Suchergebnisse

The variable "public diplomacy message strategy" (or "public diplomacy approach") refers to public diplomacy efforts in a given country in order to investigate how and with which goal public diplomacy is strategically communicated in the given context. The variable reflects the communication style of a specific actor (a politician, government, or country). Field of application/theoretical foundation: Analyses of public diplomacy message strategies or approaches mostly build on the taxonomy of public diplomacy (Cull, 2008) or the proposed categories of public diplomacy by Fitzpatrick (2010). References/combination with other methods of data collection: Public diplomacy message strategies can, in addition to content analysis, be analyzed by conducting interviews or surveys with public diplomacy actors, which allow validating the results from content analyses. Example study: Dodd & Collins (2017) Information on Dodd & Collins (2017) Authors: Dodd & Collins Research question/research interest: Comparison between public diplomacy approaches between Central Eastern European (not explicated) and Western countries (Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States) Object of analysis: Twitter content posted by 41 embassy accounts (not explicated) Time frame of analysis: March 2015 Information about variable Variable name/definition: Public diplomacy practices: Communication strategy Level of analysis: Tweet Values: Building on Cull's (2008) taxonomy of public diplomacy: (1) Listening (attempts to collect and collate information about foreign publics and their opinions) (2) Advocacy (activities that promote the country's policies or general interests among foreign publics) (3) Cultural (efforts to promote cultural resources and achievements of a country) (4) International (activities that involve sending national actors abroad or receiving international actors to strategically manage the international environment) (5) News (use of radio, television and digital media to inform and involve foreign audiences) ...

The role of the Prosecutor and the exercise of Prosecutorial discretion can have an enormous impact on the outcome of criminal proceedings. The exercise of Prosecutorial discretion is, however, often secretive and misunderstood. There have been concerns that a lack of accountability and transparency can result in a fertile bed for corruption. This article considers the development of the prosecution system in Australia. It analyses the discretion that the Prosecutor wields and examines Australian attempts at safeguarding this discretion. It points out the problems with the Australian system of prosecution and suggests that there is room for greater public accountability of the Prosecutor's role. In the search for a solution to the Prosecutorial conundrum, the article examines the Japanese model of "democratic" public prosecution to see if such a system could be adopted in Australia.

The role of the Prosecutor and the exercise of Prosecutorial discretion can have an enormous impact on the outcome of criminal proceedings. The exercise of Prosecutorial discretion is, however, often secretive and misunderstood. There have been concerns that a lack of accountability and transparency can result in a fertile bed for corruption. This article considers the development of the prosecution system in Australia. It analyses the discretion that the Prosecutor wields and examines Australian attempts at safeguarding this discretion. It points out the problems with the Australian system of prosecution and suggests that there is room for greater public accountability of the Prosecutor's role. In the search for a solution to the Prosecutorial conundrum, the article examines the Japanese model of "democratic" public prosecution to see if such a system could be adopted in Australia.

Higher education in the United States faces a loss of trust. Much of the response to the public's decreasing confidence has been through the accountability movement's focus on individual, private benefits. Public trust, however, will require proactive societal engagement that provides a compelling case for the contributions that higher education makes to the public good. While these challenges are discussed from a US perspective, there are global implications.

In the past few years, large operating deficits have led governmental authorities in several major cities to close, sell, or substantially reduce the services of their public hospitals.' These decisions portend the arrival of what the New York Times has called a "looming crisis" in health care for the urban poor and uninsured. Should this crisis unfold, many public health programs are likely to be casualties, including those designed to treat and prevent the spread of communicable disease. Among others, programs aimed at the so-called "new" (multidrug resistant) tuberculosis are especially vulnerable to these compelling budgetary constraints. Poor urban populations face an elevated risk of contracting tuberculosis (TB); and when they do contract it, they often seek care in public hospital emergency departments. The prospect of public hospital closures obviously threatens to eliminate or reduce these sources of care, which provide many of the most accessible sites for the treatment and control of the disease. Moreover, public hospitals administer outreach programs intended to educate and serve populations at high risk of contracting TB. Healthcare experts predict that not only will tuberculosis spread faster in the absence of public hospitals, but that their closures will also place extraordinary demands on mental health programs and homeless shelters.

This commentary makes the argument that the ethical practice of public relations is in the public interest. This is because efficient communication between organizations and the public, as well as between organizations and themselves, is at the core of the democratic process our political system is predicated on.

This volume brings together 8 previously unpublished papers dealing with various modes of allocating jointly consumable goods (i.e. public goods). The issues covered range from voluntary contributions and price exclusion (market allocation) to positive and normative analyses of different political allocation procedures for public goods. Given this wide spectrum of allocative schemes for public goods there does not seem to be an easy and clear-cut message from modern public-goods theory to public allocation policy.

This work deals with local governments and fiscal stress. In the first chapter, I analyze the response of individual housing sales prices to negative information or "news" about local public debt levels and their underlying impact on the provision of public goods and services. In particular, I use the announcement that rising levels of unfunded pension liabilities for the San Diego City Employees' Retirement System (SDCERS) were higher than previously perceived. In the second chapter, I analyze the effect of fiscal stress on local government fiscal structures. For this analysis, I focus on the sudden investment losses of nearly $1.7 billion in 1994 that led to Orange County's default on debt obligations and bankruptcy. In the third chapter, I analyze how local governments underfund their public pensions over the business cycle—where unfunded pension liabilities serve as an effective way to borrow from the public workforce. I look at changing levels of unfunded pension liabilities and the local government characteristics over the 2001 and 2008 recessions.

The traditional research paradigm represents discoveries flowing linearly from basic science conducted in public institutions to applied research and commercialization undertaken largely by private industry. This characterization fails to accurately portray the nonlinear and chaotic nature of research and development (R&D) processes. Recent United States (U.S.) legislation aimed to promote economic growth through supporting research acknowledges the "blurring of lines" between public and private research activities. Moreover, incentive alignments have recently emerged between public and private interests in life science R&D. In this context, the Berkeley/Novartis strategic alliance is shown to be a collaborative public/private relationship that is sourced in such incentive alignments. It is also argued that this alliance is consistent with the fundamental complementary relationships that formed some of the principles structuring the original foundation for Land Grant universities. ; Includes bibliographical references

In his The Constitution of Equality: Democratic Authority and its Limits Christiano defends an idea that democracy has authority because it realizes public equality. According to Christiano, for realization of public equality there is no need for any restriction on the content of reasons we offer each other to justify laws and policies. In this paper I try to show that there are good reasons to think that boundaries of public reason can more deeply realize public equality in plural society and I also try to defend this view from some criticisms given by Christiano in his book.

According to the democratic interpretation of public reason, political justification ought to appeal to the tacit dimension or common sense of society's actual historical moment. This article claims that a consequence of this interpretation is that religious reasons can be stable public reasons. More specifically, it claims that religious reasons can be public reasons in pervasively religious communities that are democratic, even in circumstances of ongoing social secularization. Three theoretical consequences are derived from this claim: first, democratic public reason assumes more social integration than other interpretations of public reason; second, religious reasons are not always inaccessible to non-believers; and third, religious reasons, when public reasons, can have normative force upon non-believers. Additionally, the following practical implication is made explicit: while justification of state power can appeal to religious reasons only, the law cannot be written in religious terms.

This study examines the relationship between types of government and level of public spending. There are two competing perspectives about the consequences of coalition governments for the size of public expenditures. The most common argument is that government spending increases under coalition governments, compared with one-party governments. Another line of thought contends that coalition governments are often stalled in the status quo due to the veto power of each member. Our analysis of public spending in 33 parliamentary democracies between 1972 and 2000 confirms the latter argument that coalition governments have a status quo bias. We find, particularly, that single-party governments are apt to modify the budget according to the current fiscal condition, which enables them to increase or decrease spending more flexibly. By contrast, coalition governments find it difficult not only to decrease spending under difficult fiscal conditions but also to increase it even under a more favorable context, because each member of the coalition has a veto power.

This study examines the relationship between types of government and level of public spending. There are two competing perspectives about the consequences of coalition governments for the size of public expenditures. The most common argument is that government spending increases under coalition governments, compared with one-party governments. Another line of thought contends that coalition governments are often stalled in the status quo due to the veto power of each member. Our analysis of public spending in 33 parliamentary democracies between 1972 and 2000 confirms the latter argument that coalition governments have a status quo bias. We find, particularly, that single-party governments are apt to modify the budget according to the current fiscal condition, which enables them to increase or decrease spending more flexibly. By contrast, coalition governments find it difficult not only to decrease spending under difficult fiscal conditions but also to increase it even under a more favorable context, because each member of the coalition has a veto power.

Understanding how public opinion towards health issues shape policy preferences and confidence in government requires not only understanding why such events engage public sentiments but also why they should matter to lawmakers and health policy experts. In an effort to understand the role of public opinion and emotion in towards health issues I explore three salient issues in health policy. First, using the policy diffusion framework, I explore how public opinion influenced state adoption of provisions of the ACA. Second, I explore how the threat of an outbreak of measles occurring in a community influences attitudes toward mandatory vaccination policies. Finally, I examine how individual anxiety towards Ebola influences confidence in government and policy preferences towards restrictive policies involving Ebola. My findings suggest that public opinion towards health policy issues not only influence state adoption of policy, but also influences individual policy preferences and evaluations of government.

In response to the ongoing debate over how much of the surface real estate reclaimed by the Big Dig should be devoted to open space, and how much to other uses, this Article examines two legal doctrines that are frequently implicated by plans for changes in use and disposition of publicly-owned property. While these doctrines stand on distinct historical and theoretical foundations and diverge from each other in many respects, there are important parallels between them in how they conceptualize the relationship between government's power to regulate, control, and dispose of land it owns, and the rights belonging to what one scholar has called the "unorganized public" in that same property. On a more pragmatic level, commonality between these two doctrines arises from their applicability to the same physical spaces and their concern with the same types of governmental actions. Therefore, while both the courts and the academy have largely examined these doctrines separately, this Article employs a comparative analysis to better understand the relationship between government and the "unorganized public" with respect to publicly-owned property, and to more fully appreciate the limitations on the use of currently and formerly publicly-owned lands.