Varieties of accountability: How attributes of policy fields shape parliamentary oversight

This article demonstrates how attributes of policy fields shape parliamentary oversight across policy fields. Building on the accountability literature, the study develops the argument that parliamentarians will more likely oversee policy fields where cooperative forms of governance are more present, since these policies are more difficult to assess and have a higher need of legitimation. Using the example of policy evaluation demand by members of parliament in Switzerland, the study suggests that parliamentarians seek more control in a policy field, where public activities are more often delegated to nopublic actors or the need for legitimation is particularly high. Both effects increase with the policy field's closeness to science. These findings could be very relevant in order to understand how attributes of policy fields shape political institutions.     

Evaluation use and learning in public policy

Policy Sciences - Scientific evidence has become increasingly important for the decision-making processes in contemporary democracies. On the one hand, research dealing with...     

Between Occupation and Politics: Legislative Professionalization in the Swiss Cantons

In this article, we consider the question of how professionalized the cantonal parliamentarians are and which factors are related to this professionalization. By definition, Swiss parliamentarians exert an occupation in parallel to their mandate. We argue that parliamentarians who spend more time for their mandate have more resources to do so and, more importantly, intend to pursue a political career. In doing so, we analyze data gathered from a survey that was conducted among all Swiss cantonal parliaments in 2014. Our multi‐level analysis shows that parliamentarians who run for office at the national level spend significantly more time for their parliamentary mandate than their colleagues. This effect decreases with the parliamentarians’ age. This finding could be relevant in order to understand the career paths of Swiss parliamentarians. In addition, the study contributes to the discussion of the future development of the militia system in Switzerland.     

Swiss trade marks practice on misleading geographical indications

Legal context: Geographical references in trade marks are often used not onlyto refer to a certain territory of origin for certain goodsor services, but also to evoke desirable associations, imaginations,emotions, or ideas. The strict practice of the Swiss Trade MarksOffice often requires applicants to limit their list of goodsand services to certain countries. Key points: This abstract discusses the issues of geographically suggestivetrade marks in Switzerland, the strict test used by the SwissTrade Marks Office often requiring the applicant to limit thelist of goods to a specific country, the new stance the formerAppeals Board took in this regard, and how it was struck downby the Swiss Supreme Court, confirming the strict test of theTrade Marks Office. Finally, the article gives a solution onhow the issue of geographical references in trade marks shouldbe treated in order to match reality. Practical significance: It is important to know that the Swiss Trade Marks Office appliesa strict test when it comes to geographical references in trademarks. Usually, the applicant is required to limit the listof goods, although it is questionable whether the trade markreally suggests that the goods stem from a certain country.Foreign decisions are not binding for the Swiss Trade MarksOffice and in this regard usually disregarded.     

Trust,but verify? Understanding citizen attitudes toward evidence-informed policy making

In this article, we inquire to what extent different manifestations of trust are associated with public support for evidence informed policy making (EIPM). We present the results of a cross-sectional survey conducted in the peak of the second COVID-19 wave in six Western democracies: Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Switzerland, and the United States (N = 8749). Our findings show that public trust in scientific experts is generally related to positive attitudes toward evidence-informed policy making, while the opposite is the case for trust in governments and fellow citizens. Interestingly, citizens' assessment of government responses to COVID-19 moderates the relationship between trust and attitudes toward EIPM. Respondents who do rather not trust their governments or their fellow citizens are more in favor of EIPM if they evaluate government responses negatively. These findings suggest that attitudes toward EIPM are not only related to trust, but also strongly depend on perceived government performance.