Suchergebnisse

The influence of farmers on public policy has often been analysed by means of a pressure‐group paradigm. Here the paradigm is integrated into a more general theoretical framework with focus on the content of agricultural policy. Differences in agricultural policies are first of all explained by the consensus‐making capacity of the political process. Crucial here is the agricultural profile of the Social Democratic parties, and how far the cost of increasing farm income impinges on the interest of other social groups.

THE INFLUENCE OF FARMERS ON PUBLIC POLICY HAS OFTEN BEEN ANALYSED BY MEANS OF A PRESSUREGROUP PARADIGM. HERE THE PARADIGM IS INTEGRATED INTO A MORE GENERAL THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK WITH FOCUS ON THE CONTENT OF AGRICULTURAL POLICY. DIFFERENCES IN AGRICULTURAL POLICIES ARE FIRST OF ALL EXPLAINED BY THE CONSENSUS-MAKING CAPACITY OF THE POLITICAL PROCESS. CRUCIAL HERE IS THE AGRICULTURAL PROFILE OF THE SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTIES, AND HOW FAR THE COST OF INCREASING FARM INCOME IMPINGES ON THE INTEREST OF OTHER SOCIAL GROUPS.

A FEELING COULD EXIT AMONG CONSERVATIVE BACKBENCHERS THAT THEY HAD NO MORE UTILITY OR SELF-RESPECT THAN MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY (OR ANY OTHER CONFECTED, NON-LEGISLATING DUMA). IT IS DIFFICULT TO MAKE AN IMPRESSION OR A SERIOUS CONTRIBUTION. THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR SPEAKING ARE FEWER THAN THOSE OF OPPOSITION MEMBERS AND A FRACTION OF THOSE AFFORDED TO MEMBERS OF THE LIBERAL AND SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTIES. PR STRIKES BACK AS IT WERE!

The article considers the significance of the commitment of the state and its factors and forces in preventing the perpetrators of terrorism to manifest themselves in a violent way. The author takes as a starting point the fact that terrorist collectivities make great efforts to take their primary victim (state) by surprise. The response of the state should result in the efficient protection from this danger. The author considers subjective and objective limitations the anti-terrorist forces of the state are facing in the protection of the state from the terrorist surprise. This, among other things, results in porosity of the anti-terrorist prevention in some of its aspects. The volume and character of possible detrimental effects on the security of the state for the occasional porosity of the anti-terrorist prevention is treated within a separate chapter.

The paper seeks to explain variations in EU support, arguing that several factors might influence public opinion about the European Union. National factors are believed to be more important than European ones because of a lack of knowledge about the EU and the more direct influence of the nation-state on citizens. It is argued that the evaluation of the EU depends on the performance of the nation-state. The citizens' perception of the nation-state is used as a proxy for the formulation of attitudes towards the EU. The results of diverse exogeneity tests and a three-stage least-square regression confirm that support for the EU reflects national attitudes, and shows that the EU represents the hope of surmounting national problems.