Coalition Structures and Policy Change in a Consensus Democracy

This paper studies the relation between coalition structures in policy processes and policy change. While different factors such as policy images, learning processes, external events, or venue shopping are important to explain policy change, coalition structures within policy processes are often neglected. However, policy change happens as a result of negotiations and coordination among coalitions within policy processes. The paper analyzes how conflict, collaboration, and power relations among coalitions of actors influence policy change in an institutional context of a consensus democracy. Empirically, I rely on a Qualitative Comparative Analysis to conduct a cross-sector comparison of the 11 most important policy processes in Switzerland between 2001 and 2006. Coalition structures with low conflict and strong collaboration among coalitions as well as structures with dominant coalitions and weak collaboration both facilitate major policy change. Competing coalitions that are separated by strong conflict but still collaborate strongly produce policy outputs that are close to the status quo.

Descriptive/Inferential Cognitive Processes and Evaluative Cognitive Processes: Relationships Among Each Other and with Emotional Distress

We aimed to delineate key constructs from two forms of cognitive-behavioral therapy: cognitive therapy and rational-emotive behavior therapy. Furthermore, we aimed to investigate the interrelations among each other and with emotional distress. The key constructs of the underlying theories of these therapies (i.e., descriptive/inferential beliefs, evaluative beliefs) are often treated together as distorted cognitions and included as such in various scales. We used a cross-sectional design. Seventy-four undergraduate students (mean age = 24.68) completed measures of automatic thoughts and emotional distress. Three therapists trained in cognitive-behavioral therapy divided automatic thoughts into descriptive/inferential beliefs and evaluative beliefs by consensus. Correlation and mediation analyses were performed. These constructs showed medium to high associations to each other and to distress. The relationship between descriptive/inferential beliefs and distress was mediated by evaluative beliefs. Descriptive and inferential cognitions may not produce emotions without first being appraised in terms of personal relevance.

Cysteine-proteases and cystatins from barley: molecular and functional characterization in housekeeping and defense processes

Plant cysteine-proteases (CysProt) represent a well-characterized type of proteolytic enzymes that fulfill tightly regulated physiological functions (senescence and seed germination among others) and defense roles. This article is focused on the group of papain-proteases C1A (family C1, clan CA) and their inhibitors, phytocystatins (PhyCys). In particular, the protease–inhibitor interaction and their mutual participation in specific pathways throughout the plant's life are reviewed. C1A CysProt and PhyCys have been molecularly characterized, and comparative sequence analyses have identified consensus functional motifs. A correlation can be established between the number of identified CysProt and PhyCys in angiosperms. Thus, evolutionary forces may have determined a control role of cystatins on both endogenous and pest-exogenous proteases in these species. Tagging the proteases and inhibitors with fluorescence proteins revealed common patterns of subcellular localization in the endoplasmic reticulum–Golgi network in transiently transformed onion epidermal cells. Further in vivo interactions were demonstrated by bimolecular fluorescent complementation, suggesting their participation in the same physiological processes.

Failure Detectors in Homonymous Distributed Systems (with an Application to Consensus).

This paper is on homonymous distributed systems where processes are prone to crash failures and have no initial knowledge of the system membership (?homonymous? means that several processes may have the same identi?er). New classes of failure detectors suited to these systems are ?rst de?ned. Among them, the classes H? and H? are introduced that are the homonymous counterparts of the classes ? and ?, respectively. (Recall that the pair h?,?i de?nes the weakest failure detector to solve consensus.) Then, the paper shows how H? and H? can be implemented in homonymous systems without membership knowledge (under different synchrony requirements). Finally, two algorithms are presented that use these failure detectors to solve consensus in homonymous asynchronous systems where there is no initial knowledge ofthe membership. One algorithm solves consensus with hH?, H?i, while the other uses only H?, but needs a majority of correct processes. Observe that the systems with unique identi?ers and anonymous systems are extreme cases of homonymous systems from which follows that all these results also apply to these systems. Interestingly, the new failure detector class H? can be implemented with partial synchrony, while the analogous class A? de?ned for anonymous systems can not be implemented (even in synchronous systems). Hence, the paper provides us with the ?rst proof showing that consensus can be solved in anonymous systems with only partial synchrony (and a majority of correct processes).

Implementing the weakest failure detector for solving consensus

The concept of unreliable failure detector was introduced by Chandra and Toueg as a mechanism that provides information about process failures. This mechanism has been used to solve several agreement problems, such as the consensus problem. In this paper, algorithms that implement failure detectors in partially synchronous systems are presented. First two simple algorithms of the weakest class to solve the consensus problem, namely the Eventually Strong class (⋄S), are presented. While the first algorithm is wait-free, the second algorithm is f-resilient, where f is a known upper bound on the number of faulty processes. Both algorithms guarantee that, eventually, all the correct processes agree permanently on a common correct process, i.e. they also implement a failure detector of the class Omega (Ω). They are also shown to be optimal in terms of the number of communication links used forever. Additionally, a wait-free algorithm that implements a failure detector of the Eventually Perfect class (⋄P) is presented. This algorithm is shown to be optimal in terms of the number of bidirectional links used forever.

Eventual election of multiple leaders for solving consensus in anonymous systems

In classical distributed systems, each process has a unique identity. Today, new distributed systems have emerged where a unique identity is not always possible to be assigned to each process. For example, in many sensor networks a unique identity is not possible to be included in each device due to its small storage capacity, reduced computational power, or the huge number of devices to be identified. In these cases, we have to work with anonymous distributed systems where processes cannot be identified. Consensus cannot be solved in classical and anonymous asynchronous distributed systems where processes can crash. To bypass this impossibility result, failure detectors are added to these systems. It is known that ? is the weakest failure detector class for solving consensus in classical asynchronous systems when amajority of processes never crashes. Although A? was introduced as an anonymous version of ?, to find the weakest failure detector in anonymous systems to solve consensus when amajority of processes never crashes is nowadays an open question. Furthermore, A? has the important drawback that it is not implementable. Very recently, A? has been introduced as a counterpart of ? for anonymous systems. In this paper, we show that the A? failure detector class is strictly weaker than A? (i.e., A? provides less information about process crashes than A?). We also present in this paper the first implementation of A? (hence, we also show that A? is implementable), and, finally, we include the first implementation of consensus in anonymous asynchronous systems augmented with A? and where a majority of processes does not crash.

Dominance, Competition, Compromise or Consensus? Explaining Decision-Making Structures

The previous chapter uncovered important differences between decision-making structures across the 11 processes investigated by this study. As we have noted, both historically and in much contemporary literature, the Swiss political system has been described as highly consensual. And yet, when we focus on differences between decision-making structures across different policy domains, important elements appear that point toward a more conflictual style of decision-making. Both when there is a power balance between coalitions and in the presence of a dominant coalition, coalition interactions are conflictual in the majority of cases. Based on the descriptive account of these differences in Chapter 4, the present chapter studies the conditions under which given decision-making structures emerge. Under which circumstances are actors able to form a dominant coalition, and which conditions lead to a situation where power is more evenly balanced between coalitions? Which conditions lead actors to develop a conflictual rather than a consensual type of interaction? Answering these questions can give us some indication of the factors responsible for different types of decision-making structures.

'Going Public': The Mediatization of Decision-Making Processes

In most Western countries, the media are said to exert an increasing influence on the political game. This development, which has been described variably as a shift towards an 'audience democracy' (Manin 1995) or the 'mediatization of politics' (Mazzoleni and Schulz 1999), emphasizes the increasing importance of the media for political actors and political decision-making. In such a context, political actors need to communicate with both the media and the public in order to gain support for their policy plans and to influence decision-making. The media were noticeably absent from Kriesi's (1980) in-depth analysis of political decision-making in Switzerland. This suggests that in the early 1970s, the media did not matter or mattered far less than they do today.

Looking beneath the Surface: Differences in Decision-Making Structures across Processes

The previous chapter presented the overall decision-making structure in Swiss politics at the beginning of the 21st century. This provides us with a general picture and allows for a comparison over time with the decision-making structure in the 1970s. However, the analysis of the overall decision-making structure potentially neglects important differences between policy domains (Atkinson and Coleman 1989; Knoke et al. 1996; Kriesi et al. 2006a; Sabatier 1987). Policy issues vary across policy domains, as do the political actors involved. In addition, actors may hold different policy preferences from one policy domain to the next, and they may also collaborate with other partners depending on the policy domain at stake. Examining differences between policy domains is particularly appropriate in Switzerland. Because no fixed coalitions of government and opposition exist, actors create different coalitions in each policy domain (Linder and Schwarz 2008). Whereas important parts of the institutional setting are similar across policy domains, decision-making structures might still vary. As was the case with the cross-time analysis conducted in the two previous chapters, a stability of 'rules-in-form' might hide important variations in 'rules-in-use' also across different policy domains.

Political Decision-Making in Switzerland. The Consensus Model under Pressure

This in-depth study of the decision-making processes of the early 2000s shows that the Swiss consensus democracy has changed considerably. Power relations have transformed, conflict has increased, coalitions have become more unstable and outputs less predictable. Yet these challenges to consensus politics provide opportunities for innovation.

Strategic development of transport systems: a study of the physical constraints on planning processes

Investment in transport infrastructure can be highly sensitive to uncertainty. The scale and lead time of strategic transport programmes are such that they require continuing policy support and accurate forecasting. Delay, cost escalation and abandonment of projects often result if these conditions are not present. In Part One the physical characteristics of infrastructure are identified as a major constraint on planning processes. The extent to which strategies and techniques acknowledge these constraints is examined. A simple simulation model is developed to evaluate the effects on system development of variations in the scale and lead time of investments. In Part Two, two case studies of strategic infrastructure investment are analysed. The absence of a policy consensus for airport location was an important factor in the delayed resolution of the Third London Airport issue. In London itself, the traffic and environmental effects of major highway investment ultimately resulted in the abandonment of plans to construct urban motorways. In both cases, the infrastructure implications of alternative strategies are reviewed with reference to the problems of uncertainty. In conclusion, the scale of infrastructure investment is considered the most important of the constraints on the processes of transport planning. Adequate appraisal of such constraints may best be achieved by evaluation more closely aligned to policy objectives.

An emerging consensus on aquaporin translocation as a regulatory mechanism

Water passes through cell membranes relatively slowly by diffusion. In order to maintain water homeostasis, the rapid and specific regulation of cellular water flow is mediated by the aquaporin (AQP) family of membrane protein water channels. The wide range of tissues that are known to express AQPs is reflected by their involvement in many physiological processes and diseases; thirteen human AQPs have been identified to date and the majority are highly specific for water while others show selectivity for water, glycerol and other small solutes. Receptor mediated translocation, via hormone activation, is an established method of AQP regulation, especially for AQP2. There is now an emerging consensus that the rapid and reversible translocation of other AQPs from intracellular vesicles to the plasma membrane, triggered by a range of stimuli, confers altered membrane permeability thereby acting as a regulatory mechanism. This review examines the molecular components that may enable such AQP regulation; these include cytoskeletal proteins, kinases, calcium and retention or localization signals. Current knowledge on the dynamic regulation of sub-cellular AQP translocation in response to a specific trigger is explored in the context of the regulation of cellular water flow. © 2013 Informa UK, Ltd.

Supporting learners’ agentic engagement with feedback:a systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience processes

Much has been written in the educational psychology literature about effective feedback and how to deliver it. However, it is equally important to understand how learners actively receive, engage with, and implement feedback. This article reports a systematic review of the research evidence pertaining to this issue. Through an analysis of 195 outputs published between 1985 and early 2014, we identified various factors that have been proposed to influence the likelihood of feedback being used. Furthermore, we identified diverse interventions with the common aim of supporting and promoting learners' agentic engagement with feedback processes. We outline the various components used in these interventions, and the reports of their successes and limitations. Moreover we propose a novel taxonomy of four recipience processes targeted by these interventions. This review and taxonomy provide a theoretical basis for conceptualizing learners' responsibility within feedback dialogues and for guiding the strategic design and evaluation of interventions. Receiving feedback on one's skills and understanding is an invaluable part of the learning process, benefiting learners far more than does simply receiving praise or punishment (Black & Wiliam, 1998 Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5, 7–74. doi:10.1080/0969595980050102[Taylor & Francis Online]; Hattie & Timperley, 2007 Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]). Inevitably, the benefits of receiving feedback are not uniform across all circumstances, and so it is imperative to understand how these gains can be maximized. There is increasing consensus that a critical determinant of feedback effectiveness is the quality of learners' engagement with, and use of, the feedback they receive. However, studies investigating this engagement are underrepresented in academic research (Bounds et al., 2013 Bounds, R., Bush, C., Aghera, A., Rodriguez, N., Stansfield, R. B., & Santeen, S. A. (2013). Emergency medicine residents' self-assessments play a critical role when receiving feedback. Academic Emergency Medicine, 20, 1055–1061. doi:10.1111/acem.12231[CrossRef], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]), which leaves a “blind spot” in our understanding (Burke, 2009 Burke, D. (2009). Strategies for using feedback students bring to higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34, 41–50. doi:10.1080/02602930801895711[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®]). With this blind spot in mind, the present work sets out to systematically map the research literature concerning learners' proactive recipience of feedback. We use the term “proactive recipience” here to connote a state or activity of engaging actively with feedback processes, thus emphasizing the fundamental contribution and responsibility of the learner (Winstone, Nash, Rowntree, & Parker, in press Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Rowntree, J., & Parker, M. (in press). ‘It'd be useful, but I wouldn't use it’: Barriers to university students' feedback seeking and recipience. Studies in Higher Education. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1130032[Taylor & Francis Online]). In other words, just as Reeve and Tseng (2011 Reeve, J., & Tseng, M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of student engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 257–267. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]) defined “agentic engagement” as a “student's constructive contribution into the flow of the instruction they receive” (p. 258), likewise proactive recipience is a form of agentic engagement that involves the learner sharing responsibility for making feedback processes effective.

Facilitating Inclusion: Austrian Wisdom Councils as Democratic Innovation between Consensus and Diversity

Democratic innovations face the challenge of realizing deliberative democratic ideals in the context of structural inequality. Consensus decision making and expertise have been said to have exclusive effects on marginalized groups like women and ethnic and sexual minorities, which obstructs diversity. Wisdom Councils as practiced in Austria attempt to counter inequalities by including marginalized groups through the moderation technique dynamic facilitation. Exploratory participatory observations and interviews with a moderator and the participants of two Wisdom Councils in Austria provide a deeper understanding of the inclusive processes at work in Wisdom Councils facilitating a productive combination of consensus and diversity.