Matters of life and longing: female sterilisation in Northeast Brazil
In: Critical anthropology Vol. 1
262 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Critical anthropology Vol. 1
In: Nordisk kulturpolitisk tidskrift: The Nordic journal of cultural policy, Band 26, Heft 1, S. 5-6
ISSN: 2000-8325
In: CORE working paper 1996,2
In: Vohnsen , N H 2016 , ' Evidensbaseret politikudvikling : Brudflader mellem forskning og bureaukrati ' , Tidsskriftet Antropologi , bind 72 , s. 39-60 .
A current ambition in welfare states across Europe and in the US is for political decision-making to be based on rigorous research (Bason 2010; Cartwright et al 2009; Mulgan 2009; Nilsson et al. 2008). Promoted as 'evidence-based policy-making', 'good analysis, or 'better governance' (Nilsson et.al. 2008) the aspiration finds its roots in the governance paradigm generally referred to as 'new public management' (Hartley 2005) and the central concern for developing a cost-effective and agile public sector (Rod 2010). . Sound as this ambition may seem, it has nevertheless been problematized from within the civil services and from the research community (e.g. Boden & Epstein 2006; Cartwright et al. 2009; Elliott & Popay 2000; House of Commons 2006; Nilsson et al. 2008; Whitty 2006; Rod 2010, Vohnsen 2011). Some warn that the term 'evidence-based' is used too lightly, and often in cases where 'evidence' has not fed into the policy processes but rather has been invoked after the fact to support already agreed upon policy (House of Commons 2006; Nilsson et al. 2008); others warn that politics and science are – if not incompatible – then at odds with one another (e.g. Boden & Epstein 2006; Whitty 2006). The article pin-points the friction points between science and policy-making and discuss why it is that evidence rarely feeds into policy-making and how the evidence-based paradigm effectively challenges the traditional craftsmanship of the civil service.
BASE
In: Højstrup Christensen , G , Kammel , A , Nervanto , E , Ruohomäki , J & Rodt , A P 2018 ' Successes and Shortfalls of European Union Common Security and Defence Policy Missions in Africa : Libya, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic ' Royal Danish Defence College , Copenhagen .
This brief synthesises the IECEU project's most essential findings on the effectiveness of European Union (EU) missions in four Africa countries: Libya, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the Central African Republic (CAR). It describes the main elements and impact of the EU missions in these countries, identifies key strategic and operational shortfalls and offers recommendations on how the EU can improve its effectiveness in future conflict prevention and crisis management missions. The EU missions investigated differ in scale, length, objective, budget, priority and context. However, the EU missions presented in this brief share the main characteristic that they have all been deployed under the union's Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP)2 with the explicit intent of improving the overall security situation and addressing conflicts in Africa. This brief will start by providing a short overview of each case, describing the conflict(s), security situation, mission objectives and obstacles. In this way, it compares the overall effectiveness of EU operational conflict prevention across the four African countries and discusses what lessons can be learned from them. The brief does not include all factors needed to answer thisquestion, but highlights the IECEU project's most significant findings in these cases.
BASE
In: Odense University studies in history and social sciences ; v. 60
In: Arbejdspapir / Institut for samfundsøkonomi og planlœgning, Roskilde universitetscenter nr. 4/83