Zoekresultaat: 3 artikelen

x
De zoekresultaten worden gefilterd op:
Tijdschrift Beleid en Maatschappij x Jaar 2012 x
Artikel

Ontbrekende alternatieven en gevestigde belangen

Een studie naar de posities van overheden in hervormingsdebatten tijdens de financiële crisis

Tijdschrift Beleid en Maatschappij, Aflevering 4 2012
Auteurs Daniel Mügge PhD en Bart Stellinga MA MSc
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The credit crisis that began in the summer of 2007 has fundamentally challenged much financial regulation and the political institutions that produced it. Measured against the criticisms that have been brought forth against previous financial governance, the extent of governments’ overall reform ambitions has been disappointing. Starting from this observation, this article asks: what explains governments’ reform choices, and thus also their limited ambitions? To explore this question, this article focuses on the positions that four governments central to global financial regulation (the USA, the UK, Germany and France) have taken in advance of the G20 meetings in 2009 across four key issue areas: accounting standards, derivatives trading, credit ratings agencies and banking rules. It evaluates both the overlap between positions across domains and governments as well as the differences between them. Such variation, we argue, provides key clues to the overall drivers behind reforms – as well as their limits. The overall picture that emerges can be summarized as follows: governments have been staunch defenders of their national firms’ competitive interests in regulatory reforms. That has not necessarily meant that they followed industry preferences across the board. It has been the relative impact, compared to foreign competitors, that counted in reform positions, not the absolute impact. These differences of opinion have played out within the context and the limits of the overall debates about thinkable policy alternatives. In spite of fundamental criticisms of pre-crisis regulatory orthodoxy, convincing and coherent alternatives have been forthcoming slowly at best. This has made reform proposals less radical than criticisms, seen on their own, might suggest.


Daniel Mügge PhD
Daniel Mügge is universitair docent politicologie aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Correspondentiegegevens: D. Mügge, PhD, afdeling Politicologie, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Oudezijds Achterburgwal 237, 1012 DL Amsterdam, d.k.muegge@uva.nl.

Bart Stellinga MA MSc
Bart Stellinga is medior wetenschappelijk medewerker bij de Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid. Correspondentiegegevens: B. Stellinga, MA MSc, Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid, Lange Vijverberg 4-5, 2500 EA Den Haag, stellinga@wrr.nl.
Artikel

Gevangen in een te smal doel

Tijdschrift Beleid en Maatschappij, Aflevering 3 2012
Auteurs Prof. dr. Anton Hemerijck en Dr. Frank Vandenbroucke
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In this feature authors discuss recent research findings that are of interest to readers of Beleid en Maatschappij.


Prof. dr. Anton Hemerijck
Prof. dr. Anton Hemerijck is decaan van de faculteit Sociale Wetenschappen aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. A.c.hemerijck@vu.nl

Dr. Frank Vandenbroucke
Dr. Frank Vandenbroucke is hoogleraar aan de KU Leuven en de Universiteit Antwerpen en bekleedt de Den Uyl-leerstoel aan de UvA. Frank.Vandenbroucke@ua.ac.be.
Artikel

De tucht der wetenschap

Veranderingstheorieën van polarisatie- en radicalismebeleid op de proef gesteld

Tijdschrift Beleid en Maatschappij, Aflevering 1 2012
Trefwoorden polarization, radicalization, evaluation research, theory-driven evaluation, social policy
Auteurs Drs. Vasco Lub
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Currently the Dutch government funds dozens of social interventions designed to tackle polarization and radicalization issues. It is still unknown whether the assumptions underlying these interventions are valid. This article puts the theories of change of such interventions to the test. Underlying causal assumptions of four dominant Dutch social policies were confronted with scientific evidence: (1) the system-based approach, (2) peer mediation, (3) intergroup contact and (4) self-esteem enhancement. System-based approaches – comparable to multi-systemic therapy (MST) – seem effective in reducing extremist behaviour in radical youth, but do not necessarily lead to an ideological change. In peer mediation, the causal link between the deployment of young people and the positive outcomes of such methods remains unclear. Peer mediation is also more likely to contribute in conflicts that have not yet escalated. Intergroup contact reduces prejudices about other groups, but has a limited effect. There is also no evidence for a long term effect and positive outcomes of intergroup contact do not automatically apply to adolescents. Finally, it is questionable that enhancing the self-esteem of (moslim) youth makes them more resilient against radical tendencies. In the same vein, the scientific evidence is ambiguous about whether increasing self-esteem results in social desirable behaviour or improved social relations.


Drs. Vasco Lub
Vasco Lub is zelfstandig onderzoeker (Bureau voor Sociale Argumentatie). Hij is daarnaast als buitenpromovendus verbonden aan de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam (capaciteitsgroep Sociologie), waar hij een proefschrift voorbereidt over de bewijsvoering van grootstedelijk sociaal beleid, lub@fsw.eur.nl.
Interface Showing Amount
U kunt door de volledige tekst zoeken naar alle artikelen door uw zoekterm in het zoekveld in te vullen. Als u op de knop 'Zoek' heeft geklikt komt u op de zoekresultatenpagina met filters, die u helpen om snel bij het door u gezochte artikel te komen. Er zijn op dit moment twee filters: rubriek en jaar.