides an almost complete study of one of the less admirable sides of Belgian society in 1940: the administrative arrest and the deportation to France of some thousands of people (‘the suspects’), Belgians or foreigners residing in Belgium. The extreme-right and pro-German detainees politically exploited this fact after they had been freed, but this completely overshadowed the point that the large majority of the deported people were Jews who had fled to Belgium during the years preceding the war. This incomplete portrayal of the deportations is mainly due to the fact that most of the archives relating to the events had been destroyed during the Maydays of 1940. The history of the political decision-making about the deportations in particular still shows many grey areas and it is therefore still a risky business even today to determine which people should be held accountable.


Author(s):  
Takeuchi Ayano

AbstractPublic participation has become increasingly necessary to connect a wide range of knowledge and various values to agenda setting, decision-making and policymaking. In this context, deliberative democratic concepts, especially “mini-publics,” are gaining attention. Generally, mini-publics are conducted with randomly selected lay citizens who provide sufficient information to deliberate on issues and form final recommendations. Evaluations are conducted by practitioner researchers and independent researchers, but the results are not standardized. In this study, a systematic review of existing research regarding practices and outcomes of mini-publics was conducted. To analyze 29 papers, the evaluation methodologies were divided into 4 categories of a matrix between the evaluator and evaluated data. The evaluated cases mainly focused on the following two points: (1) how to maintain deliberation quality, and (2) the feasibility of mini-publics. To create a new path to the political decision-making process through mini-publics, it must be demonstrated that mini-publics can contribute to the decision-making process and good-quality deliberations are of concern to policy-makers and experts. Mini-publics are feasible if they can contribute to the political decision-making process and practitioners can evaluate and understand the advantages of mini-publics for each case. For future research, it is important to combine practical case studies and academic research, because few studies have been evaluated by independent researchers.


1976 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel A. Kirkpatrick ◽  
Dwight F. Davis ◽  
Roby D. Robertson

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 401-411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Sheagley

Party identification provides citizens with an anchor from which they derive many of their political attitudes and issue preferences. But what happens when people encounter political debates that place their partisan identities and policy attitudes into conflict with one another? This article draws on an original experiment designed to study the effect of debates that cut across people’s partisan identities and policy attitudes. The results show that cross-cutting debates make people less likely to engage in selective exposure, more likely to feel ambivalent toward their political party, and less likely to rely on party cues when rendering a judgment.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document