The Experts below are selected from a list of 1578 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Natascha Zaun - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
why eu asylum directives exceed Lowest Common Denominator standards
2017Co-Authors: Natascha ZaunAbstract:The aim of this chapter is twofold: First, its purpose is to explain what can account for the legislative output agreed upon in EU directives. As I find that the legislative output can be explained by the effective influence of the strong regulators, I furthermore address the question of why these strong regulators have been so influential in the negotiations. The second aim of this chapter is hence to establish what power resources strong regulators have that weak regulators lack.
-
why eu asylum standards exceed the Lowest Common Denominator the role of regulatory expertise in eu decision making
Journal of European Public Policy, 2016Co-Authors: Natascha ZaunAbstract:While scholars traditionally expected EU policy-making in the area of asylum to produce Lowest Common Denominator standards, recent studies on the first phase of the Common European Asylum System have observed higher asylum standards in some instances. This article aims at explaining this divergence. Drawing on concepts of regulatory expertise and ‘misfit’, it argues that the observed variation in policy output can be explained by the dominance of a few (Northern) member states which were highly successful in inserting their positions in the core EU directives. Government effectiveness and exposure to the phenomenon entailing regulatory expertise provide a powerful explanation for member states being effective policy-shapers. Characterized by low levels of government effectiveness and exposure in the asylum area, Southern European countries were, on the contrary, rather passive during the negotiations and barely left any mark on the EU directives.
Michael I Norton - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
converging to the Lowest Common Denominator in physical health
Health Psychology, 2013Co-Authors: Leslie K John, Michael I NortonAbstract:Objective: This research examines how access to information on peer health behaviors affects one’s own health behavior. Methods: We report the results of a randomized field experiment in a large corporation in which we introduced walkstations (treadmills attached to desks that enable employees to walk while working), provided employees with feedback on their own and their coworkers’ usage, and assessed usage over 6 months. We report how we determined our sample size, and all data exclusions, manipulations, and measures in the study. Results: Walkstation usage declined most when participants were given information on coworkers’ usage levels, due to a tendency to converge to the Lowest Common Denominator—their least-active coworkers. Conclusion: This research demonstrates the impact of the Lowest Common Denominator in physical activity: people’s activity levels tend to converge to the Lowest-performing members of their groups. This research adds to our understanding of the factors that determine when the behavior of others impacts our own behavior for the better—and the worse.
-
converging to the Lowest Common Denominator in physical health
2012Co-Authors: Leslie K John, Michael I NortonAbstract:In this field experiment, we attempted to reduce sedentary workplace behavior by introducing walkstations – slow-moving treadmills attached to elevated workspaces enabling employees to walk while working – giving employees feedback on their own and their coworkers’ walkstation usage, and measuring its impact over six months. Feedback on coworkers’ usage had a negative effect: usage declined more when participants were given information on peers’ usage levels, due to a tendency to converge to the Lowest Common Denominator.
Michael E Smith - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Institutionalization, policy adaptation and European foreign policy cooperation
2016Co-Authors: Michael E SmithAbstract:since 1970 presents a number of puzzles for theorists of regional integration and International Relations. It is not directed by suprana-tional organizations, does not involve bargaining over policy alter-natives, and is not dominated by the largest EU states. Nor do the EU’s Common foreign policy decisions reflect ‘Lowest Common Denominator’ preferences. Instead, cooperation has been achieved through decen-tralized institutional mechanisms, involving processes associated with both intergovernmental and social constructivist theories. This article first explains how changes in institutional context — in terms of intergovernmental, transgovernmental and supranational procedures — affect the propensity for cooperation. It then links processes of institutionalization to an expansion of foreign policy cooperation among EU member states. Finally, it explores three policy areas (the Middle East, South Africa and nuclear non-proliferation) where EU states have adjusted their national foreign policies in line with EU foreign policy norms. KEY WORDS ¤ Common Foreign and Security Policy ¤ European Union foreign policy ¤ European Political Cooperation ¤ institu-tionalization ¤ international cooperation The Maastricht Treaty on European Union clearly marks a new era in the theory and practice of European integration. Much of the scholarly attention in this area focuses on the European Union’s (EU) socioeconomic policy domains, primarily in terms of developing the single European market (Stone Sweet and Sandholtz, 1998).1 This achievement, however, tends to overshadow an increasingly prominent area of European integration — the pursuit of a Common foreign policy. Foreign policy cooperation has bee
-
institutionalization policy adaptation and european foreign policy cooperation
European Journal of International Relations, 2004Co-Authors: Michael E SmithAbstract:The expansion of European Union (EU) foreign policy cooperation since 1970 presents a number of puzzles for theorists of regional integration and International Relations. It is not directed by supranational organizations, does not involve bargaining over policy alternatives, and is not dominated by the largest EU states. Nor do the EU’s Common foreign policy decisions reflect ‘Lowest Common Denominator’ preferences. Instead, cooperation has been achieved through decentralized institutional mechanisms, involving processes associated with both intergovernmental and social constructivist theories. This article first explains how changes in institutional context — in terms of intergovernmental, transgovernmental and supranational procedures — affect the propensity for cooperation. It then links processes of institutionalization to an expansion of foreign policy cooperation among EU member states. Finally, it explores three policy areas (the Middle East, South Africa and nuclear non-proliferation) where EU states have adjusted their national foreign policies in line with EU foreign policy norms.
Louise Nuttall - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
transitivity agency mind style what s the Lowest Common Denominator
Language and Literature, 2019Co-Authors: Louise NuttallAbstract:Analyses of the worldviews presented by texts have identified grammatical patterns in terms of the transitivity system outlined in systemic-functional grammar (Halliday, 1994; Halliday and Matthies...
-
Supplemental_Material – Supplemental material for Transitivity, agency, mind style: What’s the Lowest Common Denominator?
2019Co-Authors: Louise NuttallAbstract:Supplemental material, Supplemental_Material for Transitivity, agency, mind style: What’s the Lowest Common Denominator? by Louise Nuttall in Language and Literature
Derek Birrell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
coalition government in northern ireland social policy and the Lowest Common Denominator thesis
Social Policy and Society, 2012Co-Authors: Ann Marie Gray, Derek BirrellAbstract:In analysing governance and social policy in Northern Ireland in the period of devolution 1999–2002 Eithne McLaughlin described and predicted the dominance of a Lowest Common Denominator approach to the formulation of social policies. This paper examines the period of restored devolution 2007–11 using this thesis. It identifies the trends in the development of social policies after 2007 and examines social policy-making by the government under five categories. Having established the reasons for this complex approach to social policy formulation, consideration is also given to the outcomes of the policy process.
