Urban Conflicts

Three sources of urban conflicts are identified: (1) changing state-city relationships; (2) the relationship between the dynamics of capitalist development and cities and (3) the specific dynamics of urban life and the urban environment where the city itself is seen as a causal variable. Two sets of questions cross-cut all three strands. The first addresses how violent conflicts can be regulated, transformed and rendered into more constructive non-violent conflicts through the processes of urban civil society. The second concerns how, why, and where urban conflicts turn violent and with what consequences. In summary cities now rival states as arenas and stakes in political conflict and urban conflicts have increasing transnational and transcultural salience which underlines the necessity for sustained comparative analyis

COS-STAR: a reporting guideline for studies developing core outcome sets (protocol)

BACKGROUND: Core outcome sets can increase the efficiency and value of research and, as a result, there are an increasing number of studies looking to develop core outcome sets (COS). However, the credibility of a COS depends on both the use of sound methodology in its development and clear and transparent reporting of the processes adopted. To date there is no reporting guideline for reporting COS studies. The aim of this programme of research is to develop a reporting guideline for studies developing COS and to highlight some of the important methodological considerations in the process.

METHODS/DESIGN: The study will include a reporting guideline item generation stage which will then be used in a Delphi study. The Delphi study is anticipated to include two rounds. The first round will ask stakeholders to score the items listed and to add any new items they think are relevant. In the second round of the process, participants will be shown the distribution of scores for all stakeholder groups separately and asked to re-score. A final consensus meeting will be held with an expert panel and stakeholder representatives to review the guideline item list. Following the consensus meeting, a reporting guideline will be drafted and review and testing will be undertaken until the guideline is finalised. The final outcome will be the COS-STAR (Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting) guideline for studies developing COS and a supporting explanatory document.

DISCUSSION: To assess the credibility and usefulness of a COS, readers of a COS development report need complete, clear and transparent information on its methodology and proposed core set of outcomes. The COS-STAR guideline will potentially benefit all stakeholders in COS development: COS developers, COS users, e.g. trialists and systematic reviewers, journal editors, policy-makers and patient groups.

Government as Institutional Entrepreneur: Extending Working Life in the UK and Japan

Through the lens of Institutional Entrepreneurship, this paper discusses how governments use the levers of power afforded through business and welfare systems to affect change in the organisational management of older workers. It does so using national stakeholder interviews in two contrasting economies: the United Kingdom and Japan. Both governments have taken a ‘light-touch’ approach to work and retirement. However, the highly institutionalised Japanese system affords the government greater leverage than that of the liberal UK system in changing employer practices at the workplace level.

Review of the area planning process (a)

The area planning process continues and formal recommendations arising from it are now being brought forward as development proposals to amalgamate or close schools. At this point in the process the Education Committee requested some comment on five different aspects of the process: the impact of Area Planning to date; the validity of the surplus school vacancy calculation methodology; the Annual Area Profile information; the Needs Model (including as appropriate the implications of the Drumragh judgement); possible enhancements to the consultation and communication process;the facilitation of alternative cross-sectoral or cross-border solutions. This paper offers high level comment on each of these issues. In addition, the Education Committee facilitated a stakeholder consultation meeting in Parliament Buildings on 4 February, 2015. The broad themes that emerged in that discussion will also be mentioned in this paper.

Identifying marine pelagic ecosystem management objectives and indicators

International policy frameworks such as the Common Fisheries Policy and the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive define high-level strategic goals for marine ecosystems. Strategic goals are addressed via general and operational management objectives. To add credibility and legitimacy to the development of objectives, for this study stakeholders explored intermediate level ecological, economic and social management objectives for Northeast Atlantic pelagic ecosystems. Stakeholder workshops were undertaken with participants being free to identify objectives based on their own insights and needs. Overall 26 objectives were proposed, with 58% agreement in proposed objectives between two workshops. Based on published evidence for pressure-state links, examples of operational objectives and suitable indicators for each of the 26 objectives were then selected. It is argued that given the strong species-specific links of pelagic species with the environment and the large geographic scale of their life cycles, which contrast to demersal systems, pelagic indicators are needed at the level of species (or stocks) independent of legislative region. Pelagic community indicators may be set at regional scale in some cases. In the evidence-based approach used in this study, the selection of species or region specific operational objectives and indicators was based on demonstrated pressure-state links. Hence observed changes in indicators can reliably inform on appropriate management measures

Integration of Indicator Alarm Signals for Ecosystem‐Based Fishery Management

We consider the problem of regulating the rate of harvesting a natural resource, taking account of the wider system represented by a set of ecological and economic indicators, given differing stakeholder priorities. This requires objective and transparent decision making to show how indicators impinge on the resulting regulation decision. We offer a new scheme for combining indicators, derived from assessing the suitability of lowering versus not lowering the harvest rate based on indicator values relative to their predefined reference levels. Using the practical example of fisheries management under an “ecosystem approach,” we demonstrate how different stakeholder views can be quantitatively represented by weighting sets applied to these comparisons. Using the scheme in an analysis of historical data from the Celtic Sea fisheries, we find great scope for negotiating agreement among disparate stakeholders.