How do the advocacy coalitions framework, institutional rational choice, and politics of structural choice compare as policy process theories. What are the key components and limitations of each framework. How can these theories be further developed to better explain policy formation and change.
Understanding the Foundations of Policy Process Theories
Policy process theories aim to explain how policies are formed, implemented, and changed over time. In response to Sabatier’s 1991 challenge to improve theoretical understanding in this area, scholars have developed several emerging frameworks. This article examines three of these: the Advocacy Coalitions Framework (ACF), Institutional Rational Choice (IRC), and the Politics of Structural Choice (SC).
The Advocacy Coalitions Framework (ACF)
Developed by Paul Sabatier, the ACF focuses on the role of coalitions in shaping policy. These coalitions are formed by actors who share similar beliefs and coordinate their actions to influence policy outcomes. The ACF emphasizes the importance of belief systems and policy-oriented learning in driving policy change.
Institutional Rational Choice (IRC)
IRC applies rational choice theory to institutional settings. It assumes that individuals make decisions based on their preferences and the constraints imposed by institutional rules. This framework examines how institutions shape individual behavior and collective outcomes in policy processes.
The Politics of Structural Choice (SC)
Proposed by Terry Moe, the SC framework focuses on how political actors design bureaucratic structures to serve their interests. It emphasizes the role of power and conflict in shaping organizational structures and policy implementation.
Comparing the Three Frameworks: Key Criteria
To evaluate these frameworks, the authors use six criteria that highlight important aspects of policy process theories. Let’s examine each criterion and how the frameworks compare:
1. Boundaries of Inquiry
Are there significant differences in the scope of these frameworks? Indeed, each theory sets different boundaries for its analysis:
- ACF: Focuses on policy subsystems and external events over decades
- IRC: Examines specific action situations within institutional contexts
- SC: Concentrates on the design of bureaucratic structures
2. Model of the Individual
How do these frameworks conceptualize individual behavior in policy processes? The models differ in their assumptions:
- ACF: Individuals are boundedly rational and driven by belief systems
- IRC: Assumes rational actors seeking to maximize their utility
- SC: Focuses on politicians and interest groups pursuing their goals
3. Roles of Information and Beliefs
Information and beliefs play crucial roles in policy-making. How do the frameworks incorporate these elements?
- ACF: Emphasizes the role of policy-oriented learning and belief systems
- IRC: Considers information as a resource that affects decision-making
- SC: Focuses on how information asymmetries influence structural choices
4. Nature and Role of Groups
Groups are essential in policy processes. How do these theories conceptualize group dynamics?
- ACF: Emphasizes advocacy coalitions based on shared beliefs
- IRC: Examines how institutional rules affect group formation and behavior
- SC: Focuses on interest groups and their influence on structural choices
5. Concept of Levels of Action
Policy processes occur at multiple levels. How do these frameworks address this complexity?
- ACF: Distinguishes between policy subsystems and external events
- IRC: Considers nested levels of action situations
- SC: Focuses primarily on the level of structural design
6. Ability to Explain Various Stages of the Policy Process
Can these frameworks explain different stages of policy-making, from agenda-setting to implementation?
- ACF: Strongest in explaining policy formulation and change
- IRC: Applicable to various stages, particularly implementation
- SC: Focuses on the design stage of bureaucratic structures
Strengths and Limitations of Each Framework
While each framework offers valuable insights, they also have limitations. Understanding these can help guide future research and theory development.
Advocacy Coalitions Framework (ACF)
Strengths of the ACF include its focus on belief systems and policy learning. It provides a comprehensive view of how coalitions shape policy over time. However, it has been criticized for underestimating the role of institutional constraints and power dynamics.
Institutional Rational Choice (IRC)
IRC excels in explaining how institutional rules shape individual and collective behavior. Its strength lies in its ability to analyze specific action situations. However, it may oversimplify complex motivations and underestimate the role of beliefs and values in decision-making.
Politics of Structural Choice (SC)
The SC framework offers unique insights into the design of bureaucratic structures and how they affect policy implementation. Its focus on power and conflict provides a realistic view of political processes. However, it may overlook the role of ideas and learning in policy change.
Integrating Insights from Multiple Frameworks
Given the strengths and limitations of each framework, how can researchers integrate insights from multiple approaches? Combining elements from different theories may provide a more comprehensive understanding of policy processes.
Potential Areas for Integration
- Incorporating institutional constraints into the ACF’s analysis of coalition behavior
- Integrating belief systems and learning processes into IRC models
- Examining how coalitions influence structural choices in the SC framework
By synthesizing these approaches, researchers may develop more robust explanations of policy formation and change.
Empirical Testing and Theory Development
To advance our understanding of policy processes, rigorous empirical testing of these frameworks is essential. What are some key areas for future research?
Comparative Case Studies
Conducting comparative case studies across different policy domains can help test the applicability of these frameworks in various contexts. This approach can reveal which elements of each theory are most useful in explaining specific policy outcomes.
Longitudinal Studies
Given the long-term nature of many policy processes, longitudinal studies are crucial. These can help researchers understand how coalitions, institutions, and structures evolve over time and influence policy change.
Quantitative Analysis
Developing quantitative measures for key concepts in each framework can enable more systematic testing of hypotheses. This could include measures of belief system coherence, institutional constraints, or structural complexity.
Implications for Policy Practice
How can these theoretical insights inform practical policy-making? Understanding the dynamics highlighted by these frameworks can help policy practitioners in several ways:
Coalition Building
The ACF emphasizes the importance of building coalitions based on shared beliefs. Policy advocates can use this insight to form effective alliances and influence policy outcomes.
Institutional Design
IRC highlights how institutional rules shape behavior. Policy-makers can use this knowledge to design institutions that promote desired outcomes and mitigate unintended consequences.
Structural Considerations
The SC framework underscores the importance of bureaucratic structure in policy implementation. Practitioners should consider how organizational design affects policy outcomes and potential power dynamics.
Future Directions in Policy Process Theory
As policy environments become increasingly complex, what new directions should policy process theory explore? Several emerging areas warrant attention:
Network Dynamics
How do policy networks form and evolve? Incorporating insights from network theory could enhance our understanding of coalition formation and information flows in policy processes.
Technological Impacts
How does technological change affect policy processes? Future theories should consider the role of digital technologies in shaping policy debates, coalition formation, and implementation strategies.
Global Governance
As policy issues increasingly transcend national boundaries, how can theories account for multi-level governance and international policy processes? Developing frameworks that integrate domestic and international policy dynamics is crucial.
Behavioral Insights
How can insights from behavioral economics and psychology enhance our understanding of policy processes? Incorporating cognitive biases and heuristics into existing frameworks could provide more nuanced explanations of individual and group behavior.
In conclusion, the ACF, IRC, and SC frameworks offer valuable but incomplete explanations of policy processes. By integrating insights from these approaches and pursuing rigorous empirical testing, researchers can develop more comprehensive theories. These enhanced frameworks can not only advance academic understanding but also provide practical guidance for policy-makers navigating complex policy environments.
A comparison of three emerging theories of the policy process — University of Arizona
TY – JOUR
T1 – A comparison of three emerging theories of the policy process
AU – Schlager, Edella
AU – Blomquist, William
N1 – Copyright:
Copyright 2017 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY – 1996/9
Y1 – 1996/9
N2 – In an earlier review of political theories of the policy process, Sabatier (1991) challenged political scientists and policy scholars to improve theoretical understanding of policy processes. This essay responds by comparing and building upon three emerging theoretical frameworks: Sabatier’s advocacy coalitions framework (ACF), institutional rational choice (IRC), and Moe’s political theory of bureaucracy, which he calls the politics of structural choice (SC). The frameworks are compared using six criteria: (1) the boundaries of inquiry; (2) the model of the individual; (3) the roles of information and beliefs in decision making and strategy; (4) the nature and role of groups; (5) the concept of levels of action; and (6) the ability to explain action at various stages of the policy process.
Comparison reveals that each framework has promising components, but each remains short of providing a full explanation of the processes of policy formation and change. Directions for future theory development and empirical examination are discussed.
AB – In an earlier review of political theories of the policy process, Sabatier (1991) challenged political scientists and policy scholars to improve theoretical understanding of policy processes. This essay responds by comparing and building upon three emerging theoretical frameworks: Sabatier’s advocacy coalitions framework (ACF), institutional rational choice (IRC), and Moe’s political theory of bureaucracy, which he calls the politics of structural choice (SC). The frameworks are compared using six criteria: (1) the boundaries of inquiry; (2) the model of the individual; (3) the roles of information and beliefs in decision making and strategy; (4) the nature and role of groups; (5) the concept of levels of action; and (6) the ability to explain action at various stages of the policy process.
Comparison reveals that each framework has promising components, but each remains short of providing a full explanation of the processes of policy formation and change. Directions for future theory development and empirical examination are discussed.
UR – http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0039612382&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR – http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0039612382&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 – 10.1177/106591299604900311
DO – 10.1177/106591299604900311
M3 – Review article
AN – SCOPUS:0039612382
VL – 49
SP – 651
EP – 672
JO – Political Research Quarterly
JF – Political Research Quarterly
SN – 1065-9129
IS – 3
ER –
Robert J. Schlager – Obituary – Quincy, MA – KEOHANE FUNERAL HOME
Obituary
Schlager, Robert J. of Quincy formerly of Braintree December 4, 2007.
Beloved husband of the late Barbara M. (Dixon) Schlager, Loving father of Deborah A. Loveless and her husband Michael of So.Paris, Maine, Karen M. Austin and her husband Robert of Norway, Maine, Diane L. Schlager of San Francisco, CA, Janet E. Johnson of Brockton, and Jennifer L. Schlager and her husband Daniel Sufat of Manchester, N.H., Brother of William F. Schlager and Lorraine of Quincy, Richard J.Schlager and Judy of Quincy, and Linda M. Goodwin and her husband Bruce of Kingston, Long time dear friend of Barbara Carl & her Family of Quincy, Also lovingly survived by 7 grandchildren and many nieces and nephews.
Bob was born in Milton and grew up in Braintree. He was a graduate of Braintree High School and attended Coyne Electrical School in Boston. Bob worked as an electrical engineer for Stone and Webster in Boston for 27 years, retiring in 1992. He most recently worked for Bob’s speed & Auto in Quincy. A sports fan, he enjoyed softball and watching baseball and was an avid Patriots fan.
Most of all, Bob enjoyed spending time with his children and grandchildren. In his earlier years he enjoyed camping trips to Maine with his family. He was a member of the South Quincy Social Club, the Quincy Lodge of Elks, Adams Heights Mens Club, and the VFW Post in Quincy. For many years Bob was a player for the Over the Hill Softball League. Bob was a veteran of the United States Army.
Relatives and friends are respectfully invited to attend the funeral from the Keohane Funeral Home, 785 Hancock St., WOLLASTON, Monday at 9 AM.
Funeral Mass in Saint Ann’s Church, Wollaston at 10:00 AM.
Visiting hours Sunday 3- 7 PM.
Burial in Braintree Cemetery, Braintree.
Directions to Funeral Home
Content is coming soon.
..
Prinz Harry: Das kann William ihm niemals verzeihen
Als Prinz Harry (36) das letzte Mal in London war, hatte er sein Geheimnis für sich behalten. Und so ahnte Prinz William (39) nichts Schlimmes und freute sich, seinen Bruder nach langen Streitereien einmal wieder neben sich zu haben. Und tatsächlich: Beide enthüllten das Denkmal für ihre Mutter Diana († 1997), beide wirkten zwar angespannt, aber immerhin kamen sie wieder ins Gespräch.
Doch als Harry dann wieder in seine Wahlheimat Kalifornien zurückkehrte, ließ er die Bombe platzen: Er kündigte an, vier Bücher herauszubringen, darunter seine eigene Biografie. 40 Millionen Dollar zahlt ihm ein Verlag nicht zuletzt für neue Enthüllungen über das Königshaus. Für William ein Schlag ins Gesicht. Er hatte gerade neues Vertrauen in seinen Bruder gefasst – und nun dieser furchtbare Verrat! Das kann er Harry niemals verzeihen.
Prinz Harry: Sein brisantes Enthüllungsbuch
Auch Königin Elizabeth (95) oder Prinz Charles (72) wurden natürlich nicht um Erlaubnis gefragt.
Als hätte es nicht gereicht, dass Harry und seine Ehefrau Meghan (40) die Royals in einem TV-Interview mit Vorwürfen überschütteten. Die Wunden, die beide geschlagen haben, sind noch nicht verheilt. Und jetzt kommen auch noch Schmähbücher dazu…
Für William ist es unfassbar, dass sein Bruder in den vergangenen 18 Monaten seit seinem Rückzug aus dem Königshaus alles getan hat, was er in seinem Versprechen an Die Queen nie tun wollte: sein royales Leben auszuschlachten und zu Geld zu machen – wie ein mieser kleiner Nestbeschmutzer. Jetzt befürchtet William, dass Harry sich in seinen Memoiren auch gegen seine Ehefrau Kate (39) wendet. Dafür wird sicher Meghan sorgen. Sie war ja immer neidisch auf Kate. Und nun verliert William endgültig die Geduld. Er kann nicht länger zulassen, dass seine kleine Familie unter Harry und Meghan leidet.
Und auch er selbst will nicht seinen guten Ruf verlieren, weil Harry mit boshaften Angriffen noch mehr Geld verdienen kann. Schließlich wird William später einmal König.
Jetzt bleibt ihm nur noch ein Weg: Er engagiert die besten Anwälte Englands, die seinem Bruder Paroli bieten und mit hohen Schadensersatzforderungen drohen sollen. William kann Harry nicht mehr bei seiner Ehre packen, nur noch bei seinem Geldbeutel. Denn seine Ehre hat Harry längst verkauft.
Benachrichtigung aktivieren
- Erfahre immer sofort das Neueste von deinen Stars.
- Aktuelle Meldungen direkt in deinem Browser.
- Sei früher informiert als alle anderen!
Benachrichtigung aktiviert
Ihr möchtet mehr lesen?
Diesen und weitere spannende Artikel gibt es in ,Neue Post‘. Jetzt am Kiosk!
© Neue Post, Bauer Media Group
| [15:00] |
|
Nick Arcuri at goalie for HSC. 
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [15:00] |
Connor Jongewaard at goalie for CC. |
| |||
| [15:00] |
|
Faceoff Lucas Mozingo vs Jake Brummett won by HSC, [15:00] Ground ball pickup by HSC Jake Brummett. | |||
| [14:48] |
Ground ball pickup by CC Ian Hubbs. |
| |||
| [14:17] |
|
Clear attempt by HSC good. | |||
|
Turnover by CC Jack Shannon. |
| ||||
| [13:43] |
|
Shot by HSC Jack Hayden, SAVE Connor Jongewaard | |||
| [13:25] |
Clear attempt by CC good. 
|
| |||
| [13:19] |
|
Ground ball pickup by HSC Canevin Wallace. 
| |||
|
|
Turnover by HSC Canevin Wallace. 
| ||||
| [13:11] |
|
Ground ball pickup by HSC Henry Hitt. 
| |||
| [13:05] |
|
Ground ball pickup by HSC Charlie Doetzer. 
| |||
|
|
Turnover by HSC Charlie Doetzer (caused by Jack Shannon). 
| ||||
| [12:47] |
Ground ball pickup by CC Jack Shannon. |
| |||
| [12:35] |
Shot by CC Padraic Dermody, SAVE Nick Arcuri |
| |||
| [12:30] |
|
Clear attempt by HSC good. 
| |||
|
|
Turnover by HSC Davis Hatch (caused by Ian Hubbs). 
| ||||
| [11:37] |
Ground ball pickup by CC Connor Jongewaard. |
| |||
|
Turnover by CC Brenner McCutcheon (caused by Anton Kheirani). |
| ||||
| [11:27] |
|
Ground ball pickup by HSC Jack Hayden. | |||
| [11:10] |
|
Shot by HSC John Burke, SAVE Connor Jongewaard | |||
| [11:04] |
Ground ball pickup by CC William Lathram. |
| |||
| [11:00] |
Clear attempt by CC good. |
| |||
|
Turnover by CC Chase Poplin (caused by Anton Kheirani). |
| ||||
| [09:58] |
|
Ground ball pickup by HSC Reilly French. | |||
| [09:51] |
|
Ground ball pickup by HSC Garrett Patnesky. | |||
|
Turnover by CC William Lathram. |
| ||||
| [09:14] |
|
Clear attempt by HSC good. | |||
| [08:41] |
|
Shot by HSC John Burke, SAVE Connor Jongewaard | |||
| [08:36] |
Clear attempt by CC good. |
| |||
|
Turnover by CC Leland Gray (caused by Nick Arcuri). |
| ||||
| [08:27] |
|
Ground ball pickup by HSC Nick Arcuri. | |||
| [08:23] |
|
Clear attempt by HSC good. | |||
| [07:53] |
| 0 |
| 1 |
GOAL by HSC Jack Hayden (FIRST GOAL), Assist by John Burke. |
| [07:53] |
Faceoff Lucas Mozingo vs Jake Brummett won by CC (on faceoff violation). |
| |||
| [07:06] |
Shot by CC Jack Shannon, SAVE Nick Arcuri |
| |||
| [06:58] |
|
Penalty on HSC Anton Kheirani (PUSHING/0:30) Extra-man opportunity. | |||
| [06:36] |
|
Ground ball pickup by HSC Logan Mitchell. | |||
| [06:31] |
|
Clear attempt by HSC good. | |||
| [05:50] |
| 0 |
| 2 |
GOAL by HSC Bobby Clagett, Assist by Jared Medwar. |
| [05:50] |
Faceoff Lucas Mozingo vs Kevin Dunne won by CC (on faceoff violation). |
| |||
| [05:02] |
Shot by CC Jack Shannon HIGH |
| |||
|
Turnover by CC William Lathram. |
| ||||
|
|
Turnover by HSC Henry Hitt. | ||||
| [03:52] |
|
Clear attempt by HSC failed. | |||
| [03:31] |
Shot by CC Drew Greenblatt WIDE |
| |||
|
Turnover by CC Anthony Dimichele. |
| ||||
| [03:31] |
|
Clear attempt by HSC good. | |||
|
|
Turnover by HSC Jack Hayden. | ||||
| [03:25] |
Ground ball pickup by CC Adam Johnson. |
| |||
| [03:12] |
Clear attempt by CC good. |
| |||
| [02:55] |
GOAL by CC Jack Shannon. | 1 |
| 2 |
|
| [02:55] |
|
Faceoff Lucas Mozingo vs Kevin Dunne won by HSC, [02:55] Ground ball pickup by HSC Grayson Ackaway. | |||
|
|
Turnover by HSC Sean Duffy. | ||||
| [02:22] |
|
Timeout by HSC. | |||
| [02:20] |
Clear attempt by CC good. |
| |||
|
Turnover by CC Leland Gray. |
| ||||
| [01:53] |
|
Ground ball pickup by HSC Henry Hitt. | |||
| [01:44] |
|
Clear attempt by HSC good. | |||
| [01:16] |
| 1 |
| 3 |
GOAL by HSC Jared Medwar. |
| [01:16] |
|
Faceoff Lucas Mozingo vs Kevin Dunne won by HSC, [01:16] Ground ball pickup by HSC Garrett Patnesky. | |||
| [00:22] |
Shot by CC William Lathram, SAVE Nick Arcuri |
| |||
| [00:05] |
Shot by CC Leland Gray WIDE |
| |||
| [00:00] |
End-of-period. |
|
90,000
William Azevedo – footballer, defender, Wolfsburg – 26 years old, 2021 statistics and career, match results, contract, how much he earns, news, photos and videos on Sports.ru
whales – Inside UEFA – UEFA.com
:: Previous meetings
Goals scored / conceded: In calculating the total number of goals, the consequences of disciplinary decisions were taken into account. For example, when the team was awarded a technical victory with a score of 3: 0. Goals scored in penalty shootouts do not count.
:: Lineups
Qual .: Total UEFA EURO qualifying goals / goals in UEFA EURO 2020 qualifying. FT
: Total UEFA EURO 2016 qualifying and final matches / final goals scored.
Total: Total number of international appearances / goals.
DR: Date of birth
Age: Based on the latest press kit update
CI: Disciplinary information ( *: Skip match if received card, D: Disqualified)
:: Team Facts
European Championship finals: In 1960, 1964, 1968, 1972 and 1976 four teams took part in the European Championship finals.The preliminary round and the quarterfinals were considered qualifications.
Since 1980, the number of participants has grown to eight and remained so in 1984, 1988 and 1992 – until 1996, when the 16-member format was adopted. 24 teams played for the first time at UEFA EURO 2016.
Statistics of national teams of now defunct countries
Over the years, the composition of UEFA has changed depending on the union or disintegration of states. For statistical purposes, the results of non-existent countries are taken into account elsewhere.So, the results of all matches of the USSR national team are attributed to Russia; all matches of the FRG national team (but not the GDR) – Germany; all matches of the national teams of Yugoslavia, as well as Serbia and Montenegro – Serbia; all matches of Czechoslovakia – Czech Republic and Slovakia.
Suspended matches / technical defeats
If the match started, but then was interrupted, and after one of the teams was awarded a technical defeat, then for statistical purposes the result that was on the scoreboard at the time the game was stopped is taken into account.If the match was not started at all and was then canceled or resulted in a technical defeat, then its result is not taken into account at all.
gaz.wiki – gaz.wiki
Navigation
- Main page
Languages
- Deutsch
- Français
- Nederlands
- Russian
- Italiano
- Español
- Polski
- Português
- Norsk
- Suomen kieli
- Magyar
- Čeština
- Türkçe
- Dansk
- Română
- Svenska
Preface by the author.Governance of the Common [Evolution of Collective Action Institutions]
It is difficult to say exactly when I started working on this study. It is easier to determine when I began to study the collaboration problems faced by individuals who use shared resources. In the early 1960s, at a graduate school seminar, I met Vincent Ostrom, who became my closest colleague and husband. The workshop focused on the development of water related institutions in Southern California. I began my Ph.D., focusing on entrepreneurship involved in the development of state-owned enterprises that halted the salinization of groundwater near Los Angeles.Graduate fellow Louis Weschler conducted a parallel study in a nearby groundwater basin. There, other institutional mechanisms were used to solve similar problems. When Weschler and I completed our research, it turned out that both institutional mechanisms successfully enabled water producers to avoid the catastrophic economic losses they would have suffered if the Pacific Ocean flooded both basins (E. Ostrom, 1965; Weschler, 1968 ).
In the late 1960s, Vincent and I participated in the Batelle Memorial Institute (V.Ostrom and E. Ostrom, 1977), but I, then a young teacher, focused most of my work on the problems of urban services and the public economy in large cities. In 1981, Paul Sabatier, a colleague at the Center for Interdisciplinary Research at Bielefeld University, asked me to give a presentation at a seminar on organizational learning. As an example of organizational learning, I used the code of practice developed by water producers in the Southern California groundwater basin.Paul asked why I was so sure that the systems I studied 15 years ago still work, and work well. By that time, I did not have an answer – the institutions were simply so successfully created taking into account local conditions that I simply assumed: they should survive and continue to work effectively.
Back from Bielefeld, I asked one of my graduate students, William Blomquist, to answer Sabatier’s question in my dissertation. Blomquist (1987b) found that institutions founded by water producers themselves continue to function effectively.The physical condition of the pools has improved significantly. Such significant success of these examples prompted us to conduct, with the financial support of the US Geological Survey (Grant No. 14-08-0001-G1476), a study of more groundwater basins in southern California and some in northern California to find out what is the reason for the successful development of new institutions. and their effectiveness and fairness. Finally, we have completed a comparative study of institutional, economic and physical changes in 12 groundwater basins over a 30 to 50 year period.
I was delighted with how fruitful a thorough study of a dozen groundwater basins and institutions established for long-term management has proved to be enough to develop a broad theory of institutional arrangements related to effective management and management of shared resources. (RR ). More similar information was needed to gain the empirical base needed to improve theoretical understanding of how these institutions work and how people change them.
When I joined the National Academy of Sciences ‘OR Management Group’ in 1985, I realized that similar research by other authors could be used to gain a rich empirical base for understanding OR. at that time, team members commissioned a series of field studies. Scientists were required to prepare their papers according to the scheme prepared by Ronald Oakerson (Ronald Oakerson, 1986). This meant that not only the physical properties of resource systems would be considered, but also the norms governing the use and access to these systems, the types of interaction, as well as the results obtained, which were subsequently presented at an international conference in Annapolis and published by the publishing house of the National Academy ( National Research Council, 1986).
Several of these documents and new sections have been merged into new book (Bromley, forthcoming).
After reading not only the studies of these authors, but also those to which they refer, I made two main conclusions: first, an extremely rich literature on practical research is already there. It is written by field researchers who, over the years, have received detailed information about the strategies adopted by consumers of OPs and the rules by which they operated.Second, this literature was written by a variety of authors, and publications often went unnoticed. Almost no conclusions were drawn from these publications.
Several colleagues at Indiana State University began to collect relevant references, and soon Fenton Martin compiled the resulting bibliography, finding about 1000 examples. Recently, their number has approached 5000 (Martin, 1989). The disciplines in the bibliography include rural sociology, anthropology, history, economics, political sciences, forestry, sociology of irrigation and human ecology, as well as African studies, studies of Asia, Western Europe, etc.Scientists referred primarily to research conducted by other scientists in their field, and possibly research in the same resource sector or geographic region. There were very few references to disciplinary, sectoral, or regional studies “external” to each author. So, a huge amount of highly specialized knowledge has accumulated, but no special synthesis and application of it for solving political problems has been done.
Now I knew how important it is to understand how institutions help users cope with OR problems, and there is already a lot of theoretical literature on these issues, so I thought it is extremely important to use these examples as an empirical basis for learning more about the impact of institutions. on behavioral patterns and outcomes in different settings.With the help of a grant from the US National Science Foundation (Grant No. 8619498 SES), several colleagues and I have compiled a rich archive, carefully reviewed these cases, and selected significantly less for further study, coding and analysis. Our selection criteria required the file to contain fieldwork results and information about: 1) the structure of the resource system; 2) characteristics and behavior of users; 3) the rules by which users interact; 4) the results of user behavior.We have already developed structured forms of coding to transform qualitative data into a structured framework for quantitative analysis.
Developing forms of coding is a theoretical task in itself. For this, the institutional analysis method developed in our previous works (E. Ostrom, 1986 a, b) was used as an organizational basis. In addition, we have taken a very close look at the hypotheses of field researchers who have either conducted the research themselves or analyzed the work of others, and have tried to incorporate into our forms of coding ways of evaluating their concepts and proposed relationships.Since we work with qualitative data, most of our concept should be formulated as variables with ordinal or nominal values. It took several years of hard work just to read enough examples, examine previous attempts to generalize findings in specialized industries, and develop forms of coding.
At the same time, we wrote several articles trying to formulate a theory that would help us understand the patterns that we began to notice in these various materials (Gardner and E.Ostrom, 1990; Gardner, E. Ostrom and Walker, 1990; E. Ostrom, 1985b, 1987, 1989; Schlager and E. Ostrom, 1987; Walker, Gardner and E. Ostrom, 1990). It is my belief that knowledge is acquired in the constant transition from empirical observation to serious attempts at theoretical formulation and vice versa. Consequently, this book can be considered an “interim report” of ongoing research efforts. And since the empirical phenomena and theories required to explain these phenomena are rather complex, then attempts can stretch over the next decade.
For this book, the incentive to write it came from James Alt and Douglass North after I gave a lecture at the University of Washington in St. Louis in late 1986. The OR project was still “in progress,” so I would not have started writing the book if it hadn’t been for them. But when Kenneth Shepsle and James Alt asked me to give a lecture series at Harvard University for a semester of vacations, the die was cast.
I began my work on the manuscript in January 1988, when I was again fortunate enough to spend a semester at the Center for Interdisciplinary Research at the University of Bielefeld. Then I participated in the research group on game theory and behavioral science, which was organized by Dr. Reinhard Selten from the Department of Economics, University of Bonn. It was a valuable experience for me. Although this book contains only a few game-theoretic examples, the thinking of game theorists about strategic opportunities in social settings has had a significant impact on the analysis of the main issues in my work.After working with Roy Gardner and Franz Weissing on two game-theoretic analyzes of OP situations, I reimagined the value of the power and usefulness of game theory as a general theoretical tool for scientists interested in studying the influence of different institutions.
While writing this book, I participated in the Decentralization: Finance and Governance project organized by the Office of Rural and Institutional Development at the Bureau of Science and Technology (ST & PD) of the United States Agency for International Development.Everything was important: the task of adapting theory to practice, and support on the ground in Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan. let alone discuss these ideas with Larry Schroeder, Susan Wynne, Jamie
Thomson, Louis Siegel, James Wunsch, Ed Connerley, Jerry Miner, Ken Kornher and Eric Chetwynd, and Mission Staff and government officials.I hope that my book will be of value for the project as well.
It was also very helpful to be able to lecture based on portions of this work while the manuscript was being written. In addition to lectures at Harvard in April 1988, I gave presentations based on one or more chapters at the Department of Sociology, University of Bielefeld; Udall’s first lecture at the University of Arizona, the Sequoia Institute’s Democracy and Development Conference, the Victoria Freedom Foundation’s Summer Lectures (British Columbia, May 15-20, 1989), and several different events in the Department of Political Theory and Political Analysis at Indiana University.
Many people have commented on the drafts of this book. And I am very grateful for their frank and constructive criticism. I hope I have adequately accepted their suggestions. The entire manuscript was read by Arun Agrawal, James Alt, Oliver Avens, Fikret Berkes, Elizabeth Case, David Feeny, Roy Gardner, Larry Kiser , Hartmut Kliemt, Robert Netting, Douglas S. North, Vincent Ostrom, Christine Picht, Russell Roberts, Edella Schlager, Jane Sell , Michael Taylor, Norman Uphoff, James Walker, Franz Weissing and Rick Wilson.
Readers of selected sections, based on their own previous research, were Paul Alexander, Fikret Berkes, William Blomkvist, Peter Bogason, Thomas F. Glick, Arthur Maass ), Robert Netting and Norman Uphoff. Readers of the individual documents used in preparing the manuscript were Wulf Albers, Christi Barbour, William Blomqvist, James Coleman, James Cooper, David Feeney, Margaret McKean ), Fritz Scharpf, Kenneth Shepsle, Rick Wilson and James Wunsch.I would like to express special thanks to the colleagues who have been involved with the OR project from the beginning – William Blomkvist, Roy Gardner, S. Y. Tang, Edella Schlager, and James Walker. They spent hours reworking concepts, developing models, preparing papers and experiments, and debating how best to organize what we read and collected. Many thanks also go to Elizabeth Keyes, editor of this series, Sophia Prybylski of Cambridge University Press, and Emily Loose, editor of Cambridge University Press.Patty Dalecki provided professional editing and support as always, which greatly improved the quality of the manuscript. Her cheerful mood often helped her overcome difficulties.
Pluritas will auction patents for GPS inventions for use in emergency situations by Zoltar | GPS info
Zoltar Satellite Alarm Systems, a Canadian company, has hired intellectual property firm Pluritas LLC to auction all of the company’s patents for cell phone location devices and GPS technology.The auction will take place on October 14, 2009.
Zoltar, a small private firm founded in California in 1995, pioneered the invention and patents of personal mobile emergency alarms with GPS receivers in cell phones.
Zoltar founder Dr. Dan Schlager, emergency physician, was one of the early adopters of GPS-enabled cell phones. He was the first to see the urgent need for such technologies.
Dr. Schlager and William Baringer, electrical engineer and telecommunications specialist, received Zoltar’s first patent for wireless telephony and GPS technology in 1995.Zoltar created its first mobile product based on this intellectual property in 1996.
The company currently holds 5 US and 15 international patents, in addition to other patents pending. The patents focus on a wide range of uses for location technology, wireless communication, and alarm systems. Zoltar’s earliest patents include the technology by which cell phones transmit information about the whereabouts of the emergency team.
The last patent the company received was a patent for a technology for voice activation of a cell phone for initiating a help call and transmitting data on the location of the caller. In 1998, Zoltar received the HammacherSchlemmer Award for Best New Electronic Instruments for its GPS prototypes.
Source: GPSClub.ru
Forecast for the match Wolfsburg – Hoffenheim 09/23/2019
Venue: Volkswagen Arena, Wolfsburg, Germany.
Date: September 23, 2019, Monday, 21:30 Moscow time.
Tournament: Championship of Brazil, Serie A, round 20.
“Wolves” in the continuation of the Bundesliga will fight with the “village”. Will Wolfsburg manage to extend their unbeaten streak?
Odds of the bookmaker’s office 1xBet
P1 – 1.925
X – 3.96
P2 – 3.92
Take a free bet and bet on football!
Past meeting
The last time the clubs fought each other was on 28 April 2019.Back then, the Wolves played away, but that did not stop them from crushing the home team 1 – 4. The only goal from Hoffenheim’s side was Salai, while William, Weghorst (twice) and Arnold scored against Wolfsburg. In that confrontation, the “green-white” surpassed the opposing team in all game parameters.
Tournament motivation
Wolfsburg is now 6th in the Bundesliga with 8 points. Pupils of Oliver Glazner will definitely try to earn 3 points in the upcoming battle in order to gain a foothold in the European competition zone.Hoffenheim is 13th in the regular season with 4 points. Alfred Schroeder’s team on the road will even be satisfied with a draw.
Wolfsburg
The only time the Wolves became champions of Germany was in the 2008/2009 season. Last year, the Green-Whites finished 6th in the Bundesliga and made it to the Europa League group stage. In the 2019/2020 season, Glazner’s players beat Cologne and Hertha, and also drew with Paderborn and FC Fortuna Dusseldorf. Brooks and Kastel will definitely not take part in the scheduled meeting, and besides, the entry into the field of Ginchek, Camacho, Klinger, Otavio and Schlager is in question.
Hoffenheim
In the 2018/2019 season, the “villagers” ranked 9th in the national championship. This season, the “blue-whites” were defeated twice, won the battle with Werder Bremen and drew with Bayer. There is Samasseku in the club’s infirmary; perhaps the team will not be able to support in the match with Wolfsburg Geiger, Kramarich, Ochs, Hubner and Zuber.
Forecast
Wolfsburg has successfully started the 2019/2020 season in the Bundesliga. However, in the first four rounds he came across not the most formidable opponents.The last time at home, the Wolves drew with Paderborn, who is now in 17th position in the Bundesliga. In terms of the class of players, Wolfsburg surpasses its current opponent (the “wolves” occupy 56th place in the UEFA rankings, and the “blue-whites” are located on the 97th line). So the home team is obliged to prevail over the current rival. Both teams play reliably in defense (the “wolves” conceded only 3 goals in 4 rounds, while Hoffenheim conceded 6). Therefore, it would be reasonable to bet on the lower total.
Free Forecast:
1X2 L1 for 1.925
Total 3 M in 2
Loading…
Marseille will meet Salzburg in the first match of the Europa League semi-final: Salzburg :: Football on Soccernews.ru
Marseille – Salzburg
Stadium: Velodrome
Start: 22:05
Arbiter: William Collum (Scotland)
European first semi-final will converge “Marseille” and “Salzburg”.Few expected to see these teams at such a late stage, especially the Austrians. However, the clubs, with their brilliant performance, really deserved to reach the 1/2 finals.
“Salzburg” have not lost at all in European competitions for a long time, at the group stage the Austrians have already played with “Marseille”, at home they won 1-0 thanks to a goal from Dabbourg, and in France they played 0-0. “Bulls” confidently won the group, then in the playoffs they knocked out “Real Sociedad” and one of the favorites “Borussia” from the tournament.In the quarterfinals, Salzburg played two enchanting matches against Lazio. “Eagles” – one of the most attacking teams in Italy, in Rome the teams struck 32 shots on goal for two, the Italians were more accurate, winning 4: 2. The situation was not developing in the best way for “Salzburg” in the return leg, Immobile scored in the middle of the second half, but the Austrians responded with dignity, sending four goals into the opponent’s goal at once.
Similarly, Marseille reached the semifinals.The French finished second in the group, then were stronger than Braga and Athletics in the playoffs. In the quarterfinals, “Marseille” met with the shadow favorite of the tournament “Leipzig”. The Germans won their first home game and scored in the second minute in the second leg. The French managed to respond instantly, sending two balls into the opponent’s goal by the tenth minute. In the future, there was a swing in the game. First scored by Tauvin, already “Marseille” passed on, then Augustin’s goal led to the semifinals already “Leipzig”.
At the most important moment the leader of the French team Payet said the fourth goal, and already in stoppage time Sakai scored in hockey style Sakai.The goalkeeper of the “bulls” went on the attack, the gate was empty, which was used by the Japanese defender of “Marseille”.
Interesting facts of the confrontation:
Marseille have not lost in their last eight home games. Seven wins and one draw.
Apart from matches in the group stage, the teams have never faced each other before.
“Marseille” have never lost, and also never conceded on their field from the Austrian clubs. One 2-0 win over Sturm and two zero draws (with Austria and Salzburg).
Salzburg have one win in France over Nice, a draw with Marseille and a defeat at PSG.
Approximate compositions:
“Marseille”: Pele, Sarr, Rami, Rolando, Amavi, Lopez, Gustavo, Tauvin, Paye, Ocampos, Germain.
“Salzburg”: Walcke, Liner, Romaglio, Caleta-Tsar, Almer, Aydara, Samasseku, Berisha, Schlager, Chan, Dabbur.
