Suchergebnisse

One week after President Donald Trump signed a controversial executive order to reduce the influx of refugees to the United States, we conducted a survey experiment to understand American citizens ' attitudes toward refugee resettlement. Specifically, we evaluated whether citizens consider the geographic context of the resettlement program (that is, local versus national) and the degree to which they are swayed by media frames that increasingly associate refugees with terrorist thre ats. Our findings highlight a collective action problem: Participants are consistently less supportive of resettlement within their own communities than resettlement elsewhere in the country. This pattern holds across all measured demographic, political, and geographic subsamples within our data. Furthermore, our results demonstrate that threatening media frames significantly reduce support for both national and local resettlement. Conversely, media frames rebutting the threat posed by refugees have no sig- nificant effect. Finally, the results indicate that par ticipants in refugee-dense counties are less responsive to threatening frames, suggesting that proximity to previously settled refugees may reduce the impact of perceived security threats.

Democratic accountability requires that citizens accurately attribute credit and blame to leaders and institutions. However, citizens tend to simplify politics by personifying the state as its leader and directing credit and blame accordingly. Using an expert survey and a five-wave public panel survey spanning two administrations, we contrast public and expert perceptions of presidential power. We demonstrate that the public exaggerates the president's powers relative to scholarly experts and that people who exaggerate presidential powers most are more likely to attribute blame to the president. However, a change in partisan control of the presidency shifts perceptions of power among partisans. Finally, we find suggestive evidence of similar shifts in belief after salient policy failures. These results provide the most direct evidence to date that citizens generally exaggerate the president's influence and control but that these beliefs change over time in response to events.

AbstractStudies of the American public demonstrate that partisans often diverge not only on questions of opinion but also on matters of fact. However, little is known about partisan divergence in factual beliefs among the government officials who make real policy decisions, or how it compares to belief polarization among the public. This letter describes the first systematic comparison of factual belief polarization between the public and government officials, which we conducted using a paired survey approach. The results indicate that political elites are consistently more accurately informed than the public across a wide range of politically contentious facts. However, this increase in accuracy does not translate into reduced factual belief polarization. These findings demonstrate that a more informed political elite does not necessarily mitigate partisan factual disagreement in policy making.

The ECCO-Peer Review Programme is part of the joint evaluation of existing and new active substances under within the framework of Council Directive 91/414/EEC and Regulation (EEC) No. 3600/92. Specific information on the first 50 ECCO-Peer Review Meetings held in 4 rounds from September 1996 to January 1998 by the BBA (Braunschweig) and PSD (York) is given which can be summarised as follows: 36 active substances have been reviewed of which 7 were new (i.e. not on the market before 25 July 1993). 18 of the 36 reviewed active substances are herbicides, the other 18 include all main categories of active substances. The monographs were prepared by 13 Member States. Experts from all 15 Member States of the European Union (EU) have attended the meetings, representing all regions in the EU. Scientific advice was given to the European Commission which assisted in the preparation of the regulatory decisions in the Standing Committee on Plant Health of the European Commission in Brussels. ; Das "ECCO-Peer-Review-Programm" ist Teil der gemeinsamen Prüfung und Bewertung alter und neuer Pflanzenschutzmittelwirkstoffe im Rahmen der Richtlinie des Rates 91/414/EWG und Verordnung (EWG) 3600/92. Es wird über die ersten 50 ECCOExpertensitzungen informiert, die in 4 Runden von September 1996 bis Januar 1998 in der BBA (Braunschweig) und dem PSD (York) organisiert wurden. Diese Information wird wie folgt zusammengefaßt: 36 Wirkstoffe wurden geprüft, davon 7 neue (das heißt nicht vor dem 25. Juli 1993 im Verkehr). 18 der 36 geprüften Wirkstoffe sind Herbizide, die anderen 18 umfassen alle wesentlichen Wirkungsbereiche. Die Monographien wurden von 13 Mitgliedstaaten erstellt. Experten aus allen 15 Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union (EU) waren an den Sitzungen beteiligt. Sie repräsentierten alle Regionen der EU. Die Europäische Kommission wurde wissenschaftlich beraten, und somit wurde ein Beitrag für die Vorbereitung der Entscheidungen im Ständigen Ausschuß Pflanzenschutz bei der Europäischen Kommission in Brüssel geleistet.

Collectively the UK investment in transport decarbonisation is greater than £27B from government for incentivising zero-emission vehicles as part of an urgent response to decarbonise the transport sector. The investments made must facilitate a transition to a long-term solution. The success relies on coordinating and testing the evolution of both the energy and transport systems, this avoids the risk of unforeseen consequences in both systems and therefore de-risks investment Here, we present a semiquantitative energy and transport system analysis for UK road freight focusing on two primary investment areas for nation-wide decarbonisation, namely electrification and hydrogen propulsion. Our study assembles and assesses the potential roadblocks of these energy systems into a concise record and considers the infrastructure in relation to all other components within the energy system. It highlights that for system-wide success and resilience, a hydrogen system must overcome hydrogen production and distribution barriers, whereas an electric system needs to optimise storage solutions and charging facilities. Without cohesive, co-evolving energy networks, the planning and operational modelling of transport decarbonisation may fall short of meaningful real-world results. A developed understanding of the dependencies between the energy and transport systems is a necessary step in the development of meaningful operational transport models that could de-risk investment in both the energy and transport systems.