What explains attitudes across US trade policies?

Examining the demographic, economic and political variables that are associated with attitudes toward various trade policies can provide some insight into the public perceptions of globalization, and the political response to those perceptions. Using detailed data from the Program on International Policy Attitudes survey “Americans on Globalization, Trade, and Farm Subsidies,” I assess a number of potential determinants of trade policy attitudes. Education is associated with pro-trade attitudes, and Democrats are pro-trade on particular, politically salient trade issues. In addition, there is substantial variation in the determinants of trade policy attitudes across policies.     

Sustainable economic development: A criminal justice challenge for the 21st century

The environmental challenges of the 21^st century require co-operation between criminal justice experts and economists. Three different economics perspectives are relevant for the discipline of criminal justice in general and for adressing environmental problems in particular: neo-classical econoics, political economics and the economics of sustainable development. Criminal justice pays a role in the effort to attain sustainable development because the limitations of market based decision making necessitate a role for law and regulation in addressing environmental degradation. Sustainable development itself is relevant to the general discussion of crime. Issues of sustainable development are already discussed in criminal justice literature. While criminal law has limitations as a tool against environmental crime, it will necessarily suplement the tools of the market and civil regulation in coping with environmental problems. The inherently multidisciplinary undertaking of sustainable development will be most effectively met if experts in both economics and criminal justice understand more of one another's fields. Suggestions for including the three perspectives of economics in the criminal justice curriculum are provided.     

Theorizing power in transition studies: the role of creativity and novel practices in structural change

An important theoretical challenge for theorizing about power dynamics in societal transitions is the transformation of power itself. In this respect, it is especially puzzling how agency at the level of novel practices can extend beyond the habitual, how it can draw on structures and destructure at the same time and in doing so, how it might emerge both as a creative and a destructive force. This article addresses this puzzle by scrutinizing and refining multi-level conceptions of power in the field of transitions studies. In the first part, it explores one specific multi-level framework by Grin and Van Tatenhove in a longitudinal case study of wind energy projects in Denmark and establishes that it has four conceptual short-comings—relating to (1) temporality; (2) relationality; (3) materiality; and (4) creativity—that this article claims to overcome in the second part. In order to so, it draws on several practice theories for an extended framework that enables the unpacking of the interplay between creativity and transition processes.     

Mediation and the Art of Shuttle Diplomacy

Mediation caucusing — that is, separate meetings conducted by the mediator with some, but not all, of the parties — is widely used, but it has become increasingly controversial, as some mediators advocate for a no‐caucus form of mediation using only joint sessions with all parties present. The rationale for the no‐caucus model is that caucuses give the mediator too much power at the expense of the parties, and joint sessions improve the parties' understanding of each other's views. But caucusing adds value to mediation in several ways. First, from the standpoint of economic theory, caucusing provides mediators with an important tool for overcoming two impediments to settlement — the “prisoner's dilemma” (caused by the parties' fear of mutual exploitation) and “adverse selection” (caused by the failure to disclose information). Second, caucusing can help the mediator overcome a variety of negotiation problems, such as communication barriers, unrealistic expectations, emotional barriers, intraparty conflict, and fear of losing face. Third, caucusing provides a more private setting in which the mediator can develop a deeper and more personal understanding of the parties' needs and interests. Although the no‐caucus model may be appropriate for certain types of mediation (particularly those cases in which the parties will have an ongoing relationship), some parties may prefer the efficiency that can be achieved with caucusing, even if that means sacrificing certain other values — such as greater understanding — or giving the mediator more information than the parties have, thus creating the risk of manipulation by the mediator. Moreover, the choice is not binary — numerous variations and hybrid formats can be useful, such as sessions in which the mediator meets with only the parties' lawyers or with only the parties. Choosing the best format for a mediation is more of an art than a science, and mediators should consider, with the parties, whether the parties' objectives would be best served using only joint sessions, extensive caucusing, or a combination of these approaches.     

Is There a Niche for Lawyers in the Field of Mediation?

Negotiation Journal -