How populist attitudes scales fail to capture support for populists in power

Populist attitudes are generally measured in surveys through three necessary and non-compensatory elements of populism, namely anti-elitism, people-centrism, and Manicheanism. Using Comparative Study of Electoral Systems Module 5 (2016–2020) data for 30 countries, we evaluate whether this approach explains voting for populist parties across countries in Asia, Europe and the Americas. We show that the existing scales of populist attitudes effectively explain voting for populists in countries where populist leaders and parties are in opposition but fail to explain voting for populist parties in countries where they are in power. We argue that current approaches assume “the elite” to mean “politicians”, thus failing to capture attitudes towards “non-political elites” often targeted by populists in office—in particular, journalists, academics/experts, bureaucrats, and corporate business leaders. The results reveal limits to the usefulness of existing survey batteries in cross-national studies of populism and emphasize the need to develop approaches that are more generalizable across political and national contexts.

Building country-level capacity to estimate the burden of COVID-19

The European Burden of Disease Network (burden-eu) joins 271 members from 50 countries. Upon the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, several of these members started studies to estimate the burden of COVID-19 in their countries, and many others showed interest in taking steps to launch such studies. Capacity building is one of the key pillars of burden-eu, and the ultimate goal of several of its activities. In mid-2020, a group within burden-eu convened to establish an approach to support the network's members to establish national studies. First, the grouped discussed the methodology, data requirements and resources needed to implement a national study. Based on the output of these discussions, a comprehensive protocol was published on the network's website, and a scientific article was published in an open-access journal. To present this methodology, share already finalized studies, and discuss challenges and opportunities for future studies, in November 2020 burden-eu organized a public webinar, which was attended by over 100 participants. The network's website collects and continuously posts all published articles related to the burden of COVID Burden-eu. Burden-eu also formed the Burden of COVID-19 Working Group, which is open to all network members conducting or interested in implementing national studies. This group aims to share experiences in national burden of COVID-19 studies; support each other with calculations, model assumptions, data gaps; harmonize methodologies and align strategies for communicating results; and discuss research and upcoming evidence on long-COVID. The group meets regularly to achieve these aims. Lastly, the network launched an online discussion forum, where members can post questions and receive answers from peers in an interactive and rapid way. All these efforts have resulted in several studies being launched, and are allowing for harmonized approaches to be used and comparable estimates to be generated.

Analysis of Exponent K Based on “Share” Project Data and Its Implications on Importance Factors of En 1998-1

This paper deals with seismic activity represented by a hazard curve through a single parameter – exponent k as given in EN 1998-1, as well as with its implications on importance factors. We have used the SHARE project dataset for calculation of exponent k for the wider European area and limited number of separate national studies for comparison of results since comparison to the SHARE results on the same dataset resulted with values of exponent k smaller by 1–1.5. The results indicate that recommended value of exponent k of 3 is rather an exception than expected value in seismically active regions, and that with the exclusion of Vrancea zone, for majority of Europe exponent k is well below assumed in EN 1998-1, which consequently indicate that importance factors for these locations should be larger than recommended in EN 1998-1.

Changes in Consumers’ Purchase Patterns as a Consequence of the COVID-19 Pandemic

The current COVID-19 pandemic has affected every aspect of consumer behavior—their expenses, investments, and financial reserves, as well as their financial and social wellbeing. As a consequence of different restrictions, consumers and their shopping patterns have changed significantly; thus, the factors that influence new purchase patterns need to be identified to help traders, retailers, and marketers develop appropriate strategies to respond to crucial consumer changes in the market. A categorical analysis (Pearson’s chi-square test) and correspondence analysis (simple and multivariate) were applied to a sample of 425 Slovak respondents to reveal the most important factors impacting consumers’ financial situations, as well as the effects on the maintenance of new shopping habits established during the pandemic period. The results revealed that consumers´ income, age, and sector of occupation play important roles in the context of new shopping patterns. These findings are in agreement with other global studies, confirming both the worldwide impact of the pandemic on consumer behavior and the importance of national studies on consumer shopping behavior in order for state authorities, traders, marketers, and entrepreneurs to be able to take necessary measures.

Populists Vote for Populists, Right? How Populist Attitude Scales Fail to Capture Support for Populists in Power

Surveys of the attitudes of voters for populist parties generally measure three non-compensatory factors of populism: anti-elitism, people-centrism, and Manicheanism. Using Comparative Study of Electoral Systems Module 5 data for 23 countries, we evaluate whether this approach explains voting for populist parties across countries in Asia, Europe and the Americas. We show that the existing scale of populist attitudes effectively explains voting for populists in countries where populist leaders and parties are in opposition but fails to ex- plain voting for populist parties in countries where they are in power. We argue that current approaches assume ‘the elite’ to mean ‘politicians’, thus failing to capture attitudes towards ‘non-political elites’ often targeted by populists in office – journalists, academics, bureaucrats, etc. The results reveal limits to the usefulness of existing survey batteries in cross-national studies of populism and emphasize the need to develop approaches that are more generalizable across political and national contexts.

Cross-national Comparisons of Cognitive and Physical Health Across China, Japan, and Korea: A Systematic Review

Background: Cross-national studies are an emerging research area in public health. Specifically, cross-national health comparisons are important for understanding the factors driving the success or failure of public health policies. Findings from cross-national studies can be used to improve the current health policies and practices in each country. Therefore, this study systematically analyzes studies that compared health status (physical health and cognition) using national panel data for three Northeast Asian countries—China, Japan, and South Korea. Methods: Google Scholar and PubMed were used for the literature search. The search strategy targeted papers published between 2005 and 2020, yielding a total of 205 studies, of which eight were selected for the review. Results: Two studies conducted cognitive comparisons, five undertook physical health comparisons, and one article demonstrated cross-national comparisons using national panel surveys. The cognitive comparison items were verbal memory, orientation, visuoconstruction, numeracy and numeric ability, and executive functioning. Health comparisons were conducted by measuring the proportion of the population with chronic conditions, such as heart disease, diabetes, stroke, hypertension, arthritis, and having difficulty in activities of daily living. None of the eight studies utilized a common measure for cognitive and physical health status across the three countries. Conclusion: While survey items measured cognitive function and general physical health status in each country, there was no common measure for undertaking cognitive and physical health status comparisons across the three countries. A valid cross-national outcome measure is needed to accurately compare the population-level health status across the three countries.