Search Results

Examines some historical examples of the process by which the European Union has created ‘policy domains’ in which EU jurisdiction has come to usurp that of member governments. It explores two related themes: first, it demonstrates that the analytical concept of a policy domain provides a useful means of describing the institutional and legislative terrain over which the EU is acquiring control; second, it describes the evolution of such domains over time, starting with their inception through treaties such as the Treaty of Rome, and their growth as a function of treaty revisions and extensions. It documents the relationship between the presence of transnational pressure groups within the EU and the production of legislation, clarifying the differences between policy domains where cooperation has remained firmly intergovernmental and those where control has effectively passed into the EU's supranational competence.

The chapter argues that the longstanding effort to categorize policy areas based on their types of politics is unhelpful. The most important factors in the policy process are broadly consistent across issue areas, but each area is somewhat distinct in the venues where policies are enacted, the frequency and type of policy development, the relative importance of different circumstantial factors in policy change, the composition of participants in policymaking, and the structure of governing networks. The differences cannot be summarized by existing typologies because they are not reducible to a few dimensions or categories. The politics of each issue area stand out in a few important but unrelated aspects: issue area differences are best viewed as exceptions to general patterns. These differences do not add up to distinct policymaking types.

Development requires institutional change. This chapter suggests a ray of hope. Policy innovations, according to hypothesis 5, can enhance capacities for resolving CAPs, relaxing political impediments to development—notably, CAPs from hypotheses 3 and 4. South Korea’s 1950s land reform policy established foundations for subsequent development. Innovations, however, emerge and spread within political contexts; institutional change presents formidable CAPs. Distinct individual as opposed to organizational capacities for information processing, combined with asymmetric distributions of power, typically generate relatively long periods of institutional and policy stability that occasionally succumb to rapid change: punctuated equilibria. Within such contexts, coalitions vie for influence, using policy narratives and images (mini ideologies) to legitimate their influence and discredit opponents.

This chapter examines the secondary liability of internet intermediaries for trade mark infringement and passing off occurring online. The internet intrinsically relies upon a functioning system of domain names, keyword-based search tools, and advertising. These arenas present ample opportunities for conflict over protected signs. At one extreme are territorial conflicts between legitimate traders who happen to possess parallel rights in different jurisdictions; at the other extreme lie cases of opportunistic squatting on a rivalrous keyword resource, such as a domain name, for commercial gain, or outright counterfeiting. Within the contested space that lies between, the line between honest and unfair competition is becoming increasingly blurred, as traders seek to exploit rivals’ names in keyword advertising, practise aggressive search engine optimisation, and compete for traffic, reputation, and attention. The zone of accepted commercial practices is fluid and extremely nebulous.

This chapter consists of five sections, each one having a special role. The first section examines the development of new technological elements and the instrumentation of cyberscience; the second section explains the policy interests in the scientific field and its relationship with information and communication technology (ICT) practices. This is followed by a discussion of the role of computers in the transformation and change of science. The communication practices of science, along with a discussion of collaboratory and electronic science, play a major role in this section. The chapter also focuses on views of ICTs, such as their being considered a policy domain tool, sociological view, and other views. Additionally, it explores the introduction and anatomies of systematics that are involved in the description of ethnographic aspects, virtual landscapes, and textual and historical analyses. The concluding part of the chapter states that politicization and policy-making in systematics reveal it to be a high-level concentrating subject.

This chapter deals with the development of knowledge which is to be applied in order both to understand what works and to show what has worked — with the improvement of practice and policy and with claims for competence in the development of solutions to the problems of contemporary life — the policy domain, and in the implementation and execution of those policies, the practice domain. It refutes the arguments presented in particular by the Cochrane Collaboration for health, but also with some qualifications endorsed by the Campbell Collaboration in relation to general policy, that is meaningful to construct a hierarchy of modes of production of evidence with the meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials occupying the highest position in that hierarchy. It then considers the issue of variables versus cases by taking forward the complex realist methodological arguments developed in Chapter One.

In addition to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), ICANN has established eight other consensus policies which apply to the gTLD spaces under its purview. Consensus policies are the product of policy development processes at the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) in its function to develop and recommend to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains. They are intended to produce a consensus of Internet stakeholders and relate to issues including interoperability, security and stability of the Internet or the registry database for a TLD, the provision of registry services or operations, or the resolution of domain name disputes. Only policies which are developed through the Policy Development Process and receive appropriate approval by the GNSO Council and ICANN board may be considered consensus policies. Consensus policies are incorporated into registry contracts and in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, ensuring that GNSO recommendations are implemented. These policies apply to different groups of individuals and/or entities and are suited to different purposes, which will be briefly outlined in the sections below.

This introductory chapter asserts that even though many early modern Japanese villages (ca. 1580–1868) failed to adopt anything like private individual landownership, these places still experienced economic diversification and growth because the lands farmed at any given time were determined by village or baronial domain (han) policy employing one of three mechanisms: allocation of cultivation rights linked to family composition, a fixed order of rotation, or lottery. There are three major variants of these systems: per capita allocation, allocation per family, and per share allocation. These forms of tenure were applied to arable lands, not to the commons (iriai-chi), which sometimes employed similar mechanisms to allocate access to a resource.