Suchergebnisse

Bereits zum wiederholten Mal ist im kommunistischen Nordkorea Ungewöhnliches vor sich gegangen: Der "geliebte Führer" Kim Jong-il hat die Macht an seinen Sohn Kim Jong-un vererbt, nachdem er sie selbst 1994 von seinem Vater, Staatsgründer Kim Il-sung, übernommen hatte. Auch im sozialistischen Kuba hat Revolutionsführer Fidel Castro das Präsidentenamt an ein Familienmitglied übergeben: an seinen jüngeren Bruder Raúl. Doch wie ist eine solche dynastische Erbfolge in kommunistischen Staaten überhaupt möglich? Warum zählen ausgerechnet Nordkorea und Kuba zu den wenigen "Überlebenden" des weitgehend untergegangenen Weltkommunismus, und wie wahrscheinlich ist ein baldiger politischer Umbruch in den beiden Ländern? Dieses Buch untersucht die beiden Regime, in denen sich totalitäre Elemente auf eigentümliche Weise mit dynastischen und personalistischen Tendenzen vermischt haben, und vergleicht sie mit einem ähnlichen, aber weniger "erfolgreichen" Fall, dem 1989 zusammengebrochenen Ceaucescu-Regime in Rumänien. Als Grundlage für die Analyse dient eine erweiterte Version der Regimetheorie von Linz und Stepan

Der Beitrag untersucht die nordkoreanische "Nicht-Transition" aus vergleichender politikwissenschaftlicher Perspektive und zieht hierzu die erweiterte Regimetheorie in Gestalt der Theorie des "sultanistischen Totalitarismus" von Juan Linz und Alfred Stepan heran. Im Falle Nordkoreas werden vier Phasen sichtbar: (1) Etablierung des totalitären Regimes 1945-1956; (2) nationaler Totalitarismus 1956-1971; (3) sultanistischer Totalitarismus (1971-1994); (4) Nordkorea nach Kim Il-sung seit 1994. Für die Zukunft erscheinen unterschiedliche Szenarien denkbar: ein "Soft Landing"-Szenario, ein Massenexodus, ein Militärputsch, eine Spaltung der Elite nach rumänischem Vorbild sowie das "Durchlavieren" des Regimes in seiner jetzigen Form. (ICE2)

This article outlines a theoretical framework for an interactive, research-driven approach to building policy capacities in health promotion. First, it illustrates how two important issues in the recent public health debate, capacity building and linking scientific knowledge to policy action, are connected to each other theoretically. It then introduces an international study on an interactive approach to capacity building in health promotion policy. The approach combines the ADEPT model of policy capacities with a co-operative planning process to foster the exchange of knowledge between policy-makers and researchers, thus improving intra- and inter-organizational capacities. A regional-level physical activity promotion project involving governmental and public-law institutions, NGOs and university researchers serves as a case study to illustrate the potential of the approach for capacity building. Analysis and comparison with a similar local-level project indicate that the approach provides an effective means of linking scientific knowledge to policy action and to planning concrete measures for capacity building in health promotion, but that it requires sufficiently long timelines and adequate resources to achieve adequate implementation and sustainability.

Despite the recent rapid development of policies to counteract physical inactivity (PI), only a small number of systematic analyses on the evolution of these policies exists. In this article we analyze how PI, as a public health issue, "translates" into a policy-making issue. First, we discuss why PI has become an increasingly important public health issue during the last two decades. We then follow Guy Peters and conceptualize PI as a "policy problem" that has the potential to be linked to policy instruments and policy impact. Analysis indicates that PI is a policy problem that i) is chronic in nature; ii) involves a high degree of political complexity; iii) can be disaggregated into smaller scales; iv) is addressed through interventions that can be difficult to "sell" to the public when their benefits are not highly divisible; v) cannot be solved by government spending alone; vi) must be addressed through a broad scope of activities; and vii) involves interdependencies among both multiple sectors and levels of government. We conclude that the new perspective on PI proposed in this article might be useful and important for i) describing and mapping policies to counteract PI in different contexts; ii) evaluating whether or not existing policy instruments are appropriate to the policy problem of PI, and iii) explaining the factors and processes that underlie policy development and implementation. More research is warranted in all these areas. In particular, we propose to focus on comparative analyses of how the problem of PI is defined and tackled in different contexts, and on the identification of truly effective policy instruments that are designed to "solve" the PI policy problem.

Abstract Despite the recent rapid development of policies to counteract physical inactivity (PI), only a small number of systematic analyses on the evolution of these policies exists. In this article we analyze how PI, as a public health issue, "translates" into a policy-making issue. First, we discuss why PI has become an increasingly important public health issue during the last two decades. We then follow Guy Peters and conceptualize PI as a "policy problem" that has the potential to be linked to policy instruments and policy impact. Analysis indicates that PI is a policy problem that i) is chronic in nature; ii) involves a high degree of political complexity; iii) can be disaggregated into smaller scales; iv) is addressed through interventions that can be difficult to "sell" to the public when their benefits are not highly divisible; v) cannot be solved by government spending alone; vi) must be addressed through a broad scope of activities; and vii) involves interdependencies among both multiple sectors and levels of government. We conclude that the new perspective on PI proposed in this article might be useful and important for i) describing and mapping policies to counteract PI in different contexts; ii) evaluating whether or not existing policy instruments are appropriate to the policy problem of PI, and iii) explaining the factors and processes that underlie policy development and implementation. More research is warranted in all these areas. In particular, we propose to focus on comparative analyses of how the problem of PI is defined and tackled in different contexts, and on the identification of truly effective policy instruments that are designed to "solve" the PI policy problem.

BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity is a key determinant of noncommunicable diseases. Therefore, the World Health Organization (WHO) as well as researchers worldwide have developed different tools to monitor and audit policies to promote physical activity. However, these tools have so far not been used to systematically collect and analyse data on physical activity promoting policies in Germany. AIM: This study aims to provide a systematic overview of policies to promote physical activity in Germany. METHODS: The study was conducted as part of the Policy Evaluation Network (www.jpi-pen.eu). Data from the European Union Physical Activity Monitoring Framework, desk research, and an expert survey were utilised and collected with the WHO's health-enhancing physical activity (HEPA) policy audit tool (PAT). RESULTS: The results highlight the wide range of relevant stakeholders and provide an overview of current policies as well as surveillance, evaluation, and funding. Significant accomplishments and persistent challenges are identified. DISCUSSION: An international comparison shows that, in contrast to Germany, other countries have formulated measurable goals for physical activity promotion on a national level. However, Germany is among a minority of countries with specific physical activity recommendations for adults with noncommunicable diseases. Further structural development of physical activity promotion in Germany is necessary. ; HINTERGRUND: Da Bewegungsmangel eine entscheidende Ursache für nichtübertragbare Erkrankungen ist, wurden sowohl von der Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) als auch von Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftlern weltweit verschiedene Tools zum Monitoring und Audit bewegungsfördernder Politik entwickelt. Allerdings wurden diese Tools bisher noch nicht genutzt, um systematisch und umfassend Daten zu bewegungsfördernder Politik in Deutschland zu erheben und zu analysieren. ZIEL DER ARBEIT: Die Studie hat zum Ziel, die politischen Anstrengungen zur Bewegungsförderung in Deutschland in einem ...

BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity is a key determinant of noncommunicable diseases. Therefore, the World Health Organization (WHO) as well as researchers worldwide have developed different tools to monitor and audit policies to promote physical activity. However, these tools have so far not been used to systematically collect and analyse data on physical activity promoting policies in Germany. AIM: This study aims to provide a systematic overview of policies to promote physical activity in Germany. METHODS: The study was conducted as part of the Policy Evaluation Network (www.jpi-pen.eu). Data from the European Union Physical Activity Monitoring Framework, desk research, and an expert survey were utilised and collected with the WHO's health-enhancing physical activity (HEPA) policy audit tool (PAT). RESULTS: The results highlight the wide range of relevant stakeholders and provide an overview of current policies as well as surveillance, evaluation, and funding. Significant accomplishments and persistent challenges are identified. DISCUSSION: An international comparison shows that, in contrast to Germany, other countries have formulated measurable goals for physical activity promotion on a national level. However, Germany is among a minority of countries with specific physical activity recommendations for adults with noncommunicable diseases. Further structural development of physical activity promotion in Germany is necessary.

The importance of policy for promoting physical activity (PA) is increasingly recognized by academics, and there is a push by national governments and international institutions for PA policy development and monitoring. However, our knowledge about which policies are actually effective to promote PA remains limited. This article summarizes the currently available evidence by reviewing existing reviews on the subject. Building on results from a previous scoping review on different types of PA-related evidence, we ran searches for combinations of the terms "physical activity", "evidence", "effect", "review", and "policy" in six different databases (PubMed, Scopus, SportDiscus, PsycInfo, ERIC, and IBSS). We used EPPI Reviewer 4 to further process the results and conduct an in-depth analysis. We identified 57 reviews providing evidence on 53 types of policies and seven broader groups of policies. Reviews fell into four main categories: 1) setting- and target group-specific; 2) urban design, environment and transport; 3) economic instruments; and 4) broad-range perspective. Results indicate that there is solid evidence for policy effectiveness in some areas (esp. school-based and infrastructural policies) but that the evidence in other areas is insufficient (esp. for economic policies). The available evidence provides some guidance for policy-makers regarding which policies can currently be recommended as effective. However, results also highlight some broader epistemological issues deriving from the current research. This includes the conflation of PA policies and PA interventions, the lack of appropriate tools for benchmarking individual policies, and the need to critically revisit research methodologies for collating evidence on policies.

The importance of policy for promoting physical activity (PA) is increasingly recognized by academics, and there is a push by national governments and international institutions for PA policy development and monitoring. However, our knowledge about which policies are actually effective to promote PA remains limited. This article summarizes the currently available evidence by reviewing existing reviews on the subject. Building on results from a previous scoping review on different types of PA-related evidence, we ran searches for combinations of the terms "physical activity", "evidence", "effect", "review", and "policy" in six different databases (PubMed, Scopus, SportDiscus, PsycInfo, ERIC, and IBSS). We used EPPI Reviewer 4 to further process the results and conduct an in-depth analysis. We identified 57 reviews providing evidence on 53 types of policies and seven broader groups of policies. Reviews fell into four main categories: 1) setting- and target group-specific; 2) urban design, environment and transport; 3) economic instruments; and 4) broad-range perspective. Results indicate that there is solid evidence for policy effectiveness in some areas (esp. school-based and infrastructural policies) but that the evidence in other areas is insufficient (esp. for economic policies). The available evidence provides some guidance for policy-makers regarding which policies can currently be recommended as effective. However, results also highlight some broader epistemological issues deriving from the current research. This includes the conflation of PA policies and PA interventions, the lack of appropriate tools for benchmarking individual policies, and the need to critically revisit research methodologies for collating evidence on policies.

Objectives We analysed the information on current national physical activity recommendations in all EU Member States provided by governments in a joint EU/WHO survey on the implementation status of the EU Council Recommendation on Health-Enhancing Physical Activity across Sectors. Design Cross-sectional survey. Participants The representatives of the 28 EU Member State governments to the EU Physical Activity Focal Point Network. Outcome measures National recommendations on: (A) minimum frequency, duration, intensity and lengths of bouts of physical activity, (B) preventing inactivity or sedentary behaviour and (C) further recommendations for additional health benefits, obesity prevention and specific types of activity. Results An official document could be located for 23 of the 28 EU Member States, while four are currently developing recommendations. For children and adolescents, most countries follow the 2010 WHO Global Recommendations for Physical Activity, but there are notable differences in the delimitation of age groups. 14 countries also followed WHO in their recommendations for adults, and 11 countries have additional advice on avoiding inactivity and sitting among adults. 18 Member States have recommendations for older adults, 12 of which follow WHO. Thirteen countries also address at least one special population (eg, pregnant women, people with disabilities and people with chronic diseases), but the level of detail varies substantially between countries. Conclusions The large majority of EU Member States either has physical activity recommendations in place or is in the process of developing them. There is a general tendency to use the WHO Global Recommendations as a basis, with the greatest variation observable for children and adolescents. Comparing results with a previous round of data collection shows that the number of EU countries with physical activity recommendations is increasing and that both special groups and sedentary behaviour have become more important in recent years.

OBJECTIVES: We analysed the information on current national physical activity recommendations in all EU Member States provided by governments in a joint EU/WHO survey on the implementation status of the EU Council Recommendation on Health-Enhancing Physical Activity across Sectors. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: The representatives of the 28 EU Member State governments to the EU Physical Activity Focal Point Network. OUTCOME MEASURES: National recommendations on: (A) minimum frequency, duration, intensity and lengths of bouts of physical activity, (B) preventing inactivity or sedentary behaviour and (C) further recommendations for additional health benefits, obesity prevention and specific types of activity. RESULTS: An official document could be located for 23 of the 28 EU Member States, while four are currently developing recommendations. For children and adolescents, most countries follow the 2010 WHO Global Recommendations for Physical Activity, but there are notable differences in the delimitation of age groups. 14 countries also followed WHO in their recommendations for adults, and 11 countries have additional advice on avoiding inactivity and sitting among adults. 18 Member States have recommendations for older adults, 12 of which follow WHO. Thirteen countries also address at least one special population (eg, pregnant women, people with disabilities and people with chronic diseases), but the level of detail varies substantially between countries. CONCLUSIONS: The large majority of EU Member States either has physical activity recommendations in place or is in the process of developing them. There is a general tendency to use the WHO Global Recommendations as a basis, with the greatest variation observable for children and adolescents. Comparing results with a previous round of data collection shows that the number of EU countries with physical activity recommendations is increasing and that both special groups and sedentary behaviour have become more important in recent years.

Background: Public policy is increasingly recognized as an important component of physical activity promotion. This paper reports on the current status of physical activity policy development and implementation in four European countries based on the Health-Enhancing Physical Activity Policy Audit Tool (HEPA PAT) developed by WHO. It compares the findings to previous studies and discusses the general utility of this tool and its unique features in relation to other instruments. Methods: The study was conducted as part of the Policy Evaluation Network (www.jpi-pen.eu) in Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and Poland. Data collection built upon information obtained via the EU Physical Activity Monitoring Framework survey, additional desk research and expert opinion. Data analysis employed Howlett's policy cycle framework to map and compare national physical activity policies in the four countries. Results: In all countries under study, policy agenda-setting is influenced by prevalence data from national health monitoring systems, and the sport and/or health sector takes the lead in policy formulation. Key policy documents were located mainly in the health sector but also in sport, urban design and transport. Physical activity programmes implemented to meet policy objectives usually cover a broad range of target groups, but currently only a small selection of major policies are evaluated for effectiveness. National experts made several suggestions to other countries wishing to establish physical activity policies, e.g. regarding cross-sectoral support and coordination, comprehensive national action plans, and monitoring/surveillance. Conclusions: This study provides a detailed overview of physical activity policies in the four countries. Results show that national governments are already very active in the field but that there is room for improvement in a number of areas, e.g. regarding the contribution of sectors beyond sport and health. Using the HEPA PAT simultaneously in four countries also showed that procedures and timelines have to be adapted to national contexts. Overall, the instrument can make an important contribution to understanding and informing physical activity policy, especially when used as an add-on to regular monitoring tools like the EU HEPA Monitoring Framework.

Background Public policy is increasingly recognized as an important component of physical activity promotion. This paper reports on the current status of physical activity policy development and implementation in four European countries based on the Health-Enhancing Physical Activity Policy Audit Tool (HEPA PAT) developed by WHO. It compares the findings to previous studies and discusses the general utility of this tool and its unique features in relation to other instruments. Methods The study was conducted as part of the Policy Evaluation Network (www.jpi-pen.eu) in Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and Poland. Data collection built upon information obtained via the EU Physical Activity Monitoring Framework survey, additional desk research and expert opinion. Data analysis employed Howlett's policy cycle framework to map and compare national physical activity policies in the four countries. Results In all countries under study, policy agenda-setting is influenced by prevalence data from national health monitoring systems, and the sport and/or health sector takes the lead in policy formulation. Key policy documents were located mainly in the health sector but also in sport, urban design and transport. Physical activity programmes implemented to meet policy objectives usually cover a broad range of target groups, but currently only a small selection of major policies are evaluated for effectiveness. National experts made several suggestions to other countries wishing to establish physical activity policies, e.g. regarding cross-sectoral support and coordination, comprehensive national action plans, and monitoring/surveillance. Conclusions This study provides a detailed overview of physical activity policies in the four countries. Results show that national governments are already very active in the field but that there is room for improvement in a number of areas, e.g. regarding the contribution of sectors beyond sport and health. Using the HEPA PAT simultaneously in four countries also showed that procedures ...