Verschafft die direkte Demokratie den Benachteiligten mehr Gehör? Der Einfluss institutioneller Rahmenbedingungen auf die mediale Präsenz politischer Akteure

Dieser Aufsatz untersucht den Einfluss politisch‐institutioneller Kontextfaktoren auf die Artikulationschancen politischer Akteure in der Öffentlichkeit. Als empirische Grundlage dient eine Inhaltsanalyse der Schwangerschaftsabbruchdebatte in der Schweiz im Vergleich mit Deutschland und den USA über einen Zeitraum von drei Jahrzehnten. Es wird aufgezeigt, dass institutionell bedingte Machtdifferentiale ‐ vermittelt über mediale Selektionslogiken ‐ in hohem Masse die öffentliche Präsenz der Akteure, ihr mediales Standing, bestimmen. Dies benachteiligt insbesondere zivilgesellschaftliche Herausforderer, wie etwa soziale Bewegungen. Direktdemokratische Verfahren, so wird weiter argumentiert, wirken in der Schweiz diesem Effekt jedoch entgegen, indem sie den Aussenseitern Möglichkeiten zur Profilierung und Etablierung bieten. Davon profitieren ebenfalls die Parteien, welchen in der Schweiz ansonsten eine schwache institutionelle Stellung attestiert wird. Mit seinen Ergebnissen stützt der Aufsatz schliesslich die Forderung nach einer Kontextualisierung politischer Kommunikationsforschung im Sinne eines “institutional turn” und zeigt das Potenzial einer komparativen Vorgehensweise auf.     

Implicit theories of criminal responsibility

Three questions relevant to insanity decisions were examined: (a) What informational cues are weighed most heavily in the attribution of criminal responsibility? (b) How do verdict forms influence these attributions? And (c) How do individuals' beliefs about insanity and responsibility influence decision making? Undergraduate subjects (n=181) responded to vignettes portraying an act by a mentally disordered defendant. Psychiatric jargon was avoided, so that attributions were not a function of diagnostic terminology. It was found that, under the traditional scheme of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) vs. guilty, level of mental disorder (schizophrenia vs. personality disorder) was the primary determinant of insanity decisions. Also, insanity judgments were more likely to be made for acts performed without planful intentionality. Under the alternative scheme of NGRI vs. guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) vs. guilty, mental disorder still controlled NGRI verdicts; a bizarre act increased the likelihood of a GBMI over a guilty verdict; and the GBMI verdict option reduced markedly the proportion of psychotic defendants found NGRI and the proportion of personality disordered defendants found guilty. There were no significant differences between diagnostic groups in the likelihood of being found GBMI. Most subjects preferred to utilize the GBMI option as a compromise verdict even in the face of very severe mental illness. Attitudinal data revealed considerable variation in agreement with the classic moral logic of the insanity defense and accounted for a significant amount of the variance in insanity decisions. The implications for both social policy and future research are discussed.     

The Theory and Practice of “Nudging”: Changing Health Behaviors

Many of the most significant challenges in health care—such as smoking, overeating, and poor adherence to evidence‐based guidelines—will only be resolved if we can influence behavior. The traditional policy tools used when thinking about influencing behavior include legislation, regulation, and information provision. Recently, policy analysts have shown interest in policies that “nudge” people in particular directions, drawing on advances in understanding that behavior is strongly influenced in largely automatic ways by the context within which it is placed. This article considers the theoretical basis for why nudges might work and reviews the evidence in health behavior change. The evidence is structured according to the Mindspace framework for behavior change. The conclusion is that insights from behavioral economics offer powerful policy tools for influencing behavior in health care. This article provides public administration practitioners with an accessible summary of this literature, putting these insights into practical use.     

Realising the Right to Health for Young People in South Africa—Some Reflections

Abstract

The right to health is enshrined in the South African Constitution as well as a range of international and regional human rights treaties which South Africa accepts. Yet empirical data reveals some of the challenges faced by South African youth—childhood diseases, HIV/AIDS and such like. There are evidently challenges realising the right to health in practice. Nevertheless, South African courts have led the international field in recognising the justiciability of economic and social rights such as the right to health. Having reviewed the applicable laws and jurisprudence, the paper will conclude that a more holistic human rights-based approach offers perhaps the best way forward.     

Malta

European Journal of Political Research -