Sometimes Less Is More: Censorship,News Falsification,and Disapproval in 1989 East Germany

Does more media censorship imply more regime stability? We argue that censorship may cause mass disapproval for censoring regimes. In particular, we expect that censorship backfires when citizens can falsify media content through alternative sources of information. We empirically test our theoretical argument in an autocratic regime—the German Democratic Republic (GDR). Results demonstrate how exposed state censorship on the country's emigration crisis fueled outrage in the weeks before the 1989 revolution. Combining original weekly approval surveys on GDR state television and daily content data of West German news programs with a quasi-experimental research design, we show that recipients disapproved of censorship if they were able to detect misinformation through conflicting reports on Western television. Our findings have important implications for the study of censoring systems in contemporary autocracies, external democracy promotion, and campaigns aimed at undermining trust in traditional journalism.     

The Use of Hypothetical Household Data for Policy Learning: Comparative Tax‒Benefit Indicators Using EUROMOD HHoT

Abstract

Tax?benefit microsimulation models are typically used to quantify the effect of specific policy changes on the income distribution based on representative microdata. Such analysis evaluates policies by considering how different tax?benefit elements interact given personal, household and labour market characteristics. Using hypothetical household data instead helps address broader questions of policy design and systemic (cross-national) differences. This article introduces the Hypothetical Household Tool (HHoT) in combination with the microsimulation model EUROMOD to analyse European tax?benefit policies from a comparative perspective. It presents a series of applications from social welfare analysis illustrating how hypothetical data can benefit comparative academic and policy research.     

To Scrutinise or Not to Scrutinise? Explaining Variation in EU-Related Activities in National Parliaments

There is an on-going debate in the literature as to whether national parliaments can and do play an active role in EU policy-making. The main reason for persistent disagreement is the lack of comparative empirical data on parliamentary behaviour in EU affairs. The article aims to contribute to this debate by presenting the first comparative quantitative data on European affairs activities of national parliaments and by explaining the empirical variation. The development of a unique dataset including all 27 national parliaments allows a series of explanatory variables to be tested for the level of parliamentary activity at both the committee and the plenary levels. The analysis shows that institutional strength in EU affairs plays an important role. Overall, however, EU activities can be better explained with a mix of institutional capacities and motivational incentives. The specific combinations vary for different types of activities.     

Vögel und Windenergienutzung – Vorgaben zur Signifikanzbewertung und Ausnahme

Natur und Recht - Um die Klimaschutzziele nach 3 Abs. 1 KSG zu erreichen, müssen die regenerativen Energien rasch ausgebaut werden. Mit Putins Angriff auf die Ukraine ist die Wichtigkeit der...     

Risk Assessment—the Key to More Security? Factors,Tools, and Practices in Dealing with Extremist Individuals

European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research - In recent years, risk assessments for violent extremism have attracted great interest from both scholars and practitioners, and many assessment...     

Civil Society Making Political Claims: Outcries,Interest Advocacy,and Deliberative Claims

Increased citizen participation is proposed to remedy democratic deficits. However, it is unclear whether such participation improves reason‐based discussions or whether it serves mainly as a safety valve for discontented citizens. To what extent does citizen‐initiated participation involve reason‐based arguments? This study examines citizens’ reason giving based on unique data on citizens’ contacts with local authorities in Sweden. It provides support for proponents of deliberative participation, as an unexpected amount of contacts provided reasons for clearly stated positions and invitations to a constructive dialogue with authorities. There is variation across issues. More conflictual issues involve fewer intentions to participate in a reasoned exchange of arguments. The study shows that citizens deliver more reason‐based input to democratic decision making when they prepare their position in groups than when they participate as individuals. Findings are preliminary but clearly illustrate the fruitfulness of widening the research agenda on civic engagement in politics and public administration.