You are looking at 1 - 10 of 25 items

  • Author or Editor: Michael Jones x
Clear All Modify Search
You do not have access to this content

Michael Jones

Landscape democracy in relation to the European Landscape Convention is generally equated with public participation. However, landscapes are affected by a range of influences where little or no consideration is given to participation. Where groups of citizens feel their welfare or interests are ignored, public protests by action groups may result. The chapter aims to develop a theoretical understanding of how participatory processes and contestation are reflected in the landscape in relation to alternative ideas of democracy. Examples are taken from case studies undertaken over 40 years, examining to what extent and in what way planning has considered people’s landscape concerns in the urban landscape of Trondheim, Norway. A conceptual model is presented to illustrate how public participation and protest regarding landscape issues relate to other institutions characteristic of democracy, such as elective bodies, bureaucratic decisions and market forces, which affect outcomes in the landscape.

You do not have access to this content

Michael Jones-Lee

You do not have access to this content

Veronica Nyhan Jones and Michael Woolcock

You do not have access to this content

Holly L. Peterson and Michael D. Jones

This chapter situates the narrative policy framework (NPF) within the agenda setting literature. Our central argument is that because the NPF’s theoretical foundations are—in part—derivative of the agenda setting literature and because the NPF also seeks to examine similar phenomena as the agenda setting literature, an intersection between the two offers fertile theoretical ground for empirical exploration. In making our case, this chapter first provides a brief description of the NPF. Next, we situate the NPF within the agenda setting literature by focusing on the intersection of the NPF’s theoretical components with agenda setting concepts including information processing, attention, problem definition, power, policy monopolies, policy communities, non-decisions, venue shopping, policy entrepreneurs, and institutions. Propositions are provided at each step of explanation. Lastly, research ideas and implications are explored.

You do not have access to this content

Aaron Smith-Walter and Michael D. Jones

In an influential article published in the American Political Science Review in December 1970, Giovanni Sartori observed that political scientists were uncritically applying categories developed in one context to those of another. Sartori argued that this practice of conceptual stretching was leading to concepts being applied to political systems where the fit was inappropriate, leading to findings so obvious as to defy utility. Many scholars argue that conceptual stretching continues to be a problem for the study of public policy today. This chapter argues that the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) provides comparative public policy scholars an approach capable of addressing the problem Sartori identified. To make this case the authors first detail the theoretical and conceptual scaffolding of the NPF. Next, they explore the universal nature of narrative in human cognition and communication by examining narrative rationality, narrative persuasion, and narrative’s relationship to behaviour. They then discuss the NPF’s potential application in comparative public policy analyses. The authors argue that the NPF’s epistemological and methodological flexibility, in addition to its ability to move up and down levels of abstraction, make it a desirable framework to apply in comparative public policy. The chapter closes by reviewing extant NPF comparative scholarship and speaking to some of the limitations the framework may have in comparative analyses.

You do not have access to this content

Catherine Cazals, Paul Dudley, Jean-Pierre Florens and Michael Jones

You do not have access to this content

Kate Gibson, John RWD Jones QC, Michael G Karnavas and Melinda Taylor

This chapter examines the extent to which independent structures, either internal or external, are required to ensure equality of arms and the rights of the defence at international criminal courts and tribunals. The chapter compares and evaluates the different structures which have existed at the various international and mixed criminal courts and tribunals, and identifies defects and lacunae in the current infrastructure. After analysing the specific features of domestic bar associations, and bearing in mind the important role that such associations play in both protecting and regulating the defence profession, the chapter considers whether the establishment of an independent counsel association at the International Criminal Court would address and ameliorate problems currently faced by international defence counsel. The chapter also examines the optimum relationship of such an association with existing entities, such as the International Criminal Court’s Office of Public Counsel for the Defence, which seeks to assist the defence and promote equality of arms through internal avenues. KEYWORDS: international courts and tribunals, equality of arms, international defence counsel, ethics, counsel association

This content is available to you

Ian J. Bateman, Richard T. Carson, Brett Day, Michael Hanemann, Nick Hanley, Tannis Hett, Michael Jones-Lee and Graham Loomes

This content is available to you

Ian J. Bateman, Richard T. Carson, Brett Day, Michael Hanemann, Nick Hanley, Tannis Hett, Michael Jones-Lee and Graham Loomes

This content is available to you

Ian J. Bateman, Richard T. Carson, Brett Day, Michael Hanemann, Nick Hanley, Tannis Hett, Michael Jones-Lee and Graham Loomes