Comparing Canada, the European Union, and NAFTA: Comparative Capers and Constitutional Conundrums. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series, Vol. 3 No. 4, August 2003

(From the introduction). This is an exercise in comparative analysis. The paper examines Canada, the European Union, and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Its underlying premise - that political systems are best seen in comparative context - is an article of faith for students of comparative politics. Students of the European Union who began with the study of one or more of its member-states will have little problem with this, while those who started from International Relations and European integration studies will have greater doubts. Pooling the sovereignties of fifteen or more member-states, the European Union is in some respects sui generis. Although to be sure, it can be considered a multilevel system of governance, in some respects different from the federations with which it is often compared, the European Union is different enough to make any serious student of comparative politics pause. The EU, like many federal systems has complex decision-making procedures and impinges on the decision-making and sovereignty of its member-states, and appears as a single actor in international trade negotiations, but in other respects, it is very different: unlike many settled federations, the EU unites no well-defined people, and its inability to act as a single actor in foreign affairs or defense was documented well before current splits on Iraq and the Middle East. Difference has never stopped thoughtful students of comparative politics. The old adage that you can’t compare apples and oranges is easily met by noting that both are fruits. The EU may lack many features of federations but it is a complex multilevel system that may bear closer resemblance to lesser studied entities such as leagues and confederations. Examining the EU in comparative context is worthwhile not only because it gives us a clearer sense of what the EU is and is not, and how it has changed over time, but also because such regional systems like the EU are likely to become more common in an interdependent world.1 This paper is unorthodox: it compares the EU to another large trading bloc, the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) and to one of its components, Canada. Comparing the EU and NAFTA is straightforward and obvious enough. The two regional systems take in almost all of the world’s largest economies but are sufficiently different in their governance and politics that comparison in most areas can do little more than highlight difference. Comparing Canada and the EU is another matter. To some, the comparison may sound absurd, and appear to compare fruit and vegetables rather than apples and oranges. Nevertheless, Canada is a federation and a state, with membership in international organizations. However, it is not a pattern state from which models and theories have been extracted and does not figure prominently in the comparative literature. Like the EU, Canada can be considered unique and sui generis. It is difficult to find another country held together by two single-track railways, two broadcasting networks, (until recently) two airlines, and one very long border. That said, Canada’s center-periphery tensions, constitutional disputes, and disintegrative tendencies make it a case about which students of comparative politics should know more. The utility of this comparison will become more obvious if we consider not only current politics, but also the construction of the Canadian confederation (the official term), which was in some respects a battle, if not against nature, against geography and the pull of easier north-south relationships. We will begin by comparing the EU and NAFTA, highlighting differences and similarities, and then develop the more complex, but in many ways more tantalizing, Canada-EU comparison, and show why it is particularly relevant at a time, when the European Union’s constitution, like Canada’s, is in discussion

The roles of users in electric, shared and automated mobility transitions

This paper synthesizes insights from 19 peer-reviewed articles published in this Special Issue on the roles of users in shared, electric and automated mobility. While many researchers and stakeholders remain inspired by the potential low costs and societal benefits of these innovations, less is known about the real-world potential for uptake and usage. To better understand the likelihood and impacts of widespread uptake, we explore the perceptions of actual and potential users, including drivers, passengers, owners, and members, as well as other stakeholders such as pedestrians, planners, and policymakers. The Special Issue examines a range of cases, including plug-in electric vehicles, car-share and bike-share programs, ride-hailing and automated vehicles. For each innovation, we organize insights on user perceptions of benefits and drawbacks into four categories. Much of the research to date focuses on the first category, private-functional perceptions, mainly total cost of ownership (e.g., $/km), time use and comfort. Our synthesis however spans the other three categories for each innovation: private-symbolic perceptions include the potential for social signaling and communicating identity; societal-functional perceptions include GHG emissions, public safety and noise; and societal-symbolic perceptions include inspiring pro-societal behavior in others, and the potential to combat or reinforce the status quo system of “automobility”. Further, our synthesis demonstrates how different theories and methods can be more or less equipped to “see” different perception categories. We also summarize findings regarding the characteristics of early users, as well as practical insights for strategies and policies seeking societally-beneficial outcomes from mass deployment of these innovations

Promoting novelty, rigor, and style in energy social science: towards codes of practice for appropriate methods and research design

A series of weaknesses in creativity, research design, and quality of writing continue to handicap energy social science. Many studies ask uninteresting research questions, make only marginal contributions, and lack innovative methods or application to theory. Many studies also have no explicit research design, lack rigor, or suffer from mangled structure and poor quality of writing. To help remedy these shortcomings, this Review offers suggestions for how to construct research questions; thoughtfully engage with concepts; state objectives; and appropriately select research methods. Then, the Review offers suggestions for enhancing theoretical, methodological, and empirical novelty. In terms of rigor, codes of practice are presented across seven method categories: experiments, literature reviews, data collection, data analysis, quantitative energy modeling, qualitative analysis, and case studies. We also recommend that researchers beware of hierarchies of evidence utilized in some disciplines, and that researchers place more emphasis on balance and appropriateness in research design. In terms of style, we offer tips regarding macro and microstructure and analysis, as well as coherent writing. Our hope is that this Review will inspire more interesting, robust, multi-method, comparative, interdisciplinary and impactful research that will accelerate the contribution that energy social science can make to both theory and practice

Economic crisis and the variety of populist response: Evidence from Greece, Portugal, and Spain

Greece, Portugal and Spain are among the countries worst hit by the 2008 Great Recession, followed by significant electoral and political turmoil. However, one of the dimensions in which they differ is the presence and varieties of populism in parties’ political proposals. Drawing on holistic coding of party manifestos, we assess the varying presence of populist rhetoric in mainstream and challenger parties before and after the 2008 economic downturn. Our empirical findings show that populism is much higher in Greece compared to Spain and Portugal. We do not find a significant impact of the crisis as the degree of populism remains rather stable in Greece and Portugal, while it increases in Spain, mainly due to the rise of new populist forces. The study confirms that populist rhetoric is a strategy adopted mainly by challenger and ideologically radical parties. In addition, inclusionary populism is the predominant flavour of populist parties in new Southern Europe, although exclusionary populism is present to a lesser extent in the Greek case. We contend that the interaction between the national context – namely the ideological legacy of parties and the main dimensions of competition – and the strategic options of party leadership is crucial for explaining cross-country variation in the intensity of populism and the specific issues that characterise populist discourse