Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Contents -- List of Illustrations -- Figures -- Tables -- Introduction: Into the Cyber Realm -- Cybersecurity Governance -- The Argument -- Plan of the Book -- Implications for Policy -- 1 Cybersecurity Governance -- The "Cyber" Prefix -- War and Cyberwar -- Data Weaponized -- Internet Penetration -- Proliferation of Cyber Military Units -- Issues of Democratic Governing -- Governance and Internet Penetration -- The Dataset -- Empirical Findings -- Brief Analysis -- Discussion and Conclusion -- 2 Cyber Responses and the State -- States and Cybersecurity Governance

ABSTRACT
This article explores the effects of different social determinants on having Internet access in Venezuela amid recent economic and political turmoil affecting living conditions and satisfaction with democracy. It argues that the so-called digital divide, a term depicting connectivity gaps, uses a simplistic dichotomy measuring percentages of who has and who hasn't accessed the Internet. The article goes beyond such a restrictive metric and grasps whether, and to what extent, having Internet at home is affected by more revealing sociodemographic predictors, including gender, age, place of residency, income, or education. To illustrate my point, the article draws on data from the 2017 AmericasBarometer public opinion survey conducted in Venezuela. It models logistic regression to explore the straightforward but often understudied characteristics that might carry voting-age adults to have Internet service. Given Venezuela's democracy crisis, the article also questions whether having Internet at home affected respondents being satisfied with how democracy worked in the country.

Why does the military remain one of the most trusted institutions despite, in some cases, their history of violence, corporate abuses and bloody interventions to overthrow the state and punish parts of society? This article analyses the interaction between individual factors and support for the armed forces in Argentina, Brazil and Chile to understand current forms of opinion and trust-shifts in post-authoritarian societies. It explores whether in these three democracies, support for the military is explained by the extent to which citizens support other political institutions, democracy, partisan ideologies, and novel military missions, such as the armed forces combating crime. The empirical results suggest that trust in congress and the police are statistically significant factors explaining variance in the outcome in the three case studies. The findings then vary by country. Support for democracy is positively correlated with trust in the military in Brazil but negatively associated with confidence in the military in Chile, where support for military intervention when there are increasing levels of crime is also statistically significant with confidence in the armed forces. In both Brazil and Chile, individuals supporting the armed forces are more likely to support the military participating in countering crime. These findings have important implications for the study of military sociology and politics.

Introducing, managing, and sustaining change in public service organizations is challenging for policy makers to implement and for scholars to theorize. In 2010, the U.K. Government introduced policy changes to help bring down the national deficit. The executive's planned reforms aimed to deliver a so‐called battle‐winning military force, a smaller and more professional Ministry of Defence, and an affordable overall defence organization. The article borrows from theories of management and public policy to help enlighten our understanding of change under New Public Management and governance approaches. The article's central claim is that the U.K. Government sought to correct cost‐efficiency processes in public service organizations trying to reshape organizational and managerial structures dependent on many internal and external pressures. The article examines the executive's purpose in developing a need for change and the ways to implement it. I question whether the U.K. Government's prescriptive and hierarchical approach to organizational change in public administration is sustainable in the long term.Related ArticlesAriely, Gal. 2011. "Why People (Dis)Like the Public Service: Citizen Perception of the Public Service and the NPM Doctrine." Politics & Policy 39 (6): 997‐1019. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2011.00329.xBurau, Viola, and Carole Clavier. 2018. "Understanding Gaps in the Coexistence between Different Modes of Governance: A Case Study of Public Health in Schools in a Multilevel System." Politics & Policy 46 (4): 604‐629. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12269Monza, Sabina, and Eva Anduiza. 2016. "The Visibility of the EU in the National Public Spheres in Times of Crisis and Austerity." Politics & Policy 44 (3): 499‐524. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12163

Introducing, managing, and sustaining change in public service organizations is challenging for policy makers to implement and for scholars to theorize. In 2010, the U.K. Government introduced policy changes to help bring down the national deficit. The executive's planned reforms aimed to deliver a so‐called battle‐winning military force, a smaller and more professional Ministry of Defence, and an affordable overall defence organization. The article borrows from theories of management and public policy to help enlighten our understanding of change under New Public Management and governance approaches. The article's central claim is that the U.K. Government sought to correct cost‐efficiency processes in public service organizations trying to reshape organizational and managerial structures dependent on many internal and external pressures. The article examines the executive's purpose in developing a need for change and the ways to implement it. I question whether the U.K. Government's prescriptive and hierarchical approach to organizational change in public administration is sustainable in the long term.

How do we interpret current cybersecurity and cyber defence affairs beyond what we know from the advanced democracies and industrialised states? This article argues that in the emerging democracies, the military is on its way to being the dominant force controlling cyber centres or commands emulating those already established in the global North. There are three main takeaways from such developments when using the case study of the western hemisphere. First, states in the region have decided to manage their cyber affairs through inter-governmental and military-to-military diplomacy with more powerful states, such as the United States. Second, governments are eager to set up interactive policy communities at the national level to review cyber risks together with those in the defence sector. Third, militarising cyberspace in fragile political and policy settings can become somewhat risky for democratic governing. Ultimately, marrying the protection of the digital space to highly politicised armed forces might turn into a challenge when trying to set up a secure and egalitarian internet.

The defence and foreign policy communities in the Global South should learn from the lessons of security governance that followed the 13-year United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH). To better inform the academic and policy debate, this article extrapolates ideas from the case study of Chile, one of the 'big four' Latin American peacekeeping providers in Haiti, along with Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay. The article examines Chile's finished compromise with the MINUSTAH in order to shed light on conflict intervention strategies and its peace operations in Colombia and the Central African Republic. It argues that military policies for peace intervention purposes should undergo a critical reassessment in light of the state steering away from the past use of long-term brute force. Today's changing security environment favours a set of different human security policies that have become more prevalent for peacekeeping policymaking. Engaging in scenarios of war and peace thus demands a more focused, experienced and tactical use of military and diplomatic resources than governments in the developing countries currently possess.