Suchergebnisse

In order to understand the potential of new policy instruments in tackling environmental problems we locate their development in the context of challenges to traditional roles of the Australian state in promoting welfare and national economic development

One of the predominant issues on the agenda of diplomats and politicians is how to address the consequences of shifts in perception about threats to the environment and the actual short and long-term characteristics and effects of environmental degradation. Another challenge is that such issues as climate change impact on many areas including trade, economic and fiscal policies, employment, transport, agriculture and regional development. Furthermore, decisions taken at a national level cannot be isolated from international concerns, as in the case of the Kyoto Protocol. This article maps out some of the differences between Australia and the European Union in relation to the role of developing countries in tackling climate change, the use of market mechanisms to tackle environmental problems and the implementation of punitive compliance systems. We explore the challenges facing Australia and the EU in sustainable development, why the EU has a reputation as a leader in this field, how Australia has engaged the challenge and why the similarities in the approach of Australia and the EU are more striking than the differences.

In order to understand the potential of new policy instruments in tackling environmental problems we locate their development in the context of challenges to traditional roles of the Australian state in promoting welfare and national economic development

Examines the validity of predominant assumptions about popular support for thc welfare state, including the notions that (1) support for the welfare state varies in different types of regimes (eg, liberal, social democratic, or conservative); (2) different social groups (eg, the middle & working classes & the unemployed) have different interests with respect to the welfare state; & (3) political alignments have a strong influence on attitudes to welfare. The analysis compares data from the 1985/86 & 1990 International Social Survey Programme Role of Government Survey for samples in Australia, the US, GB, West Germany, Italy, & Norway. Focus is on the relationship between mass attitudes & specific types of welfare state regime & the social & other correlates of mass opinion. 5 Tables, 1 Appendix, 37 References. Adapted from the source document.

Ronald Inglehart's (1971) postmaterialism thesis has influenced ideas in cross-national & -temporal research on political behavior over the past two decades. The wide-ranging debate & criticism generated by this thesis has focused both on theoretical issues concerning the nature of values & on methodological issues concerning the measurement of materialism & postmaterialism, particularly the method for ranking individual responses. Using a data set (mail survey data collected in 1988 from 1,814 Australians) that employed both the original ranking method for measuring values & an alternative rating method, explored are the dimensional structure of these values & implications of differences between the two measurement strategies. The 2-dimensional solution provided by the rating method is a more theoretically appropriate way of understanding materialist & postmaterialist values than the notion of a single conflict dimension, since it allows for a more flexible & realistic account of the choices made by most social actors. In Polarized Priorities of Flexible Alternatives? Dimensionality in Inglehart's Materialism-Postmaterialism Scale: A Comment, Inglehart (U of Michigan, Ann Arbor) finds contradictions in Bean's & Papadakis's findings that interpret the ratings approach as a more faithful reflection of political reality than the ranking format. The materialist-postmaterialist values thesis was originally intended to measure value priorities, whereas Bean & Papadakis are really measuring response patterns. In Measuring Cultural Orientation: Rating versus Ranking, Ottar Hellevik (U of Oslo, Norway) finds problems with the two specific cultural dimensions Bean & Papadakis propose instead of the materialism-postmaterialism dimension. While they advocate the use of rating scales in national comparative studies of cultural factors, ranking is preferable in cases of possible conflict & because of response set. Bean & Papadakis, in Polarized Priorities, and Flexible Alternatives: Response to Inglehart and Hellevik observe that the value change aspect of Inglehart's theory conforms with their alternative measurement strategy. They concede that the methodological problem of response set must be overcome when using their rating method. However, the contemporory coexistence of adversarial & consensual political styles calls for both ranking & rating mehtods. 4 Tables, 1 Appendix, 41 References. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractApart from the preoccupation with raising revenue for the welfare state, the question of popular support is central to its future. Arguments about the prospects for the welfare state, about its social and political bases of support and about classifying different types of regime provide the context of our investigation. Our approach is to examine empirical evidence of the connection between support for the welfare state and (a) different types of regime and (b) social and political factors. The analysis of these relationships has important implications for policy-makers who are concerned about consent to their programmes and about the experiences of comparable regimes.