A Service of zbw Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre for Economics Beans for Breakfast? How Exportable Is the British Workfare Model? Beans for Breakfast? How Exportable Is the British Workfare Model?

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Social assistance and inactivity traps have long been considered amongst the main causes of the poor employment performance of EU countries. The success of New Labour has triggered a growing interest in instruments capable of combining the promotion of responsibility and self-sufficiency with solidarity with less skilled workers. Making-work-pay (MWP) policies, consisting of transfers to households with low earning capacity, have quickly emerged as the most politically acceptable instruments in tax-benefit reforms of many Anglo Saxon countries. This chapter explores the impact of introducing the British Working Families' Tax Credit in three EU countries with rather different labor market and welfare institutions: Finland, France and Germany. Simulating the reform reveals that, while first round effects on income distribution is considerable, the interaction of the new instrument with the structural characteristics of the economy and the population may lead to counterproductive second round effects (i.e. changes in economic behavior). The implementation of the reform, in this case, could only be justified if the social inclusion (i.e. transition into activity) of some specific household types (singles and single mothers) is valued more than a rise in the employment per se. Terms of use: Documents in D I S C U S S I O N P A P E R S E R I E S JEL Classification: C25, C52, H31, J2

CRYPTANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF SYNCHRONOUS STREAM CIPHERS Jury:

Proefschrift voorgedragen tot het behalen van het doctoraat in de ingenieurswetenschappen doo

Doxapram versus placebo in preterm newborns: a study protocol for an international double blinded multicentre randomized controlled trial (DOXA-trial)

Abstract Background Apnoea of prematurity (AOP) is one of the most common diagnoses among preterm infants. AOP often leads to hypoxemia and bradycardia which are associated with an increased risk of death or disability. In addition to caffeine therapy and non-invasive respiratory support, doxapram might be used to reduce hypoxemic episodes and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation in preterm infants, thereby possibly improving their long-term outcome. However, high-quality trials on doxapram are lacking. The DOXA-trial therefore aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of doxapram compared to placebo in reducing the composite outcome of death or severe disability at 18 to 24 months corrected age. Methods The DOXA-trial is a double blinded, multicentre, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted in the Netherlands, Belgium and Canada. A total of 396 preterm infants with a gestational age below 29 weeks, suffering from AOP unresponsive to non-invasive respiratory support and caffeine will be randomized to receive doxapram therapy or placebo. The primary outcome is death or severe disability, defined as cognitive delay, cerebral palsy, severe hearing loss, or bilateral blindness, at 18–24 months corrected age. Secondary outcomes are short-term neonatal morbidity, including duration of mechanical ventilation, bronchopulmonary dysplasia and necrotising enterocolitis, hospital mortality, adverse effects, pharmacokinetics and cost-effectiveness. Analysis will be on an intention-to-treat principle. Discussion Doxapram has the potential to improve neonatal outcomes by improving respiration, but the safety concerns need to be weighed against the potential risks of invasive mechanical ventilation. It is unknown if the use of doxapram improves the long-term outcome. This forms the clinical equipoise of the current trial. This international, multicentre trial will provide the needed high-quality evidence on the efficacy and safety of doxapram in the treatment of AOP in preterm infants. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04430790 and EUDRACT 2019-003666-41. Prospectively registered on respectively June and January 2020

CSES Module 1 Full Release

The module was administered as a post-election interview. The resulting data are provided along with voting, demographic, district and macro variables in a single dataset. CSES Variable List The list of variables is being provided on the CSES Website to help in understanding what content is available from CSES, and to compare the content available in each module. Themes: MICRO-LEVEL DATA: Identification and study administration variables: weighting factors;election type; date of election 1st and 2nd round; study timing (post election study, pre-election and post-election study, between rounds of majoritarian election); mode of interview; gender of interviewer; date questionnaire administered; primary electoral district of respondent; number of days the interview was conducted after the election Demography: age; gender; education; marital status; union membership; union membership of others in household; current employment status; main occupation; employment type - public or private; industrial sector; occupation of chief wage earner and of spouse; household income; number of persons in household; number of children in household under the age of 18; attendance at religious services; religiosity; religious denomination; language usually spoken at home; race; ethnicity; region of residence; rural or urban residence Survey variables: respondent cast a ballot at the current and the previous election; respondent cast candidate preference vote at the previous election; satisfaction with the democratic process in the country; last election was conducted fairly; form of questionnaire (long or short); party identification; intensity of party identification; political parties care what people think; political parties are necessary; recall of candidates from the last election (name, gender and party); number of candidates correctly named; sympathy scale for selected parties and political leaders; assessment of the state of the economy in the country; assessment of economic development in the country; degree of improvement or deterioration of economy; politicians know what people think; contact with a member of parliament or congress during the past twelve months; attitude towards selected statements: it makes a difference who is in power and who people vote for; people express their political opinion; self-assessment on a left-right-scale; assessment of parties and political leaders on a left-right-scale; political information items DISTRICT-LEVEL DATA: number of seats contested in electoral district; number of candidates; number of party lists; percent vote of different parties; official voter turnout in electoral district MACRO-LEVEL DATA: founding year of parties; ideological families of parties; international organization the parties belong to; left-right position of parties assigned by experts; election outcomes by parties in current (lower house/upper house) legislative election; percent of seats in lower house received by parties in current lower house/upper house election; percent of seats in upper house received by parties in current lower house/upper house election; percent of votes received by presidential candidate of parties in current elections; electoral turnout; electoral alliances permitted during the election campaign; existing electoral alliances; most salient factors in the election; head of state (regime type); if multiple rounds: selection of head of state; direct election of head of state and process of direct election; threshold for first-round victory; procedure for candidate selection at final round; simple majority or absolute majority for 2nd round victory; year of presidential election (before or after this legislative election); process if indirect election of head of state; head of government (president or prime minister); selection of prime minister; number of elected legislative chambers; for lower and upper houses was coded: number of electoral segments; number of primary districts; number of seats; district magnitude (number of members elected from each district); number of secondary and tertiary electoral districts; compulsory voting; votes cast; voting procedure; electoral formula; party threshold; parties can run joint lists; requirements for joint party lists; possibility of apparentement; types of apparentement agreements; multi-party endorsements; multi-party endorsements on ballot; ally party support; constitutional prerogatives of the head of state; constitutional powers of prime minister; methods of cabinet dismissal; dissolution of legislatur