Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Half Title -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Table of Contents -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- Notes on Authors -- Foreword -- Preface -- Acknowledgements -- Glossary of Māori Terms -- Abbreviations -- Introduction: From Rio to RMA: Great Expectations -- PART 1: APPROACHES TO PLANNING AND GOVERNANCE -- 1 Planning Mandates: From Theory to Practice -- 2 Making Plans: From Theory to Practice -- PART 2: INTERGOVERNMENTAL PLANNING IN NEW ZEALAND -- 3 Central Government: Walking the Talk -- 4 Regional Government: A Non-Partner -- 5 Māori Interests: Elusive Partnership -- PART 3: PLAN QUALITY AND CAPABILITY UNDER THE RMA -- 6 Regional Councils: Lightweight Policy Statements and Limited Capability -- 7 District Councils: Mixed Results in Planning and Capability -- 8 Influencing Factors: Linking Mandates, Councils, Capability and Quality -- PART 4: LOCAL CASE STUDIES -- 9 Far North District: Resisting Innovation -- 10 Queenstown Lakes District: Development Meets Environment -- 11 Tauranga District: Policy Coherence on the Coast -- 12 Tasman District: Political Populism -- Conclusion: A Decade On: Unfulfilled Expectations -- APPENDICES -- 1 Key Provisions of the RMA Affecting Local Government Functions -- 2 Methodology -- 3 Plan Coding Protocol -- References Cited -- Index

Debates on immigrant integration are often caught up in what academics and politicians like to call 'national models of integration'. Researchers and policymakers long for common ground. In the Netherlands, their symbiosis is fed by multiculturalism, something for which Dutch society has long been seen as exemplary. Still, the incorporation of migrants remains one of the country's most pressing social and political concerns. This book thus challenges the idea that there has ever been a coherent or consistent Dutch model of integration. Analysing how immigration is framed and reframed through diverse dialogues, it provides a highly dynamic understanding of integration policy and its evolution alongside migration research. Focus falls on the Netherlands of the past three decades, yet as these findings are held up to the cases of France, Germany and the United Kingdom, insights emerge to more universal questions. Just what are the current political and academic controversies all about? How can governments respond to the challenges of our time? And what contribution can social scientists make?

International audience Uzbekistan, a former Muslim Republic of the Soviet Union, remains strongly marked by the legacy of the previous political system. The State continues to exercise a key regulatory role in the social and economic spheres. In a system where there is no distinction between administrative and political mandates, state employees (fonctionnaires) play the role of intermediaries between citizens and access to resources which are under strict State control.How does one become a state employee? The selection of those with power rests initially on the acquisition of local legitimacy which is earned through a system of gifts and counter-gifts. The possibility of getting into a training institution in order to accede to the highest national responsibilities is conditional on the constitution of a local solidarity network. At the national level, region factions contest and share out the different State institutions. Having a regional legitimacy, state employees maintain clientelist relations with those coming from their regions in order to give them temporary access to or favour their integration (as a state employee) within the State. This illustrates the specific logic of power relations and the particular nature of the State. In addition, in the context of an openness towards the outside world, the numerous aid projects are becoming stakes in the struggle between regional factions. ; L'Ouzbékistan, ancienne République musulmane d'Union Soviétique reste fortement marquée par l'héritage du précédent système politique. L'État continue d'exercer un rôle primordial de régulateur social et économique. Dans un système où il n'y a pas de distinction entre mandat administratif et politique, les fonctionnaires jouent un rôle d'intermédiaire entre les citoyens et l'accès aux ressources, étroitement sous contrôle de l'État. Comment devient-on fonctionnaire ?La logique de sélection des hommes qui ont du pouvoir repose dans un premier temps sur l'acquisition d'une légitimité locale qui se mérite à travers un ...

The Venice Biennale, by its multinational exposure status, the benefits of which are international, represents an model of international relations (political, artistic and economic). Historically, the term "Venice Biennale" is commonly used to refer to the "International Exhibition of Contemporary Art Biennale of Venice". It is considered one of the most prestigious art events in Europe and even in the world. It is also one of the oldest Biennales since it was created in 1893 and stood for the first time in 1895 as "International Art Exhibition of the City of Venice". Its second edition took place two years later, and earning him the name "Biennale". The period from 1960-1970 was special for configuring movements, "blocks of influence" competitors on the Biennale structure which is completely transformed during the same period. Artistic issues have completely changed after the victory of young Rauschenberg in 1964; the United States began to establish their status and position of leader on the stage of contemporary art while France sought new solutions to actively participate in this fierce struggle. The presence of the USSR until 1976 remained the same until that date, when she was first shelved on a background of scandal "art Russian dissident". The evolution of artistic relations between the countries of Eastern Europe and the West culminated in 1970 with the setting before, by consensus, a young Hungarian sculptor who, critics say, should get the trophy "Grand Prize" if it still existed. So the Italians have found a new way to establish their superiority on the world stage of contemporary art thanks to the invention of thematic exhibitions, the development of commitment Biennale in political struggles. ; La Biennale de Venise, de par son statut d'exposition multinationale, dont les retombées sont internationales, représente un modèle in vitro des relations internationales (politiques, artistiques et économiques). Historiquement, le terme de "Biennale de Venise" est couramment utilisé pour désigner l'"Exposition Internationale d'Art Contemporain de la Biennale de Venise". Elle est considérée comme une des plus prestigieuses manifestations artistiques en Europe voire même dans le monde. C'est aussi une des plus anciennes Biennales puisqu'elle fut créée en 1893 et se tint pour la première fois en 1895 en tant que "Exposition Internationale d'Art de la Cité de Venise". Sa seconde édition eut lieu deux ans plus tard, lui valant ainsi le nom de "Biennale". La période des années 1960-1970 fut particulière pour la configuration de mouvements, "de blocs d'influence" concurrents sur la Biennale, structure qui s'est complètement transfigurée durant cette même période. Les enjeux artistiques ont entièrement changé après la victoire du jeune Rauschenberg en 1964 : les États-Unis commencent à établir leur statut et leur position de Leader sur la scène de l'art contemporain alors que la France cherchait de nouvelles solutions pour participer activement à cette lutte acharnée et se positionner en outsider. La présence de l'URSS, jusqu'à 1976, resta la même jusqu'à cette date où elle fut pour la première fois reléguée aux oubliettes sur un fond de scandale lié à l'"art dissident russe". L'évolution des relations artistiques des pays de l'Europe de l'Est et de l'Ouest a atteint son point culminant en 1970 avec la mise en avant, de façon consensuelle, d'un jeune sculpteur hongrois qui, aux dires des critiques, devait obtenir le trophée du "Grand prix" si celui-ci existait encore. Ainsi les Italiens ont trouvé une nouvelle façon d'établir leur supériorité sur la scène internationale de l'art contemporain grâce à l'invention d'expositions thématiques, du développement de l'engagement de la Mostra dans les luttes politiques.

The Venice Biennale, by its multinational exposure status, the benefits of which are international, represents an model of international relations (political, artistic and economic). Historically, the term "Venice Biennale" is commonly used to refer to the "International Exhibition of Contemporary Art Biennale of Venice". It is considered one of the most prestigious art events in Europe and even in the world. It is also one of the oldest Biennales since it was created in 1893 and stood for the first time in 1895 as "International Art Exhibition of the City of Venice". Its second edition took place two years later, and earning him the name "Biennale". The period from 1960-1970 was special for configuring movements, "blocks of influence" competitors on the Biennale structure which is completely transformed during the same period. Artistic issues have completely changed after the victory of young Rauschenberg in 1964; the United States began to establish their status and position of leader on the stage of contemporary art while France sought new solutions to actively participate in this fierce struggle. The presence of the USSR until 1976 remained the same until that date, when she was first shelved on a background of scandal "art Russian dissident". The evolution of artistic relations between the countries of Eastern Europe and the West culminated in 1970 with the setting before, by consensus, a young Hungarian sculptor who, critics say, should get the trophy "Grand Prize" if it still existed. So the Italians have found a new way to establish their superiority on the world stage of contemporary art thanks to the invention of thematic exhibitions, the development of commitment Biennale in political struggles. ; La Biennale de Venise, de par son statut d'exposition multinationale, dont les retombées sont internationales, représente un modèle in vitro des relations internationales (politiques, artistiques et économiques). Historiquement, le terme de "Biennale de Venise" est couramment utilisé pour désigner l'"Exposition Internationale d'Art Contemporain de la Biennale de Venise". Elle est considérée comme une des plus prestigieuses manifestations artistiques en Europe voire même dans le monde. C'est aussi une des plus anciennes Biennales puisqu'elle fut créée en 1893 et se tint pour la première fois en 1895 en tant que "Exposition Internationale d'Art de la Cité de Venise". Sa seconde édition eut lieu deux ans plus tard, lui valant ainsi le nom de "Biennale". La période des années 1960-1970 fut particulière pour la configuration de mouvements, "de blocs d'influence" concurrents sur la Biennale, structure qui s'est complètement transfigurée durant cette même période. Les enjeux artistiques ont entièrement changé après la victoire du jeune Rauschenberg en 1964 : les États-Unis commencent à établir leur statut et leur position de Leader sur la scène de l'art contemporain alors que la France cherchait de nouvelles solutions pour participer activement à cette lutte acharnée et se positionner en outsider. La présence de l'URSS, jusqu'à 1976, resta la même jusqu'à cette date où elle fut pour la première fois reléguée aux oubliettes sur un fond de scandale lié à l'"art dissident russe". L'évolution des relations artistiques des pays de l'Europe de l'Est et de l'Ouest a atteint son point culminant en 1970 avec la mise en avant, de façon consensuelle, d'un jeune sculpteur hongrois qui, aux dires des critiques, devait obtenir le trophée du "Grand prix" si celui-ci existait encore. Ainsi les Italiens ont trouvé une nouvelle façon d'établir leur supériorité sur la scène internationale de l'art contemporain grâce à l'invention d'expositions thématiques, du développement de l'engagement de la Mostra dans les luttes politiques.

The Venice Biennale, by its multinational exposure status, the benefits of which are international, represents an model of international relations (political, artistic and economic). Historically, the term "Venice Biennale" is commonly used to refer to the "International Exhibition of Contemporary Art Biennale of Venice". It is considered one of the most prestigious art events in Europe and even in the world. It is also one of the oldest Biennales since it was created in 1893 and stood for the first time in 1895 as "International Art Exhibition of the City of Venice". Its second edition took place two years later, and earning him the name "Biennale". The period from 1960-1970 was special for configuring movements, "blocks of influence" competitors on the Biennale structure which is completely transformed during the same period. Artistic issues have completely changed after the victory of young Rauschenberg in 1964; the United States began to establish their status and position of leader on the stage of contemporary art while France sought new solutions to actively participate in this fierce struggle. The presence of the USSR until 1976 remained the same until that date, when she was first shelved on a background of scandal "art Russian dissident". The evolution of artistic relations between the countries of Eastern Europe and the West culminated in 1970 with the setting before, by consensus, a young Hungarian sculptor who, critics say, should get the trophy "Grand Prize" if it still existed. So the Italians have found a new way to establish their superiority on the world stage of contemporary art thanks to the invention of thematic exhibitions, the development of commitment Biennale in political struggles. ; La Biennale de Venise, de par son statut d'exposition multinationale, dont les retombées sont internationales, représente un modèle in vitro des relations internationales (politiques, artistiques et économiques). Historiquement, le terme de "Biennale de Venise" est couramment utilisé pour désigner l'"Exposition Internationale d'Art Contemporain de la Biennale de Venise". Elle est considérée comme une des plus prestigieuses manifestations artistiques en Europe voire même dans le monde. C'est aussi une des plus anciennes Biennales puisqu'elle fut créée en 1893 et se tint pour la première fois en 1895 en tant que "Exposition Internationale d'Art de la Cité de Venise". Sa seconde édition eut lieu deux ans plus tard, lui valant ainsi le nom de "Biennale". La période des années 1960-1970 fut particulière pour la configuration de mouvements, "de blocs d'influence" concurrents sur la Biennale, structure qui s'est complètement transfigurée durant cette même période. Les enjeux artistiques ont entièrement changé après la victoire du jeune Rauschenberg en 1964 : les États-Unis commencent à établir leur statut et leur position de Leader sur la scène de l'art contemporain alors que la France cherchait de nouvelles solutions pour participer activement à cette lutte acharnée et se positionner en outsider. La présence de l'URSS, jusqu'à 1976, resta la même jusqu'à cette date où elle fut pour la première fois reléguée aux oubliettes sur un fond de scandale lié à l'"art dissident russe". L'évolution des relations artistiques des pays de l'Europe de l'Est et de l'Ouest a atteint son point culminant en 1970 avec la mise en avant, de façon consensuelle, d'un jeune sculpteur hongrois qui, aux dires des critiques, devait obtenir le trophée du "Grand prix" si celui-ci existait encore. Ainsi les Italiens ont trouvé une nouvelle façon d'établir leur supériorité sur la scène internationale de l'art contemporain grâce à l'invention d'expositions thématiques, du développement de l'engagement de la Mostra dans les luttes politiques.

The Venice Biennale, by its multinational exposure status, the benefits of which are international, represents an model of international relations (political, artistic and economic). Historically, the term "Venice Biennale" is commonly used to refer to the "International Exhibition of Contemporary Art Biennale of Venice". It is considered one of the most prestigious art events in Europe and even in the world. It is also one of the oldest Biennales since it was created in 1893 and stood for the first time in 1895 as "International Art Exhibition of the City of Venice". Its second edition took place two years later, and earning him the name "Biennale". The period from 1960-1970 was special for configuring movements, "blocks of influence" competitors on the Biennale structure which is completely transformed during the same period. Artistic issues have completely changed after the victory of young Rauschenberg in 1964; the United States began to establish their status and position of leader on the stage of contemporary art while France sought new solutions to actively participate in this fierce struggle. The presence of the USSR until 1976 remained the same until that date, when she was first shelved on a background of scandal "art Russian dissident". The evolution of artistic relations between the countries of Eastern Europe and the West culminated in 1970 with the setting before, by consensus, a young Hungarian sculptor who, critics say, should get the trophy "Grand Prize" if it still existed. So the Italians have found a new way to establish their superiority on the world stage of contemporary art thanks to the invention of thematic exhibitions, the development of commitment Biennale in political struggles. ; La Biennale de Venise, de par son statut d'exposition multinationale, dont les retombées sont internationales, représente un modèle in vitro des relations internationales (politiques, artistiques et économiques). Historiquement, le terme de "Biennale de Venise" est couramment utilisé pour désigner l'"Exposition Internationale d'Art Contemporain de la Biennale de Venise". Elle est considérée comme une des plus prestigieuses manifestations artistiques en Europe voire même dans le monde. C'est aussi une des plus anciennes Biennales puisqu'elle fut créée en 1893 et se tint pour la première fois en 1895 en tant que "Exposition Internationale d'Art de la Cité de Venise". Sa seconde édition eut lieu deux ans plus tard, lui valant ainsi le nom de "Biennale". La période des années 1960-1970 fut particulière pour la configuration de mouvements, "de blocs d'influence" concurrents sur la Biennale, structure qui s'est complètement transfigurée durant cette même période. Les enjeux artistiques ont entièrement changé après la victoire du jeune Rauschenberg en 1964 : les États-Unis commencent à établir leur statut et leur position de Leader sur la scène de l'art contemporain alors que la France cherchait de nouvelles solutions pour participer activement à cette lutte acharnée et se positionner en outsider. La présence de l'URSS, jusqu'à 1976, resta la même jusqu'à cette date où elle fut pour la première fois reléguée aux oubliettes sur un fond de scandale lié à l'"art dissident russe". L'évolution des relations artistiques des pays de l'Europe de l'Est et de l'Ouest a atteint son point culminant en 1970 avec la mise en avant, de façon consensuelle, d'un jeune sculpteur hongrois qui, aux dires des critiques, devait obtenir le trophée du "Grand prix" si celui-ci existait encore. Ainsi les Italiens ont trouvé une nouvelle façon d'établir leur supériorité sur la scène internationale de l'art contemporain grâce à l'invention d'expositions thématiques, du développement de l'engagement de la Mostra dans les luttes politiques.

The Venice Biennale, by its multinational exposure status, the benefits of which are international, represents an model of international relations (political, artistic and economic). Historically, the term "Venice Biennale" is commonly used to refer to the "International Exhibition of Contemporary Art Biennale of Venice". It is considered one of the most prestigious art events in Europe and even in the world. It is also one of the oldest Biennales since it was created in 1893 and stood for the first time in 1895 as "International Art Exhibition of the City of Venice". Its second edition took place two years later, and earning him the name "Biennale". The period from 1960-1970 was special for configuring movements, "blocks of influence" competitors on the Biennale structure which is completely transformed during the same period. Artistic issues have completely changed after the victory of young Rauschenberg in 1964; the United States began to establish their status and position of leader on the stage of contemporary art while France sought new solutions to actively participate in this fierce struggle. The presence of the USSR until 1976 remained the same until that date, when she was first shelved on a background of scandal "art Russian dissident". The evolution of artistic relations between the countries of Eastern Europe and the West culminated in 1970 with the setting before, by consensus, a young Hungarian sculptor who, critics say, should get the trophy "Grand Prize" if it still existed. So the Italians have found a new way to establish their superiority on the world stage of contemporary art thanks to the invention of thematic exhibitions, the development of commitment Biennale in political struggles. ; La Biennale de Venise, de par son statut d'exposition multinationale, dont les retombées sont internationales, représente un modèle in vitro des relations internationales (politiques, artistiques et économiques). Historiquement, le terme de "Biennale de Venise" est couramment utilisé pour désigner l'"Exposition Internationale d'Art Contemporain de la Biennale de Venise". Elle est considérée comme une des plus prestigieuses manifestations artistiques en Europe voire même dans le monde. C'est aussi une des plus anciennes Biennales puisqu'elle fut créée en 1893 et se tint pour la première fois en 1895 en tant que "Exposition Internationale d'Art de la Cité de Venise". Sa seconde édition eut lieu deux ans plus tard, lui valant ainsi le nom de "Biennale". La période des années 1960-1970 fut particulière pour la configuration de mouvements, "de blocs d'influence" concurrents sur la Biennale, structure qui s'est complètement transfigurée durant cette même période. Les enjeux artistiques ont entièrement changé après la victoire du jeune Rauschenberg en 1964 : les États-Unis commencent à établir leur statut et leur position de Leader sur la scène de l'art contemporain alors que la France cherchait de nouvelles solutions pour participer activement à cette lutte acharnée et se positionner en outsider. La présence de l'URSS, jusqu'à 1976, resta la même jusqu'à cette date où elle fut pour la première fois reléguée aux oubliettes sur un fond de scandale lié à l'"art dissident russe". L'évolution des relations artistiques des pays de l'Europe de l'Est et de l'Ouest a atteint son point culminant en 1970 avec la mise en avant, de façon consensuelle, d'un jeune sculpteur hongrois qui, aux dires des critiques, devait obtenir le trophée du "Grand prix" si celui-ci existait encore. Ainsi les Italiens ont trouvé une nouvelle façon d'établir leur supériorité sur la scène internationale de l'art contemporain grâce à l'invention d'expositions thématiques, du développement de l'engagement de la Mostra dans les luttes politiques.

Abstract
Most public opinion research in China uses direct questions to measure support for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and government policies. These direct question surveys routinely find that over 90 per cent of Chinese citizens support the government. From this, scholars conclude that the CCP enjoys genuine legitimacy. In this paper, we present results from two survey experiments in contemporary China that make clear that citizens conceal their opposition to the CCP for fear of repression. When respondents are asked directly, we find, like other scholars, approval ratings for the CCP that exceed 90 per cent. When respondents are asked in the form of list experiments, which confer a greater sense of anonymity, CCP support hovers between 50 per cent and 70 per cent. This represents an upper bound, however, since list experiments may not fully mitigate incentives for preference falsification. The list experiments also suggest that fear of government repression discourages some 40 per cent of Chinese citizens from participating in anti-regime protests. Most broadly, this paper suggests that scholars should stop using direct question surveys to measure political opinions in China.

There is now the very real possibility of a change of UK government before the end of next year. This articles looks for clues as to what a Labour led government might mean for the higher education sector, at a time when substantial and radical change is desperately needed. It seems
that Labour's approach to the university sector will be dominated by a focus on the economic role of higher education, combined with a fiscal conservatism that will further undermine more radical options. A longer-term transformative project remains a possibility, but its proponents must
look beyond the lifetime of the next government. The realisation of any aspirational project for change will depend on the development of a broad and progressive alliance that is able to articulate, and organise around, a more hopeful and optimistic vision of the public university. There is
potential for such a movement to emerge from the current industrial disputes in the sector, which have clearly exposed the limitations of the neoliberal university; but such a movement must also transcend any tendency to a narrow economism and link to a much broader political agenda

Why do states engage in violence against marginalized social groups? State violence is typically explained as a calculated response to dissent or as a means of preventing dissent. However, many instances of state violence against members of marginalized groups appear to be unconnected to dissent or anti-state mobilization. We examine this dimension of state violence and connect it to control of the government by nationalist political parties and the preferences of their voting bases. We argue that governments in which nationalist parties hold substantial influence are more likely to adopt policies that lead to abuse. Such policies include more aggressive policing of immigrants and ethnic minorities, and lax oversight and punishment of agencies responsible for policing. To test our argument, we examine the Ill-Treatment and Torture data, which record allegations of state violence and also information about the victim's identity. We find that states with nationalist governments are more frequently accused of abuse against marginalized groups. Our results suggest that, rather than constraining abusive behavior through electoral accountability, the public in democratic countries sometimes prefer leaders who create a more abusive environment for marginalized groups.

Abstract
People with disability are an at-risk group in the COVID-19 pandemic for a range of clinical and socioeconomic reasons. In recognition of this, Australians with disability and those who work with them were prioritized in access to vaccination, but the vaccination targets were not met. In this paper, we analyze qualitative data generated from a survey with 368 disability support workers to identify drivers of COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy and why the implementation of this policy may have experienced challenges. We identify a range of themes within these data but ultimately argue that a major driver of vaccine hesitancy in this group is a mistrust of government and an erosion of employment terms and conditions. Drawing on the policy capacity literature, we argue that the "Achilles' heel" for the Australian government in this case is the critical policy capacity of political legitimacy. This finding has important implications for where the government needs to increase/build policy capacity, strengthening its efforts and better relating to organizations that can be helpful in terms of developing public health messaging for disability support workers.

After assuming the presidency in January 2019, Bolsonaro used the machinery of government to wage culture warfare. Public universities, sites of cultivation of a new moral radicalism of the left over recent decades, became primary cultural battlegrounds. With its attacks on public universities (demonization, unconstitutional government interference, budget cuts, and political persecution), Bolsonaro's government nurtured the reactionary imagination of Brazil's new right and challenged the cultural hegemony of the left and thus undermined a biopolitical pact that once tied public universities to the defense of a right to life. Depois de assumir a presidência em Janeiro 2019, Bolsonaro utilizou a máquina do governo para fazer uma guerra cultural. As universidades públicas, viveiros pela formação de um novo radicalismo moral da esquerda durante as últimas décadas, se convertiram em importantes campos de batalha culturais nessa guerra. Com sua ofensiva contra as universidades públicas (demonização, interferência do governo inconstitucional, cortes orçamentais e persecuções políticas), o governo Bolsonaro fomentou um imaginário reacionário na direita brasileira que desafiou a hegemonia cultural da esquerda e, por conseguinte, minou um pacto biopolítico que anteriormente vinculava as universidades públicas à defesa do direito à vida.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has varied across countries. Some countries controlled the virus relatively well, while others did not. In the United States, almost a million people died. However, South Korea's death toll is only about 12,000 even though its population is about one-sixth of the United States. What caused the difference? We argue that public compliance to government direction is the primary reason. South Korea's collective culture valuing communal benefits helped the people conform to government directions, such as mask wearing in public places. By contrast, American people resisted the government policies that restrict individual freedom due to the individualistic culture. In South Korea, historical experiences of relatively frequent national crises led to the rise of defensive nationalism, resulting in national union. However, the United States had relatively fewer national crises, and thus nationalism did not rise. Instead, national division, xenophobia, and hatred toward Asians prevailed in the United States. Besides the cultural differences, differences in national leader's characteristics, past experiences of public health crisis, and political system also contributed to the different outcomes of the crisis.

AbstractPlastic pollution has reached a crisis point due to ineffective waste management, an over-reliance on single-use plastic items and a lack of suitable plastic alternatives. The COVID-19 Pandemic has seen a dramatic increase in the use of single-use plastics including 'COVID waste' in the form of items specifically intended to help stop the spread of disease. Many governments have utilised COVID-19 as a window of opportunity to reverse, postpone or remove plastic policies off agendas ostensibly in order to 'flatten the curve' of COVID-19 cases. In this paper, we use novel methods of social media analysis relating to three regions (USA, Mexico and Australia) to suggest that health and hygiene were not the only reasons governments utilised this window of opportunity to change plastic policies. Beyond the influence of social media on the plastics agenda, our results highlight the potential of social media as a tool to analyse public reactions to government decisions that can be influenced by industry pressure and a broader political agenda, while not necessarily following responses to consumer behaviour.