Politics & Policy最新文献

This study examined the role of institutional quality in mitigating the negative effect of terrorism on real output in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The study employed data from 42 SSA countries between 2001 and 2020 and used the two-step system generalized method of moments (GMM) as an estimation strategy to account for endogeneity bias. Two indicators of terrorism, which include the number of terrorist attacks and the number of deaths from terrorism, are used as a proxy for terrorism, and six indicators, which include the control of corruption, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, voice/accountability, and the polity score, are used to proxy institutional quality. The study finds evidence of the negative influence terrorism has on real output in the region. Additionally, the findings show that improving the quality of institutions in Africa significantly improves real output in the region. However, the study does not find that improving institutional quality can mitigate the negative effect of terrorism on output in the region. These findings suggest that while strong institutions are vital for economic progress, their ability to counter the negative impact of terrorism is limited if deep-rooted security challenges in the region are not addressed. I provide policy recommendations based on these findings.

Related Articles

Antwi-Boateng, Osman. 2015. “No Spring in Africa: How Sub-Saharan Africa Has Avoided the Arab Spring Phenomenon.” Politics & Policy 43(5): 754–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12129.

Iheonu, Chimere O., Princewill U. Okwoche, and Shedrach A. Agbutun. 2024. “The Impact of Democracy on Peace in Africa: Empirical Evidence.” Politics & Policy 52(5): 1038–1058. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12632.

Antwi-Boateng, Osman. 2017. “The Rise of Pan-Islamic Terrorism in Africa: A Global Security Challenge.” Politics & Policy 45(2): 253–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12195.

This study examines the influence of subjective social class on attitudes towards education, arguing that it outweighs ideological orientation. Analyzing cross-national survey data, the findings challenge conventional assumptions about ideological divides, revealing a convergence between progressives and conservatives when subjective class is considered. While progressives traditionally believe that success is independent of familial educational background and conservatives emphasize education's role in achievement, this distinction diminishes as subjective class rises. Both groups increasingly justify the right of high-income individuals to secure superior educational opportunities for their children. This study underscores the primacy of class-based perceptions in shaping educational attitudes, highlighting the limitations of ideological explanations. By demonstrating that subjective class drives perspectives on educational fairness, it contributes to research on inequality and policy debates. The findings illustrate the difficulties of achieving consensus in stratified societies, where socioeconomic status, rather than ideology, determines attitudes towards educational competition and access.

Related Articles

Ayhan, K. J., and N. Snow. 2021. “Introduction to the Special Issue—Global Korea Scholarship: Empirical Evaluation of a Non-Western Scholarship Program from a Public Diplomacy Perspective.” Politics & Policy 49, no. 6: 1282–1291. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12440.

Istad, F., E. Varpahovskis, E. Miezan, and K. J. Ayhan. 2021. “Global Korea Scholarship Students: Intention to Stay in the Host Country to Work or Study after Graduation.” Politics & Policy 49, no. 6: 1323–1342. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12436.

Tam, L., and K. J. Ayhan. 2021. “Evaluations of People, Affection, and Recommendation for a Host Country: A Study of Global Korea Scholarship (GKS) Recipients.” Politics & Policy 49, no. 6: 1292–1307. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12438.

This comprehensive study investigates the profound and enduring economic consequences of Donald Trump's 2016 election victory on the global economy, as observed through 2024. Utilizing a sophisticated mixed-methods approach, the research combines rigorous quantitative analysis of economic indicators with qualitative assessment of policy shifts, providing a nuanced understanding of long-term changes in international trade relations, financial markets, and socioeconomic dynamics over the past 8 years. The study's key findings reveal that Trump's “America First” policies and protectionist measures, including tariffs on China and the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement into the Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada, have had lasting effects on global trade patterns and supply chains. Quantitative analysis demonstrates that stock market volatility remains elevated by 10%–15% above pre-Trump levels, while currencies in countries heavily dependent on United States (US) trade continue to be undervalued by 5%–7%. Foreign direct investment inflows to the US are observed to be 20% lower compared to 2016 levels, and domestic income inequality has increased by 15%. Furthermore, the research identifies significant shifts in global economic power dynamics, with emerging economies, particularly in Asia, gaining increased influence. The study notes a 25% increase in intra-regional trade agreements outside of US influence, indicating a diversification of global economic partnerships. Additionally, the analysis reveals a 30% rise in investments in renewable energy sectors globally, partly in response to the US withdrawal from climate agreements during Trump's tenure. The study concludes that Trump's economic policies have induced structural changes in the global economy, accelerated the rebalancing of global economic powers, and fundamentally altered the nature of international economic relations.

Related Articles

Garrett Terence M. Sementelli Arthur J. 2023. “Revisiting the Policy Implications of COVID-19, Asylum Seekers, and Migrants on the Mexico–U.S. Border: Creating (And Maintaining) States of Exception in the Trump and Biden Administrations.” Politics & Policy 51, 458 475. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12537.

Moynihan Donald. 2025. “Trump, Personalism, and US Administrative Capacity.” Politics & Policy 53, e70059. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.70059.

Stockemer Daniel. 2025. “Is the US Moving Towards Autocracy? A Critical Assessment.” Politics & Policy 53, e70032. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.70032.

ABSTRACT

This article examines the role of a range of actors in social policy accountability across different welfare regimes, with a focus on Austria, Denmark, Switzerland, and Spain. Using a survey conducted with academic experts in these four countries, we examine the perceived importance attributed to political institutions, public bodies, and stakeholders. These include governments, political parties, parliaments, autonomous bodies, market-oriented actors, and societal actors. We examine the perceived role of each actor in influencing relationships of social policy accountability between governments and citizens. By doing so, we identify whether social policy accountability modes are primarily based on a supply-side/proactive pattern, where governments responsible for implementing policies play a key role in implementing accountability measures, or on a demand-side/reactive pattern, where the various forums (such as political institutions, autonomous watchdogs, and societal actors) are seen as the most important actors for accountability.

Related Articles

Luypaert, Anouk, and Peter Thijssen. 2024. “The comparative politics of solidarity: Political party discourse across three welfare state regimes.” Politics & Policy 52 (5): 935–962. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12625.

Mioni, Michele, 2021. “The ‘Good Citizen’ as a ‘Respectable Worker:’ State, Unemployment, and Social Policy in the United Kingdom and Italy, 1930 to 1950.” Politics & Policy 49 (4): 913–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12425.

Wagle, Udaya R. 2014. “The Heterogeneity Politics of the Welfare State: Changing Population Heterogeneity and Welfare State Policies in High-Income OECD Countries, 1980-2005.” Politics & Policy 41 (6): 947–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12053.