Visibility and facticity in policy diffusion: going beyond the prevailing binarity

Quantitative-oriented diffusion studies, either focused on diffusion patterns or mechanisms, take for granted that policy adoptions are manifest and therefore directly observable in the legislation. A more nuanced perspective of policy adoption taking into account gradual differences between adoption and non-adoption is proposed with this paper, valid for diffusion among communities and states in federal settings and among countries on the global level. Besides the aspect of visibility, intentions are also important when measures are adopted. While some measures are transferred with a clear instrumental aim, others are rather transferred for symbolical reasons. Looking at specific processes, the paper proposes a concept that disentangles the current understanding of policy diffusion and provides empirical evidence that current diffusion research misconceives instances. The four different transfer types are illustrated with empirical evidence from sub-national energy policy-making in Switzerland. The systematic investigation of the cases allows to finding explanations for the different transfer type

What about non-diffusion? The effect of competitiveness in policy-comparative diffusion research

Many scholars have convincingly shown that policies diffuse between national and sub-national entities for several different reasons. Although diffusion processes are empirically proven, we witness two shortcomings in the discussion: First, there is a lack of comparative research across policy areas. Second, the question of why diffusion might not occur in a certain domain is under-theorized and lacks an empirical test. By comparing the rationale behind diffusion processes in two policy domains—energy policy and locational policy—this paper shows that two aspects matter for diffusion processes: First is the observability of policy measures, that is, how easily things can be observed by others; second is the competitiveness of the policy domain. If policy measures can be hidden easily and the policy domain is highly competitive, policy diffusion is very unlikely to happen. Therefore, we seek the integration of these two aspects in prospective diffusion researc

Die Rolle digitaler Medien in der Gesundheitskommunikation : Entwicklung einer Online-Entscheidungshilfe für Betroffene mit Prostatakarzinom

Prostatakrebs ist der häufigste Krebs bei Männern in der Schweiz. Die Entscheidungsfindung nach der Diagnose eines lokalisierten Prostatakarzinoms ist komplex. Verschiedene Optionen – wie die aktive Überwachung, Strahlentherapie oder Operation – mit unterschiedlichen Vor- und Nachteilen stehen zur Auswahl. Zusätzlich haben Patienten unterschiedliche individuelle Informationsbedürfnisse. Online-Applikationen bieten im Vergleich mit klassischen Printbroschüren vielfältigere Kommunikationsmöglichkeiten, um dieser Situation gerecht zu werden. So zeigen aktuelle Überblicksarbeiten, dass Online-Entscheidungshilfen den Patienten bei der Vorbereitung auf die Konsultation helfen, die Empfehlungen ihres Arztes zu ergänzen, zu bestätigen und/oder in Frage zu stellen. Aktuell fehlt eine solche Online-Entscheidungshilfe zur Unterstützung der Therapieauswahl für Männer mit lokalisiertem Prostatakarzinom. Aufbauend auf einen bereits evaluierten Prototyp stellt das aktuelle Projekt daher die Entwicklung einer Online-Entscheidungshilfe, ihre mögliche Integration in die medizinische Versorgung und ihren erwarteten Nutzen vor

Forschung über Evaluation in der Schweiz: Stand und Aussichten

Seit einiger Zeit hat sich die Forschung, die sich mit Evaluation befasst, klar intensiviert. Dieser Beitrag soll einen Überblick zur Forschung über Evaluation in der Schweiz geben, wobei das Was und Wie der Forschung und nicht die Befunde im Zentrum stehen. Dazu werden die Forschungstätigkeiten in ausgewählten Evaluationsfeldern und zu feldübergreifenden Fragen (wie Nachfrage oder Nutzung) beschrieben. Der Überblick verdeutlicht die zentrale Bedeutung der Evaluationsfachlichkeit: Wird anerkannt, dass Evaluationen neben einer thematischen auch eine eigenständige evaluationsfachliche Expertise erfordern, erhält die Forschung über Evaluation einen höheren Stellenwert

Inter-governmental institutions as promoters of energy policy diffusion in a federal setting

This article is about diffusion processes behind the innovation of sub-national energy policy measures in a federal system. Typically for the federal political system in Switzerland, the elements of the energy policy field are shaped by the principle of subsidiarity. The aim is that cantons promote innovative problem solutions and regionally adapted implementation. For this reason, policy differences between cantons are large and create a need for coordination. More concretely, I will analyze the impact of inter-cantonal institutions on different innovations in the field of energy policy. The research question is approached with an event history analysis on three different innovative measures in the Swiss cantons from 1990 to 2007. A more comprehensive picture of diffusion in one policy field is drawn with this approach. The main contribution of this paper is the finding that intergovernmental institutions promote diffusion in one policy field only for measures with certain characteristics. The internal determinants are therefore not a sufficient explanation.Energy policy measure Policy diffusion Federal setting

The enforcement of foreign judgments and foreign public law

In Canadian conflict of laws there is a long-standing rule that foreign penal and tax judgments are excluded from enforcement within Canada (treaties and conventions aside). It is uncertain whether this penal and tax rule also extends to other public law as pronounced by some English judgments and scholars. Under Swiss law there is a similar rule; however, it extends, with certain limitations, to the whole body of foreign public law. In view of the ongoing trend towards internationalization and globalization, which will require courts to deal more and more with judgment enforcement, the uncertainties that go along with the concept of the exclusionary rule are problematic. Furthermore, the increasing interrelation between private and public law creates considerable doubts with respect to the scope of the exclusionary rule. In the introduction, I discuss the general requirements of judgment enforcement and put some emphasis on the concept of public policy (ordre public). In the following chapters this thesis undertakes a comparative analysis of Canadian and Swiss law with regard to the enforcement of foreign judgments which are based on foreign penal, tax and other public law. Although the legal roots of the exclusionary rule of the two jurisdictions are quite different, the analysis shows that there are striking similarities with respect to the results in individual cases. Several justifications for the exclusionary rule have been given. Mostly, courts have simply stated that the rule is about 200 years old and therefore so well established that it cannot be given up. Another explanation for the exclusionary rule holds that the flat refusal to enforce certain categories of judgments causes less embarrassment at the international level than scrutinizing the foreign judgment under the public policy doctrine. Some judges and scholars argue that the enforcement of penal, tax and other public law is prohibited under the principle of territorial sovereignty. After critically reviewing the different justifications, I conclude that none of them is actually convincing. Given the lack of an adequate justification for the exclusionary rule, I attempt to outline how the scope of enforceable judgments could be expanded, considering the peculiarities of both the Canadian and the Swiss legal systems. With respect to Canadian law, I conclude that the principle of comity can serve as an apt basis for a more generous attitude towards foreign tax claims and judgments. With regard to Swiss law, I am of the opinion that the exclusion of all public law judgments is much too broad. However, in the field of enforcement of tax judgments, Swiss courts would have to be empowered by either a treaty or domestic legislation

The enforcement of foreign judgments and foreign public law

In Canadian conflict of laws there is a long-standing rule that foreign penal and tax judgments are excluded from enforcement within Canada (treaties and conventions aside). It is uncertain whether this "penal and tax rule" also extends to "other public law" as pronounced by some English judgments and scholars. Under Swiss law there is a similar rule; however, it extends, with certain limitations, to the whole body of foreign public law. In view of the ongoing trend towards internationalization and globalization, which will require courts to deal more and more with judgment enforcement, the uncertainties that go along with the concept of the exclusionary rule are problematic. Furthermore, the increasing interrelation between private and public law creates considerable doubts with respect to the scope of the exclusionary rule. In the introduction, I discuss the general requirements of judgment enforcement and put some emphasis on the concept of public policy (ordre public). In the following chapters this thesis undertakes a comparative analysis of Canadian and Swiss law with regard to the enforcement of foreign judgments which are based on foreign penal, tax and other public law. Although the legal roots of the "exclusionary rule" of the two jurisdictions are quite different, the analysis shows that there are striking similarities with respect to the results in individual cases. Several justifications for the exclusionary rule have been given. Mostly, courts have simply stated that the rule is about 200 years old and therefore so well established that it cannot be given up. Another explanation for the exclusionary rule holds that the flat refusal to enforce certain categories of judgments causes less embarrassment at the international level than scrutinizing the foreign judgment under the public policy doctrine. Some judges and scholars argue that the enforcement of penal, tax and other public law is prohibited under the principle of territorial sovereignty. After critically reviewing the different justifications, I conclude that none of them is actually convincing. Given the lack of an adequate justification for the exclusionary rule, I attempt to outline how the scope of enforceable judgments could be expanded, considering the peculiarities of both the Canadian and the Swiss legal systems. With respect to Canadian law, I conclude that the principle of comity can serve as an apt basis for a more generous attitude towards foreign tax claims and judgments. With regard to Swiss law, I am of the opinion that the exclusion of all public law judgments is much too broad. However, in the field of enforcement of tax judgments, Swiss courts would have to be empowered by either a treaty or domestic legislation.Law, Peter A. Allard School ofGraduat