Suchergebnisse

Successful conquerors, imperialists and sundry would‐be expansionists face a common problem: they take what they can get — but how do they keep what they take? Having wrested lands and possessions from others, how do they contrive to retain them? More particularly, how do they organise and govern territories which are inhospitable and often actively hostile? This is the central concern of this discussion. The range of possibilities that is open to occupying powers in their dealings with conquered peoples is limited. Whatever method or combination of methods is adopted will involve different attitudes to, and applications of, some form of relevant ideology which we may define as a set of beliefs in a preferred social order which enables adherents to interpret their past, explain their present and develop a vision of the future.

"Typology of Media Systems" published on by Oxford University Press.

In this comparative report we develop a typology of reception governance, which allows for a country comparative perspective on reception measures for refugees. The term "reception governance" is to comprise both reception policies (i.e. a system of principles to guide decisions), decision-making and actual practices. The main rationale for the construction of the typology is that reception governance does not constitute a policy field or domain on its own, but crosscuts both classical policy domains (such as social policy, immigration policy, economic and labour policy) and various levels of governance (such as inter- and supranational, national, federal and municipal). The report is based on a based on a meta-analysis of 11 national reports on reception policies and practice from countries along the so-called Eastern Mediterranean Route. It comprises established EU member states, such as Austria, Germany, Greece, Italy, Sweden and the United Kingdom (before Brexit), more recent member states, such as Hungary and Poland, and third countries, such as Turkey, Lebanon and the Iraq, which have played an important role as source and transit countries of refugees. Based on country-by-country pair comparisons we identified five major types of reception governance which are presented in the order of declining state intervention: "Wary Hospitality", "Post-Communist Reluctance", "Ordo-liberal Delegation", "Overload and Externalization", and "Residual Patronage".

In this comparative report we develop a typology of reception governance, which allows for a country comparative perspective on reception measures for refugees. The term "reception governance" is to comprise both reception policies (i.e. a system of principles to guide decisions), decision-making and actual practices. The main rationale for the construction of the typology is that reception governance does not constitute a policy field or domain on its own, but crosscuts both classical policy domains (such as social policy, immigration policy, economic and labour policy) and various levels of governance (such as inter- and supranational, national, federal and municipal). The report is based on a based on a meta-analysis of 11 national reports on reception policies and practice from countries along the so-called Eastern Mediterranean Route. It comprises established EU member states, such as Austria, Germany, Greece, Italy, Sweden and the United Kingdom (before Brexit), more recent member states, such as Hungary and Poland, and third countries, such as Turkey, Lebanon and the Iraq, which have played an important role as source and transit countries of refugees. Based on country-by-country pair comparisons we identified five major types of reception governance which are presented in the order of declining state intervention: "Wary Hospitality", "Post-Communist Reluctance", "Ordo-liberal Delegation", "Overload and Externalization", and "Residual Patronage".

In this comparative report we develop a typology of reception governance, which allows for a country comparative perspective on reception measures for refugees. The term "reception governance" is to comprise both reception policies (i.e. a system of principles to guide decisions), decision-making and actual practices. The main rationale for the construction of the typology is that reception governance does not constitute a policy field or domain on its own, but crosscuts both classical policy domains (such as social policy, immigration policy, economic and labour policy) and various levels of governance (such as inter- and supranational, national, federal and municipal). The report is based on a based on a meta-analysis of 11 national reports on reception policies and practice from countries along the so-called Eastern Mediterranean Route. It comprises established EU member states, such as Austria, Germany, Greece, Italy, Sweden and the United Kingdom (before Brexit), more recent member states, such as Hungary and Poland, and third countries, such as Turkey, Lebanon and the Iraq, which have played an important role as source and transit countries of refugees. Based on country-by-country pair comparisons we identified five major types of reception governance which are presented in the order of declining state intervention: "Wary Hospitality", "Post-Communist Reluctance", "Ordo-liberal Delegation", "Overload and Externalization", and "Residual Patronage".