Public Attitudes About Land Use Policy and Their Impact on State Policy-Makers

Results from a study in Ohio, and replicated in six additionalstates, show public opinion toward state land use regulationto be aggregated around two major attitudes: the Environmentalistsstress the impact of negative developmental externalities andfavor broader review of land use decisions; the Localists areconcerned with accountability and local control of decision-making.An intensive analysis of the Ohio Land Use Work Group revealsthe policy-making elite in basic sympathy with the Environmentalists,but constrained by intra-agency rivalries and apprehensionsabout public reaction. Discussion focuses on the shifting publicconsensus toward greater land use control, and the implicationsfor state policy-making. ^*Originally read at a meeting of the Midwest Political ScienceAssociation, Chicago, 1975. The authors gratefully acknowledgefinancial assistance from the Academy for Contemporary Problems,Columbus, Ohio, and from the Ohio Office of Budget and Management.Special appreciation is expressed to the Academy's president,Ralph R. Widner, and to Dean Clark and Paul Goesling who, atthe time of the study, were affiliated with OBM. Gratitude alsoto individuals who facilitated the national-regional interviewing:David Gillespie, Brij Khare, Michael Obrey, Michael Shay, JosephThomas, and Hugh Winebrenner.     

Bank capital buffer releases,public guarantee programs,and dividend bans in COVID-19 Europe: an appraisal

European Journal of Law and Economics - We analyse the recent policy decisions made by the European Central Bank and the national authorities related to capital and shareholders’ remuneration...     

Postmodern politics and the battle for the future

Abstract

The postmodern turn which has so marked social and cultural theory also involves conflicts between modern and postmodern politics. In this study, we articulate the differences between modern and postmodern politics and argue against one‐sided positions which dogmatically reject one tradition or the other in favor of partisanship for either the modern or the postmodern. Arguing for a politics of alliance and solidarity, we claim that this project is best served by drawing on the most progressive elements of both the modern and postmodern traditions. Developing a new politics involves overcoming the limitations of certain versions of modern politics and postmodern identity politics in order to develop a politics of alliance and solidarity equal to the challenges of the coming millennium.