Immigrant Incorporation in Western Europe

Immigrant incorporation (or integration) is a subfield of migration studies, and it constitutes a genuinely interdisciplinary undertaking of sociologists, political scientists, anthropologists, lawyers, and historians. In none of these disciplines, however, has it carved out an established niche for itself. In contrast to the United States, where the study of immigrant integration (or “assimilation” as US researchers prefer to say) is more firmly grounded in sociology than in political science, a characteristic of the European scene is a larger prominence of political scientists, macro comparativists, and legal-institutional scholars. This reflects the fact that immigrant integration in Europe is, to a much larger degree than in the United States, framed by public policies, and it often goes along with major transformations of state institutions (most importantly citizenship) and national identities. European states (even France) are ethnic nation-states, where sedentariness and not moving is the norm, and they stand for countries that are much less attuned to, and constituted by, international migration than the classic immigrant nations of North America and Oceania. Overall, European scholarship is marked, on one side, by single-country studies by national experts, which are often solicited by their respective governments interested in policy advice (but increasingly also supported by supranational research bodies). On the other side, most agenda-setting work has grown out of qualitative single-person studies (often dissertations) by macro sociologists and political comparativists not (or only incidentally) rooted in national university systems and disconnected from policy contexts. The field is in need of further conceptual development and of theoretically reflected, genuinely comparative work of the second type, which is mostly off the public funding radar.

Source of funding in experimental studies of mobile phone use on health: Update of systematic review

A previous review showed that among 59 studies published in 1995–2005, industry-funded studies were least likely to report effects of controlled exposure to mobile phone radiation on health-related outcomes. We updated literature searches in 2005–2009 and extracted data on funding, conflicts of interest and results. Of 75 additional studies 12% were industry-funded, 44% had public and 19% mixed funding; funding was unclear in 25%. Previous findings were confirmed: industry-sponsored studies were least likely to report results suggesting effects. Interestingly, the proportion of studies indicating effects declined in 1995–2009, regardless of funding source. Source of funding and conflicts of interest are important in this field of research.

Source of funding and results of studies of health effects of mobile phone use: systematic review of experimental studies

OBJECTIVES: There is concern regarding the possible health effects of cellular telephone use. We examined whether the source of funding of studies of the effects of low-level radiofrequency radiation is associated with the results of studies. We conducted a systematic review of studies of controlled exposure to radiofrequency radiation with health-related outcomes (electroencephalogram, cognitive or cardiovascular function, hormone levels, symptoms, and subjective well-being). DATA SOURCES: We searched EMBASE, Medline, and a specialist database in February 2005 and scrutinized reference lists from relevant publications. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on the source of funding, study design, methodologic quality, and other study characteristics were extracted. The primary outcome was the reporting of at least one statistically significant association between the exposure and a health-related outcome. Data were analyzed using logistic regression models. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 59 studies, 12 (20%) were funded exclusively by the telecommunications industry, 11 (19%) were funded by public agencies or charities, 14 (24%) had mixed funding (including industry), and in 22 (37%) the source of funding was not reported. Studies funded exclusively by industry reported the largest number of outcomes, but were least likely to report a statistically significant result: The odds ratio was 0.11 (95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.78), compared with studies funded by public agencies or charities. This finding was not materially altered in analyses adjusted for the number of outcomes reported, study quality, and other factors. CONCLUSIONS: The interpretation of results from studies of health effects of radiofrequency radiation should take sponsorship into account.

Adapting public agricultural extension services to climate change: Insights from Kenya

This paper analyses the adaptiveness of the Public Agricultural Extension Services (PAES) to climate change. Existing literature, interviews and group discussions among PAES actors in larger Makueni district, Kenya, provided the data for the analyses. The findings show that the PAES already have various elements of adaptiveness in its policies, approaches and methods of extension provision. However, the hierarchical structure of the PAES does not augur well for self-organisation at local levels of extension provision, especially under conditions of abrupt change which climate change might trigger. Most importantly, adpativeness presupposes adaptive capacity but the lack of resources in terms of funding for extension, limited mobility of extension officers, the low extension staff/farmer ratio, the aging of extension staff and significant dependence on donor funding limits the adaptiveness of the PAES. Accordingly criteria and indicators were identified in literature with which an initial assessement of the adaptiiveneess of PAES was conducted. However this assessment framework needs to be improved and future steps will integrate more specific inputs from actors in PAES in order to make the framework operational.

Managing social policy under federalism: The challenges of hybrid funding and program delivery

This paper discusses generally the question of the level of government that should be used to administer different social policies. The chapter focuses on the Medicaid program, looking at recent state-level changes in health insurance for the poor and long-term care policy. Particular attention will be paid to the question of how states have used their new freedoms to outsource public insurance to the private sector and on the consequent differences in outcomes across states. Notably, this paper will be drawn from my forthcoming book “The American Myth of Markets in Social Policy” (Palgrave, MacMillan, November, 2015).