Suchergebnisse

The Australia–China Youth Dialogue (ACYD) was founded in 2010 by a group of creative, boundary-pushing students who felt they could have an impact in the Australia–China space. After 13 years it continues to reflect a real interest in deepening mutual understanding and opportunity between the two countries.

This article examines in detail the basis of industrial policy in Germany. The analysis of goals, actors and tools of the German industrial policy. Special attention is given to the regional dimension of industrial policy in Germany, in particular, looks at the experience of regional industrial policy in Bavaria. In addition, this article describes the types of industrial policy in Germany: the horizontal and sectoral

N/A

Salience is an important concept throughout political science. Traditionally, the word has been used to designate the importance of issues, particularly for voters. To measure salience in political behavior research, scholars often rely on people's responses to the survey question that asks about the "most important problem" (MIP) facing the nation. In this manuscript, I argue that the measure confuses at least two different characteristics of salience: The importance of issues & the degree to which issues are a problem. It even may be that issues & problems are themselves fundamentally different things, one relating to public policy & the other to conditions. Herein, I conceptualize the different characteristics of MIP. I then undertake an empirical analysis of MIP responses over time in the US. It shows that most of the variation in MIP responses reflects variation in problem status. To assess whether these responses still capture meaningful information about the variation in importance over time, I turn to an analysis of opinion-policy dynamics, specifically on the defense spending domain. It shows that changes in MIP mentions do not structure public responsiveness to policy or policymaker responsiveness to public preferences themselves. Based on the results, it appears that the political importance of defense has remained largely unchanged over time. The same may be true in other domains. Regardless, relying on MIP responses as indicators of issue importance of any domain is fundamentally flawed. The responses may tell us something about the "prominence" of issues, but we simply do not know. The implication is clear: We first need to decide what we want to measure & then design the instruments to measure it. 6 Tables, 3 Figures, 1 Appendix, 56 References. [Copyright 2005 Elsevier Ltd.]

This article introduces the Most Important Problem Dataset (MIPD). The MIPD provides individual-level responses by Americans to "most important problem" questions from 1939 to 2015 coded into 58 different problem categories. The MIPD also contains individual-level information on demographics, economic evaluations, partisan preferences, approval and party competencies. This dataset can help answer questions about how the public prioritizes all problems, domestic and foreign, and we demonstrate how these data can shed light on how circumstances influence foreign policy attentiveness. Our exploratory analysis of foreign policy issue attention reveals some notable patterns about foreign policy public opinion. First, foreign policy issues rarely eclipse economic issues on the public's problem agenda, so efforts to shift attention from poor economic performance to foreign policy via diversionary maneuvers are unlikely to be successful in the long term. Second, we find no evidence that partisan preferences—whether characterized as partisan identification or ideology—motivate partisans to prioritize different problems owing to perceptions of issue ownership. Instead, Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, respond in similar fashions to shifting domestic and international conditions.