Some features of the law and order model in Spain

This research is based on the hypothesis that law and order model is displacing the procedura justice system in Spain. After a thorough review of the international literature, one can observe that the traditional structure of the penal system does not seem to be capable of containing the new forms of crime. The new penal model assumes that public opinion is alarmed and unwilling to understand rational approaches to crime, so it will be likely to accept measures aimed at calming the fear of crime, through extensive control policies and penal tools to manage uncivil behavior. Objectives and methodology A measuring instrument has been developed to confirm this hypothesis, consisting of ten features that characterize the law and order model. This instrument has been used to identify examples of its ten features in the rules and practices developed at each phase of the Spanish criminal justice system. The analysis has focused specifically on public discourse about delinquency, criminal policy decisions, legislative processes, police routines, judicial dynamics, and prison system practices. Main results The investigation has shown that there are many processes and practices indicating that the law and order model is consolidating itself in the Spanish penal system. Nevertheless this process has a different intensity at each phase, being stronger at the legislative stage and softer in the penitentiary enforcement phase. One of the main conclusions is, therefore, that the designed instrument is ideal for measuring the degree of penetration of the model throughout the system. Some of the most striking results of the reasearch will be presented at the conference. Finally, proposals arise that could prevent the new model is fully seated in our criminal justice system, finding that the trend toward more severe penalties shown already unsustainable.

Composite Indicators for the Family Change: ‘Familism' vs ‘Individualism' in the International Context

The aim of this paper is to propose a composite indicator to measure ‘familism’, conformed by two main dimensions: values on one hand (duty to take care of the family, importance of the family, sacrifices for the family...) and behaviours, on the other (predominance of married couples instead of cohabitant couples, high frequency of contact among members, family support…). In contrast to this idea of ‘familism’ we find that of individualism, that defends the independence of family members, tolerance to new family models, cohabitation instead of marriage,… , that implies less frequency of interaction among relatives and more governmental intervention towards children and elderly care. We observe that a higher degree of ‘familism’ does not always match with a lower degree of individualism when both dimensions, attitudes and behaviours, are considered. For instance, we find countries which are individualist in values but not in behaviours (such as Spain), whilst others, such as Japan, are ‘familist’ both in values and behaviours and finally, others, such as Sweden, are individualist with regards to both perspectives. We propose two different methodological approaches to the question. First, we use microdata from the Family, Work and Gender Roles module of the International Social Survey Programme-ISSP (years 1994, 2002 and 2012), in which 45 countries have participated. Information for the three rounds is collected for 17 countries with very different family values and welfare systems (for instance, Sweden, Japan, Russia, Spain, United Kingdom or the United States). From this data source, we create a first index on familism that can be related to individual sociodemographic characteristics. Second, we complete it through the inclusion of macro data (such as the divorce rate per country), in order to refine comparison at a country level by adding new variables to the previous index.

Composite Indicators for the Family Change: ‘Familism' vs ‘Individualism' in the International Context

The aim of this paper is to propose a composite indicator to measure ‘familism’, conformed by two main dimensions: values on one hand (duty to take care of the family, importance of the family, sacrifices for the family...) and behaviours, on the other (predominance of married couples instead of cohabitant couples, high frequency of contact among members, family support…). In contrast to this idea of ‘familism’ we find that of individualism, that defends the independence of family members, tolerance to new family models, cohabitation instead of marriage,… , that implies less frequency of interaction among relatives and more governmental intervention towards children and elderly care. We observe that a higher degree of ‘familism’ does not always match with a lower degree of individualism when both dimensions, attitudes and behaviours, are considered. For instance, we find countries which are individualist in values but not in behaviours (such as Spain), whilst others, such as Japan, are ‘familist’ both in values and behaviours and finally, others, such as Sweden, are individualist with regards to both perspectives. We propose two different methodological approaches to the question. First, we use microdata from the Family, Work and Gender Roles module of the International Social Survey Programme-ISSP (years 1994, 2002 and 2012), in which 45 countries have participated. Information for the three rounds is collected for 17 countries with very different family values and welfare systems (for instance, Sweden, Japan, Russia, Spain, United Kingdom or the United States). From this data source, we create a first index on familism that can be related to individual sociodemographic characteristics. Second, we complete it through the inclusion of macro data (such as the divorce rate per country), in order to refine comparison at a country level by adding new variables to the previous index.

Venture Capital for University Spin-Outs Companies in the context of University-based Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: an International Comparison

The objectives are, firstly, to identify the role of the university-focused intermediaries, specifically University-focused Venture Capital Firms (UVCs), in order to explain how they interact at the early stage of University Spin-out Companies (USOs) creation, particularly regarding knowledge sharing. Secondly, to analyse whether they change their position once the USO is developed, in the context of the dynamics of a university-based entrepreneurial ecosystem.