Suchergebnisse

The EU spends more than one billion euros per year, translating and interpreting, to preserve multilingualism. We examine how this budget should be fairly allocated, taking into account linguistic and economic realities of each member country. Our analysis helps to estimate the value of keeping English as a procedural language (in fact, almost a lingua franca) in the post-Brexit EU, where just about one percent of its population will have it as native language. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/published

The FIRO theory of interpersonal behavior provides a framework for clarify ing the administrator role, for measuring effectiveness, and for synthesizing previous studies of administration. Effective FIRO administrators excel in their use of human resources, their task ability, and their interpersonal skills. They create conditions under which individuals within their ken realize them selves optimally.

Chapter 1: "Instrumentalism" and Friedman's Methodology: A Short Objection -- Chapter 2: A Sort of Paretian Liberalism -- Chapter 3: Liberty, Equality, and Impossibility: Some General Results in the Space of "Soft" Preferences -- Chapter 4: The Arrow Paradox with Fuzzy Preferences -- Chapter 5: Equality, Priority, and Distributional Judgements -- Chapter 6: Two Logical and Normative Issues Relating to Measurement in the Social Sciences -- Chapter 7: Social Groups and Economic Poverty: A Problem in Measurement -- Chapter 8: Reckoning Sub-Group Poverty Differentials in the Measurement of Aggregate Poverty -- Chapter 9: Poverty Measurement in the Presence of a "Group Affiliation Externality" -- Chapter 10: Revisiting the Normalization Axiom in Poverty Measurement -- Chapter 11: The Focus Axiom and Poverty: On the Co-existence of Precise Language and Ambiguous Meaning in Economic Measurement -- Chapter 12: Assessing Inequality in the Presence of Growth -- Chapter 13: Revisiting an Old Theme in the Measurement of Inequality and Poverty -- Chapter 14: Inequality Measurement with Subgroup Decomposability and Level-Sensitivity.5500 |s| |a|Behavioral economics.

Most contemporary work on public spheres tends to adopt, either explicitly or implicitly, Habermas's idea of a deliberative public sphere as a normative model. There are, however, a number of other normative models available that are rarely the subject of empirical scrutiny: republican, liberal and multicultural. This article poses the empirical question of whether actually existing public spheres more closely resemble one model rather than another. To answer this question, the authors develop ways to measure public spheres, at both national and transnational level. They ground this attempt to move comparative media analysis forward conceptually and empirically via a case study comparing media content about the EU Constitution in six countries.

What, ultimately, is there good reason to do? This book proposes a unified theory of agent-dependent reasons and agent-independent reasons. It holds that principles which assign reasons to agents are valid if and only if they make maximally good sense in the light of relevant data and background theories. The theory avoids problems encountered by views associated with Nagel, Parfit, Brandt, Hubin, Gert, Baier, and Tiberius, amongst others. By what criteria should a normative theory of ultimate reasons be judged? Plausible meta-level criteria emerge from a process of identifying the criteria that have been used, sometimes unwittingly, by various theorists; categorizing and evaluating the criteria in the light of each other; and proposing revisions on that basis. This method escapes the drawbacks of rival approaches, such as those associated with Parfit, Gert, and Darwall. The resulting criteria cast a favorable light on the proposed normative theory of ultimate reasons

Chapter 1: "Instrumentalism" and Friedman's Methodology: A Short Objection -- Chapter 2: A Sort of Paretian Liberalism -- Chapter 3: Liberty, Equality, and Impossibility: Some General Results in the Space of "Soft" Preferences -- Chapter 4: The Arrow Paradox with Fuzzy Preferences -- Chapter 5: Equality, Priority, and Distributional Judgements -- Chapter 6: Two Logical and Normative Issues Relating to Measurement in the Social Sciences -- Chapter 7: Social Groups and Economic Poverty: A Problem in Measurement -- Chapter 8: Reckoning Sub-Group Poverty Differentials in the Measurement of Aggregate Poverty -- Chapter 9: Poverty Measurement in the Presence of a "Group Affiliation Externality" -- Chapter 10: Revisiting the Normalization Axiom in Poverty Measurement -- Chapter 11: The Focus Axiom and Poverty: On the Co-existence of Precise Language and Ambiguous Meaning in Economic Measurement -- Chapter 12: Assessing Inequality in the Presence of Growth -- Chapter 13: Revisiting an Old Theme in the Measurement of Inequality and Poverty -- Chapter 14: Inequality Measurement with Subgroup Decomposability and Level-Sensitivity.

Die zunehmende Ungleichheit von Einkommen und Vermögen wird in Europa intensiv diskutiert. Obwohl es für die Gestaltung von Sozialpolitik eine große Rolle spielt, ob Ungleichheiten als gerecht oder ungerecht angesehen werden, ist bisher wenig erforscht, wie BürgerInnen diese Ungleichheiten im Einzelnen bewerten. Um diese Lücke zu schließen, werden die Antwortprofile untersucht, die den Gerechtigkeitsbewertungen von Einkommen und Vermögen im European Social Survey (2018/2019) zugrunde liegen. Unter europäischen Erwerbstätigen werden vier solcher Gerechtigkeitsprofile identifiziert: Die Profile KritikerInnen, AltruistInnen, Benachteiligte und Status-quo-BefürworterInnen unterscheiden sich in Bezug darauf, ob und wo in der Einkommens- und Vermögensverteilung sie Ungerechtigkeiten feststellen. Die meisten Befragten gehören entweder zu den KritikerInnen, die Ungerechtigkeiten in allen Bereichen feststellen und Umverteilung befürworten, oder zu den AltruistInnen, die ihre eigene Situation als gerecht, die gesellschaftlichen Einkommens- und Vermögensunterschiede jedoch als ungerecht bewerten. Die weit verbreitete Sorge um soziale Gerechtigkeit sollte politisch aufgegriffen werden. Bei der Gestaltung länderspezifischer politischer Maßnahmen sollte jedoch berücksichtigt werden, wo in der Vermögens- und Einkommensverteilung Ungerechtigkeiten identifiziert werden.

In June 2012, the Government of India appointed an Expert Group (C. Rangarajan as Chairman) to take a fresh look at the methodology for the measurement of poverty. The Committee submitted its report towards the end of June 2014. The purpose of this article is to briefly explain the approach taken by this Expert Group (Rangarajan) and also to clarify some of the issues raised by few researchers and others on the report recently. This paper first presents approach of Expert Group (Rangarajan). The clarifications are given under the following heads: (1) what is new in the approach for poverty line; (2) Use of calories; (3) Multi-dimensional poverty; (4) High urban poverty in many states; (5) NAS-NSS consumption differences; (6) poverty measure in other countries; (7) public expenditure and poverty; (8) poverty ratio under eligibility under programmes. As the most of the researchers commented on multi-dimensional poverty, this note elaborates on the reasons for not undertaking this measure in the report.