Towards a political concept of dignity
In: Political research exchange: PRX : an ECPR journal, Band 6, Heft 1
ISSN: 2474-736X
4 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Political research exchange: PRX : an ECPR journal, Band 6, Heft 1
ISSN: 2474-736X
This paper examines relative stock market performance following the onset of the coronavirus pandemic for a sample of 80 stock markets. Weekly data on coronavirus cases and deaths are employed alongside Oxford indices on each nation's stringency and government support intensity. The results are broken down both by month and by geographical region. The full sample results show that increased coronavirus cases exert the expected overall effect of worsening relative stock market performance, but with little consistent impact of rising deaths. There is some evidence of significantly negative stock market effects arising from lockdowns as reflected in the Oxford stringency index. There are also positive reactions to government support in March and December in the overall sample-combined with some additional pervasive effects seen in mid-2020 in Latin America.
BASE
Nanomaterial risk governance requires models to estimate the material flow, fate and transport as well as uptake/bioavailability, hazard and risk in the environment. This study assesses the fit of such available models to different stages during the innovation of nano-enabled products. Through stakeholder consultations, criteria were identified for each innovation stage from idea conception to market launch and monitoring. In total, 38 models were scored against 41 criteria concerning model features, applicability, resource demands and outcome parameters. A scoring scheme was developed to determine how the models fit the criteria of each innovation stage. For each model, the individual criteria scores were added, yielding an overall fit score to each innovation stage. Three criteria were critical to stakeholders and incorporated as multipliers in the scoring scheme; the required time/costs and level of expertise needed to use the model, and for risk assessment models only, the option to compare PEC and PNEC. Regulatory compliance was also identified as critical, but could not be incorporated, as a nanomaterial risk assessment framework has yet to be developed and adopted by legislators. In conclusion, the scoring approach underlined similar scoring profiles across stages within model categories. As most models are research tools designed for use by experts, their score generally increased for later stages where most resources and expertise are committed. In contrast, stakeholders need relatively simple models to identify potential hazards and risk management measures at early product development stages to ensure safe use of nanomaterials without costs and resource needs hindering innovation. ; acceptedVersion ; Peer reviewed
BASE
In: Sørensen , S N , Baun , A , Burkard , M , Dal Maso , M , Hansen , S F , Harrison , S , Hjorth , R , Lofts , S , Matzke , M , Nowack , B , Peijnenburg , W , Poikkimäki , M , Quik , J T K , Schirmer , K , Verschoor , A , Wigger , H & Spurgeon , D J 2019 , ' Evaluating environmental risk assessment models for nanomaterials according to requirements along the product innovation Stage-Gate process ' , Environmental Science: Nano , vol. 6 , no. 2 , pp. 505-518 . https://doi.org/10.1039/C8EN00933C
Nanomaterial risk governance requires models to estimate the material flow, fate and transport as well as uptake/bioavailability, hazard and risk in the environment. This study assesses the fit of such available models to different stages during the innovation of nano-enabled products. Through stakeholder consultations, criteria were identified for each innovation stage from idea conception to market launch and monitoring. In total, 38 models were scored against 41 criteria concerning model features, applicability, resource demands and outcome parameters. A scoring scheme was developed to determine how the models fit the criteria of each innovation stage. For each model, the individual criteria scores were added, yielding an overall fit score to each innovation stage. Three criteria were critical to stakeholders and incorporated as multipliers in the scoring scheme; the required time/costs and level of expertise needed to use the model, and for risk assessment models only, the option to compare PEC and PNEC. Regulatory compliance was also identified as critical, but could not be incorporated, as a nanomaterial risk assessment framework has yet to be developed and adopted by legislators. In conclusion, the scoring approach underlined similar scoring profiles across stages within model categories. As most models are research tools designed for use by experts, their score generally increased for later stages where most resources and expertise are committed. In contrast, stakeholders need relatively simple models to identify potential hazards and risk management measures at early product development stages to ensure safe use of nanomaterials without costs and resource needs hindering innovation.
BASE