In this paper part of the existing Agri-Environmental Schemes (AES) of the European Union are evaluated by using data on county level instead of applying field studies. The attempt is made to disentangle the effects of AES on land management practice as well as land use on biodiversity. It is argued that subsidies as AES should promote environmental-friendly land use which, in turn, should lead to biodiversity conservation. First results show that AES promotes ecological land use rather than extensive agricultural practice. Furthermore, AES is predominantly allocated in biodiversity rich counties and not in counties with low biodiversity which should be enhanced. Furthermore, no clear evidence is so far found, that land use practice is improving the biodiversity status.
This paper explores possible interdependence of biodiversity and several socioeconomic and political factors at the county level. It is aimed at the empirical identification of direct and indirect effects between biodiversity (loss) and their theoretical major impact factors. To date, research shows that in addition to geography, agriculture is one major determinant of biodiversity status. However, the impact of regional socioeconomic structures on biodiversity should not be underestimated. Specifically, in regard to biodiversity loss, the socioeconomic structure counteracts political measures instituted to protect biodiversity and change agricultural practice.
The paper argues that the level of public spending on health varies according to the type of political regime in a country. A simple political economic model is employed to analyse the rationale of policy makers when implementing healthcare policy. The theory of dictatorship as described by Wintrobe (1990, 1998, 2001) is used to differentiate between the types of autocratic regimes. Furthermore, an empirical analysis is conducted for 170 countries for the years 1995- 2014. We found that public spending on health is decreasing with the level of political freedom. At the same time, public spending on health care competes with military expenditures. Moreover, public spending on health in neighbouring countries affects the level of public spending within the country.
We jointly analyze the genesis of terrorism and civil war, providing a simple conceptual framework to explain why violent opposition groups choose distinct forms of violence (i.e., terrorism and open rebellion). We argue that the distinct modes of violent opposition are chosen by violent opposition groups in response to the strengths and weaknesses of the system they challenge. An empirical test of this hypothesis for 103 countries for the period of 1992 to 2004 indeed shows that the socio-economic strength and stability of a system is positively related to the likelihood of terrorism but negatively to incidences of more violent forms of violent opposition. We also show that poor conflict management (as a system weakness) positively impacts the likelihood incidences of more violent modes of violent opposition more likely. Furthermore, we find that system size is positively associated with all analyzed modes of violent opposition.
The overarching focus of Working Group on Maritime Systems (WGMARS) has been on understanding the conceptualisation and implementation of Integrated Ecosystem Assessments (IEAs) in ICES and more broadly. From 2017-2019, the Working Group reviewed academic literature and ICES documents, interviewed the chairs of the ICES Regional Seas Working Groups (which are charged with conducting IEAs), and heard member reports on the relationships among IEAs, Ecosystem-Based Management, and Marine Spatial Planning in various European nations, the EU, and the US. We have also examined how IEAs are used in management and attempted to use behavioural economics to think about the types of regulations that might be most effective in specific situations. WGMARS also highlighted the importance of having multiple disciplines from the natural and social science, and the humanities (e.g. history), contributing to conceptualisation and implementation of IEA, as well as stakeholders who are likely to be impacted by changes in regulations (e.g. industries, communities, and local, regional, and national government bodies other than those implementing the regulations in question). To foster this type of multidisciplinary (i.e. involving natural and social science, as well as the humanities) and transdisciplinary (i.e. involving stakeholders) work, we have held workshops with other ICES Working Groups and with government officials from the US (the New England and the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Councils) and the Netherlands (officials of Rijkswaterstaat, the Dutch national body responsible for roads, waterways, and water systems and part of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management). Our findings suggest that the research work on and for IEAs is still very much a work in progress with strong variance in the way IEA work is approached. Different Regional Seas Working Groups, for instance, are at very different points in moving toward full IEA, especially regarding their inclusion of social sciences and humanities and their inclusion of and types of collaboration with stakeholders. Moreover, structural conditions to create a demand and underlying science varies significantly between different regional seas regions.
