Suchergebnisse

This briefing outlines the main policy priorities for the EU in the coming years, and analyses the differences in views of the European Council and the European Commission.

Researchers on inequalities in representation debate about whether governments represent the preferences of the rich better than those of less affluent citizens. We argue that problems of high- and low-status citizens are treated differently already at the agenda-setting stage. If affluent and less affluent citizens have different priorities about which issues should be tackled by government, then these divergent group priorities explain why government favours high- over low-status citizens. Due to different levels of visibility, resources and social ties, governments pay more attention to what high-status citizens consider important in their legislative agenda and pay less attention to the issues of low-status citizens. We combined three types of data for our research design. First, we extracted the policy priorities (most important issues) for all status groups from Eurobarometer data between 2002 and 2016 for 10 European countries and matched this information with data on policy outcomes from the Comparative Agendas Project. We then strengthen our results using a focused comparison of three single country studies over longer time series. We show that a priority gap exists and has representational consequences. Our analysis has important implications for the understanding of the unequal representation of status groups as it sheds light on an important, yet so far unexplored, aspect of the political process. Since the misrepresentation of political agendas occurs at the very beginning of the policy-making process, the consequences are potentially even more severe than for the unequal treatment of preferences.

AbstractResearchers on inequalities in representation debate about whether governments represent the preferences of the rich better than those of less affluent citizens. We argue that problems of high‐ and low‐status citizens are treated differently already at the agenda‐setting stage. If affluent and less affluent citizens have different priorities about which issues should be tackled by government, then these divergent group priorities explain why government favours high‐ over low‐status citizens. Due to different levels of visibility, resources and social ties, governments pay more attention to what high‐status citizens consider important in their legislative agenda and pay less attention to the issues of low‐status citizens. We combined three types of data for our research design. First, we extracted the policy priorities (most important issues) for all status groups from Eurobarometer data between 2002 and 2016 for 10 European countries and matched this information with data on policy outcomes from the Comparative Agendas Project. We then strengthen our results using a focused comparison of three single country studies over longer time series. We show that a priority gap exists and has representational consequences. Our analysis has important implications for the understanding of the unequal representation of status groups as it sheds light on an important, yet so far unexplored, aspect of the political process. Since the misrepresentation of political agendas occurs at the very beginning of the policy‐making process, the consequences are potentially even more severe than for the unequal treatment of preferences.

AbstractAn accumulation of evidence suggests citizens with low incomes have relatively little influence over the policy decisions made by lawmakers in the United States. However, long before elected officials are asked to cast a final vote on a bill's passage, an equally important decision has already been made: the decision for government to focus its limited attention and agenda space on the issue at all. Therefore, it is possible that political inequality is infused earlier in the policymaking process at the agenda‐setting stage if the issues held important by some citizens are given attention while the issues held important by others are not. To investigate this question, we develop novel state‐level measures of citizens' issue priorities and find sizable differences in which issues poor and rich citizens think are most important and deserving of government attention. We then use bill introduction data from state legislatures to measure government attention and uncover evidence that state legislators are less likely to act on an issue when it is prioritized by low‐income citizens as compared to affluent citizens. These findings have important implications for our understanding of political equality and the functioning of American democracy.

- ; The paper focuses on interaction of political and economic aspects in Russian-Latvian relations. During the most of the 1990´s, the relationship was dominated by the «conflict manifestation,» which could be witnessed during the protracted Russian troop withdrawal and mutually irreconcilable positioning over NATO expansion and status of Russian-speaking population. However, in the context of EU enlargement and «economisation» of Russian foreign policy, economic factors may play an increasingly important role in Russian-Latvian relations. It is possible to discover a complex web of links and economic interdependence between economic actors in both Russia and Latvia. This especially refers to transit as Latvian ports remain among the major routes of Russian exports, primarily oil, to Western Europe. Yet, certain interests of particular economic groups in Russia as well as economic and political priorities of Russian government generally, in the region and domestically will have influence, not necessarily favourable, on further development of this economic interdependence.

Is a common political identity developing, or are Germans in east and west growing apart? By and large, earlier approaches to this question have concentrated on mutual stereotypes, on personality traits, or on the acceptance of democratic institutions and principles. Often, though not always, the conclusion is reached that the process of growing together faces major difficulties - if it is possible at all. Taking a somewhat different approach, we think of inner unification as a practical process. Therefore our particular focus lies on the problems uppermost in citizens' minds. We demonstrate that the rankings of political priorities become largely identical in east and west, and that the most important sources of national identification are identical as well. Moreover, there are similarities in personal value orientations which are remarkable in light of the long years of separation. At the same time, differences in fundamental political values are still present, in particular a higher appreciation of an "idealistic" nation of socialism in the east. This "idealistic socialism", we argue, is of limited relevance for political behaviour. Instead, the common political fate, which we infer from the indicators listed above, forms a promising base for the further development of one political identity for the Germans. (German Politics / AuD)