INFLUENCE AND SELECTION PROCESSES IN WEAPON CARRYING DURING ADOLESCENCE: THE ROLES OF STATUS,AGGRESSION, AND VULNERABILITY*

The role of peers in weapon carrying (guns, knives, and other weapons) inside and outside the school was examined in this study. Data stem from a longitudinal study of a high-risk sample of male students (7th to 10th grade; N = 167) from predominantly Hispanic low-socio-economic-status schools in the United States. Longitudinal social-network models were used to test whether similarity in weapon carrying among friends results from peer influence or selection. From a goal-framing approach, we argue that weapon carrying might function as a status symbol in friendship networks and, consequently, be subject to peer influence. The findings indicate that weapon carrying is indeed a result of peer influence. The role of status effects was supported by findings that weapon carrying increased the number of friendship nominations received by peers and reduced the number of given nominations. In addition, peer-reported aggressiveness predicted weapon carrying 1 year later. These findings suggest that adolescent weapon carrying emerges from a complex interplay between the attraction of weapon carriers for affiliation, peer influence in friendship networks, and individual aggression.     

THE FUTURE OF NETWORK GOVERNANCE RESEARCH: STRENGTH IN DIVERSITY AND SYNTHESIS

The popularity and scope of network governance research and practice continues to expand from its divergent foundations, assumptions and methodological positions. This paper introduces a symposium of papers on this substantial sub‐field by first summarizing the sprawling research endeavour that comprises it. The main theoretical and empirical approaches that have been used to guide it to date are then briefly described, emphasizing recent debates about interpretivism and decentring. Next, it suggests that a robust and interesting future for network governance requires diversity, rather than adherence to a single approach. It is argued that more sophisticated approaches for examining network governance are fashioned through a synthesis of ideas and methods to create an analysis of networks as networks. This is especially the case where some formal analysis of network structure is used in concert with an interpretive examination of action and process. Finally, the papers in the symposium are introduced.     

FROM THE EUROPEANIZATION OF LAWMAKING TO THE EUROPEANIZATION OF NATIONAL LEGAL ORDERS: THE CASE OF AUSTRIA

This article addresses the scope of legal Europeanization with regard to Austria, a 1995 accession country. Depending on the choice among several plausible indicators of legal Europeanization, the relative impact of the EU varies greatly. The share of EU-related legislation peaked in the pre-accession period when most of the acquis communautaire needed to be adopted. In the membership period, legislation that relates to the EU accounts for almost 25 per cent of the enactments. Although government decrees outnumber laws as the means of transposition, EU-related rules constitute a much smaller share of delegated legislation. Collectively, EU-related rules constitute a tenth of Austrian legislation. Yet by mid-2003, 42 per cent of Austria's original laws—the core of its legislation—were related to EU rules. While falling short of some inflated expectations, legal Europeanization is indeed a major feature of Austrian legislation. The article confirms expectations derived from the political controversy of EU affairs, federalism, and legal traditions. When we refer to 'legal orders' in the article we mean the entire body of legislation in force; we use the term 'legislation' to refer to recent additions to the body of legislation.     

LEGAL EUROPEANIZATION: COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES

By mid-2003, the legal orders (the entire bodies of legislation in force) of three EU member states – Austria , Denmark, and The Netherlands – contained between 10.5 and 14.2 per cent of rules devoted to the transposition of EU directives. Only a few ministerial jurisdictions contain more than 20 per cent of Europeanized rules. The member states show remarkable differences in the use of parliamentary versus delegated legislation as a means of transposition. The comparison of the three cases tentatively suggests that different legal traditions and the parliamentary involvement in EU affairs are important factors that account for cross-national differences.