222,108 research outputs found
Summary for policymakers of the thematic assessment of the sustainable use of wild species of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)
No full textSummary for policymakers of the thematic assessment of the sustainable use of wild species of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)Suggested citation: IPBES (2022). Summary for Policymakers of the Thematic Assessment Report on the Sustainable Use of Wild Species of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Fromentin, J.M., Emery, M.R., Donaldson, J., Danner, M.C., Hallosserie, A., Kieling, D., Balachander, G., Barron, E.S., Chaudhary, R.P., Gasalla, M., Halmy, M., Hicks, C., Park, M.S., Parlee, B., Rice, J., Ticktin, T., and Tittensor, D. (eds.). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.642559
"Federal Dynamics in Canada, Switzerland and the US – How Sub-States’ Internal Organization Affects Intergovernmental Cooperation"
No full textThe paper argues that internal sub-state dynamics can systematically account for the variety of forms in which politicians organize cross-jurisdictional interaction in dual federal systems. Most generally, majoritarian executive-legislative relations tend to weaken the institutionalization of intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), while power-sharing executive-legislative relations tend to facilitate it. Moreover, depending on the type of power-sharing mechanisms in the single arenas - non-compulsory or compulsory- the mutual integration of IGOs is rendered more or less difficult. The institutionalization of IGOs is affected by the following mechanisms: Firstly, given one-party majority cabinets, complete government alternations (which are much less likely given coalition or oversized governments) strongly alter actors’ interest constellations over time, thereby increasing the costs of maintaining stable cross-boundary intergovernmental relations. Secondly, the heavy impact of a potential electoral loss induces politicians to shift the blame to the other governments in the system, thereby undermining the potential for cross-boundary cooperation. Thirdly, one-party governments (in contrast to coalitions) decrease the value of IGOs as instruments to save transaction costs because the number of involved actors is lower. Finally, autonomy losses caused by intergovernmental cooperation are higher for parties which govern alone. Integration also suffers from these dynamic because strong IGOs often facilitate system integration. More importantly, however, it is weakened by compulsory power-sharing structures unbridged by party ties inside the sub-states because these internal divides considerably complicate coordination within the horizontal level. To examine these theoretically derived hypotheses, Canada, the U.S. and Switzerland are selected as ‘most different cases’. As a major result, in Switzerland internal dynamics support that IGOs are strongly institutionalized and intra-organizational linkages formally specified. In Canada internal dynamics are much less favorable: the organizational structure of the respective bodies and their mutual integration is much weaker. The U.S. takes a middle position. While intergovernmental arrangements are considerably institutionalized, the compulsory power-sharing structures within the states undermine mutual integration
Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
No full textFil: Díaz, Sandra. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina.Fil: Díaz, Sandra. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina.Fil: Settele, Josef. Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung. Department of Community Ecology; Alemania.Fil: Brondízio, Eduardo. Indiana University Bloomington. Department of Anthropology; Estados Unidos.Fil: Ngo, Hien T. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; Alemania.Fil: Guèze, Maximilien. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; Alemania.Fil: Agard, John. University of the West Indies. Department of Life Sciences; Trinidad y Tobago.Fil: Arneth, Almut. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research. Atmospheric Environmental Research; Alemania.Fil: Balvanera, Patricia. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad; México.Fil: Brauman, Kate A. University of Minnesota. Institute on the Environment; Estados Unidos.Fil: Butchart, Stuart H. M. BirdLife International; Reino Unido.Fil: Chan, Kai. University of British Columbia. Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability; Canada.Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas Alejandro. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural; Argentina.Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas Alejandro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural; Argentina.Fil: Ichii, Kazuhito. National Institute for Environmental Studies. Center for Global Environmental Research; Japón.Fil: Liu, Jianguo. Michigan State University. Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability; Estados Unidos.Fil: Mazhenchery Subramanian, Suneetha. United Nations University. Institute of Advanced Studies; Japón.Fil: Midgley, Guy. Stellenbosch University. Department of Botany and Zoology; Sudáfrica.Fil: Miloslavich, Patricia. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Oceans and Atmosphere; Australia.Fil: Molnár, Zsolt. Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Traditional Ecological Knowledge Research Group; Hungría.Fil: Obura, David. Coastal Oceans Research and Development – Indian Ocean; Kenya.Fil: Pfaff, Alexander. Duke University; Estados Unidos.Fil: Polasky, Stephen. University of Minnesota. Department of Applied Economics; Estados Unidos.Fil: Purvis, Andy. Natural History Museum. Department of Life Sciences; Reino Unido.Fil: Razzaque, Jona. University of the West of England. Faculty of Business and Law. Department of Law; Reino Unido.Fil: Reyers, Belinda. Stellenbosch University. Department of Conservation Ecology; Sudáfrica.Fil: Roy Chowdhury, Rinku. Clark University. Graduate School of Geography; Estados Unidos.Fil: Shin, Yunne J. Institute of Research for Development, Sète & Montpellier; Francia.Fil: Visseren Hamakers, Ingrid. George Mason University. Department of Environmental Science and Policy; Estados Unidos.Fil: Willis, Katherine. University of Oxford. Department of Zoology; Reino Unido.Fil: Zayas, Cynthia N. University of the Philippines. Center for International Studies; Filipinas.Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
Are Intergovernmental Grants Tactical? The Evidence from Russia
No full textTwo hypotheses about the determinants of Russian intergovernmental grants are tested empirically. According to first hypothesis, federal transfers to regions correlate with recent voting behavior of regional electorates. Second hypothesis states that transfers are higher in regions with politically powerful governors. We find a strong confirmation for the first hypothesis and no evidence for the second for years 1995-1998. This result is robust across specifications. Panel data analysis allows us to control for regional fixed effects. However, in years 1999-2001 election variables show no effect on transfers. It appears that in the nineties transfers were used by the incumbent government to enhance its reelection probabilities, while by the end of the century this mechanism was no longer in use as the transfer system has become more transparent and objective.Redistributive politics, intergovernmental grants, Russia
Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
No full textFil: Díaz, Sandra. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina.Fil: Díaz, Sandra. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina.Fil: Settele, Josef. Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung. Department of Community Ecology; Alemania.Fil: Brondízio, Eduardo. Indiana University Bloomington. Department of Anthropology; Estados Unidos.Fil: Ngo, Hien T. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; Alemania.Fil: Guèze, Maximilien. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; Alemania.Fil: Agard, John. University of the West Indies. Department of Life Sciences; Trinidad y Tobago.Fil: Arneth, Almut. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research. Atmospheric Environmental Research; Alemania.Fil: Balvanera, Patricia. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad; México.Fil: Brauman, Kate A. University of Minnesota. Institute on the Environment; Estados Unidos.Fil: Butchart, Stuart H. M. BirdLife International; Reino Unido.Fil: Chan, Kai. University of British Columbia. Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability; Canada.Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas Alejandro. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural; Argentina.Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas Alejandro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural; Argentina.Fil: Ichii, Kazuhito. National Institute for Environmental Studies. Center for Global Environmental Research; Japón.Fil: Liu, Jianguo. Michigan State University. Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability; Estados Unidos.Fil: Mazhenchery Subramanian, Suneetha. United Nations University. Institute of Advanced Studies; Japón.Fil: Midgley, Guy. Stellenbosch University. Department of Botany and Zoology; Sudáfrica.Fil: Miloslavich, Patricia. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Oceans and Atmosphere; Australia.Fil: Molnár, Zsolt. Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Traditional Ecological Knowledge Research Group; Hungría.Fil: Obura, David. Coastal Oceans Research and Development – Indian Ocean; Kenya.Fil: Pfaff, Alexander. Duke University; Estados Unidos.Fil: Polasky, Stephen. University of Minnesota. Department of Applied Economics; Estados Unidos.Fil: Purvis, Andy. Natural History Museum. Department of Life Sciences; Reino Unido.Fil: Razzaque, Jona. University of the West of England. Faculty of Business and Law. Department of Law; Reino Unido.Fil: Reyers, Belinda. Stellenbosch University. Department of Conservation Ecology; Sudáfrica.Fil: Roy Chowdhury, Rinku. Clark University. Graduate School of Geography; Estados Unidos.Fil: Shin, Yunne J. Institute of Research for Development, Sète & Montpellier; Francia.Fil: Visseren Hamakers, Ingrid. George Mason University. Department of Environmental Science and Policy; Estados Unidos.Fil: Willis, Katherine. University of Oxford. Department of Zoology; Reino Unido.Fil: Zayas, Cynthia N. University of the Philippines. Center for International Studies; Filipinas.Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
Measuring industry-science links through inventor-author relations: A profiling method
No full textIn this pilot study we examine the performance of text-based profiling in recovering a set of validated inventor-author links. In a first step we match patents and publications solely based on their similarity in content. Next, we compare inventor and author names on the highest ranked matches for the occurrence of name matches. Finally, we compare these candidate matches with the names listed in a validated set of inventor-author names. Our text-based profile methodology performs significantly better than a random matching of patents and publications, suggesting that text-based profiling is a valuable complementary tool to the name searches used in previous studies.innovation; industry-science links; text-based profiling;
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
No full textWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Does partisan alignment affect the electoral reward of intergovernmental transfers?
No full textIn this paper we test the hypothesis that intergovernmental grants allocated to co-partisans buy more political support than grants allocated to local governments controlled by opposition parties. We use a rich Spanish database containing information about the grants received by 617 municipalities during the period 1993-2003 from two different upper-tier governments (Regional and Upper-local), as well as data of municipal voting behaviour at three electoral contests held at the different layers of government during this period. Therefore, we are able to estimate two different vote equations, analysing the effects of grants given to aligned and unaligned municipalities on the vote share of the incumbent party/parties at the regional and local elections. We account for the endogeneity of grants by instrumenting them with the average amount of grants distributed by upper-layer governments. The results suggest that grants given to co-partisans buy some political support, but that grants given to the opposition do not bring any votes, suggesting that the grantee reaps as much political credit from intergovernmental grants as the grantor.grants, voting, parties
Methodological assessment of the diverse values and valuation of nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
No full textThe values assessment is a ‘methodological assessment regarding the diverse conceptualizations of the multiple values of nature and its benefits, including biodiversity and ecosystem services’ as set out in IPBES/6/INF/9. The overall scope of the values assessment is to assess multiple sources and traditions of knowledge regarding diverse values of nature, including the strengths and weaknesses associated with existing valuation methods and approaches to make such values visible. The assessment provides conceptual and practical tools to aid policymakers in the recognition and accounting of nature’s values in different decision-making contexts. The values assessment provides guidelines, criteria, tools and a road map to navigate the ways in which values play out in decisions, as well as the role values and valuation can have in achieving more sustainable pathways. It should be noted that the assessment does not provide quantifications (e.g., in monetary or other indicators) of the diverse values of nature across the globe as its emphasis is on methodologies.
The assessment report is composed of the summary for policymakers together with the six chapters and some front and back matters, which will be added following the ninth session of the Plenary.Suggested citation: IPBES (2022). Methodological Assessment Report on the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Balvanera, P., Pascual, U., Christie, M., Baptiste, B., and González-Jiménez, D. (eds.). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.652252
Legislative Malapportionment and the Politicization of Germany’s Intergovernmental Transfer System
No full textLegislative bargaining theory suggests that fiscal transfers among member states of a federation are determined to a substantial degree by political bargaining powers. Malapportionment of the states' population in the legislature is claimed to lead to disproportionally higher benefits to overrepresented states. The present paper analyses empirically the distribution of fiscal transfers in Germany's intergovernmental transfer system over the period 1970-2002. It can be shown that overrepresented states in the upper house receive disproportionate shares of transfers, while malapportionment in the lower house does not seem to matter. We also find empirical evidence that overrepresentation became more important over time.legislative bargaining, overrepresentation, fiscal transfer system, Germany
- …
