Exploring the new era of political advertising beyond television and print, this book focuses on the mediums of the new millennia that are transforming campaigning and communications in political systems around the world. The author illustrates how the use of social, digital and mobile advertising enables political marketers to deliver messages more accurately and strengthen relationships between stakeholders such as voters, supporters and candidates. Examining digital and social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, this innovative book analyses the changing political marketing landscape and proposes conceptual models for implementing more successful and effective political communications in the future.
Political marketing theory has developed and evolved in conjunction with advancements in political science and commercial marketing. Commercial marketing has been increasingly interested in developing marketing mechanisms which allows it to satisfy the core customer groups while also meeting the broader needs of the community and other stakeholders. Political marketing has the opportunity to build a marketing framework that focuses on delivering value to a core target market (voters, supporters) and addressing the needs of society at large. The paper outlines a new definition of political marketing to meet the challenges of addressing the needs of the political marketplace, political party stakeholders, and the broader social agenda.
Political marketing theory has developed and evolved in conjunction with advancements in political science and commercial marketing. Commercial marketing has been increasingly interested in developing marketing mechanisms which allows it to satisfy the core customer groups while also meeting the broader needs of the community and other stakeholders. Political marketing has the opportunity to build a marketing framework that focuses on delivering value to a core target market (voters, supporters) and addressing the needs of society at large. The paper outlines a new definition of political marketing to meet the challenges of addressing the needs of the political marketplace, political party stakeholders, and the broader social agenda.
Political marketing theory has developed and evolved in conjunction with advancements in political science and commercial marketing. Commercial marketing has been increasingly interested in developing marketing mechanisms which allows it to satisfy the core customer groups while also meeting the broader needs of the community and other stakeholders. Political marketing has the opportunity to build a marketing framework that focuses on delivering value to a core target market (voters, supporters) and addressing the needs of society at large. The paper outlines a new definition of political marketing to meet the challenges of addressing the needs of the political marketplace, political party stakeholders, and the broader social agenda.
This article examines the character of citizenship education in Canada as it is represented in the official policy documents of the provinces and territories, as opposed to the actual classroom practice of the curriculum-in-use. We consider policies in light of a typology of citizenship ranging from elitist to activist, and identify common as well as particular features of citizenship education. We find that the official curriculum of educational policy inclines towards an activist conception of citizenship. Cet article compare la formation en civisme au Canada, telle qu'elle se dégage des documents de politiques officielles des provinces et des territoires, aux cours de civisme dispensés dans les classes elles-mêmes. Les auteurs analysent les politiques à l'aide d'une typologie du civisme allant de l'élitisme à l'activisme et identifient les caractéristiques communes et distinctes de la formation en civisme. Selon les auteurs, les programmes officiels en la matière tendent plutôt vers une conception activiste du civisme.
Across the world, stakeholders are asking questions of their governments and decision makers to quantify the risks of environmental threats to their well-being. These questions manifest themselves as 'deceptively simple questions', which are easy to articulate but difficult to solve. An example of which is: 'how much will the eruption of an Icelandic volcano cost the UK economy'. Answering these questions requires predictions of the interaction of multiple environmental processes, this requires the development and maintenance of systems that allow these processes to be simulated, and that is the nascent science of integrated environmental modelling (IEM). Such processes may be long-term (e.g. those that are impacted by climate change) or short-term threats, such as the impact of drought on UK agriculture or the impact of space weather on energy supply systems.
BACKGROUND: In the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 (GBD 2013), knowledge about health and its determinants has been integrated into a comparable framework to inform health policy. Outputs of this analysis are relevant to current policy questions in England and elsewhere, particularly on health inequalities. We use GBD 2013 data on mortality and causes of death, and disease and injury incidence and prevalence to analyse the burden of disease and injury in England as a whole, in English regions, and within each English region by deprivation quintile. We also assess disease and injury burden in England attributable to potentially preventable risk factors. England and the English regions are compared with the remaining constituent countries of the UK and with comparable countries in the European Union (EU) and beyond. METHODS: We extracted data from the GBD 2013 to compare mortality, causes of death, years of life lost (YLLs), years lived with a disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in England, the UK, and 18 other countries (the first 15 EU members [apart from the UK] and Australia, Canada, Norway, and the USA [EU15+]). We extended elements of the analysis to English regions, and subregional areas defined by deprivation quintile (deprivation areas). We used data split by the nine English regions (corresponding to the European boundaries of the Nomenclature for Territorial Statistics level 1 [NUTS 1] regions), and by quintile groups within each English region according to deprivation, thereby making 45 regional deprivation areas. Deprivation quintiles were defined by area of residence ranked at national level by Index of Multiple Deprivation score, 2010. Burden due to various risk factors is described for England using new GBD methodology to estimate independent and overlapping attributable risk for five tiers of behavioural, metabolic, and environmental risk factors. We present results for 306 causes and 2337 sequelae, and 79 risks or risk clusters. FINDINGS: Between 1990 and 2013, life expectancy from birth in England increased by 5·4 years (95% uncertainty interval 5·0-5·8) from 75·9 years (75·9-76·0) to 81·3 years (80·9-81·7); gains were greater for men than for women. Rates of age-standardised YLLs reduced by 41·1% (38·3-43·6), whereas DALYs were reduced by 23·8% (20·9-27·1), and YLDs by 1·4% (0·1-2·8). For these measures, England ranked better than the UK and the EU15+ means. Between 1990 and 2013, the range in life expectancy among 45 regional deprivation areas remained 8·2 years for men and decreased from 7·2 years in 1990 to 6·9 years in 2013 for women. In 2013, the leading cause of YLLs was ischaemic heart disease, and the leading cause of DALYs was low back and neck pain. Known risk factors accounted for 39·6% (37·7-41·7) of DALYs; leading behavioural risk factors were suboptimal diet (10·8% [9·1-12·7]) and tobacco (10·7% [9·4-12·0]). INTERPRETATION: Health in England is improving although substantial opportunities exist for further reductions in the burden of preventable disease. The gap in mortality rates between men and women has reduced, but marked health inequalities between the least deprived and most deprived areas remain. Declines in mortality have not been matched by similar declines in morbidity, resulting in people living longer with diseases. Health policies must therefore address the causes of ill health as well as those of premature mortality. Systematic action locally and nationally is needed to reduce risk exposures, support healthy behaviours, alleviate the severity of chronic disabling disorders, and mitigate the effects of socioeconomic deprivation. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Public Health England. ; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; Public Health England ; This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Elsevier via http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00195-6
Background In the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 (GBD 2013), knowledge about health and its determinants has been integrated into a comparable framework to inform health policy. Outputs of this analysis are relevant to current policy questions in England and elsewhere, particularly on health inequalities. We use GBD 2013 data on mortality and causes of death, and disease and injury incidence and prevalence to analyse the burden of disease and injury in England as a whole, in English regions, and within each English region by deprivation quintile. We also assess disease and injury burden in England attributable to potentially preventable risk factors. England and the English regions are compared with the remaining constituent countries of the UK and with comparable countries in the European Union (EU) and beyond. Methods We extracted data from the GBD 2013 to compare mortality, causes of death, years of life lost (YLLs), years lived with a disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in England, the UK, and 18 other countries (the first 15 EU members [apart from the UK] and Australia, Canada, Norway, and the USA [EU15+]). We extended elements of the analysis to English regions, and subregional areas defined by deprivation quintile (deprivation areas). We used data split by the nine English regions (corresponding to the European boundaries of the Nomenclature for Territorial Statistics level 1 [NUTS 1] regions), and by quintile groups within each English region according to deprivation, thereby making 45 regional deprivation areas. Deprivation quintiles were defined by area of residence ranked at national level by Index of Multiple Deprivation score, 2010. Burden due to various risk factors is described for England using new GBD methodology to estimate independent and overlapping attributable risk for five tiers of behavioural, metabolic, and environmental risk factors. We present results for 306 causes and 2337 sequelae, and 79 risks or risk clusters. Findings Between 1990 and 2013, life expectancy from birth in England increased by 5·4 years (95% uncertainty interval 5·0–5·8) from 75·9 years (75·9–76·0) to 81·3 years (80·9–81·7); gains were greater for men than for women. Rates of age-standardised YLLs reduced by 41·1% (38·3–43·6), whereas DALYs were reduced by 23·8% (20·9–27·1), and YLDs by 1·4% (0·1–2·8). For these measures, England ranked better than the UK and the EU15+ means. Between 1990 and 2013, the range in life expectancy among 45 regional deprivation areas remained 8·2 years for men and decreased from 7·2 years in 1990 to 6·9 years in 2013 for women. In 2013, the leading cause of YLLs was ischaemic heart disease, and the leading cause of DALYs was low back and neck pain. Known risk factors accounted for 39·6% (37·7–41·7) of DALYs; leading behavioural risk factors were suboptimal diet (10·8% [9·1–12·7]) and tobacco (10·7% [9·4–12·0]). Interpretation Health in England is improving although substantial opportunities exist for further reductions in the burden of preventable disease. The gap in mortality rates between men and women has reduced, but marked health inequalities between the least deprived and most deprived areas remain. Declines in mortality have not been matched by similar declines in morbidity, resulting in people living longer with diseases. Health policies must therefore address the causes of ill health as well as those of premature mortality. Systematic action locally and nationally is needed to reduce risk exposures, support healthy behaviours, alleviate the severity of chronic disabling disorders, and mitigate the effects of socioeconomic deprivation. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Public Health England.
