| 1. |
- Almqvist, Gustaf, et al.
(författare)
-
Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Baltic Cod Stocks (WKBALTCOD)
- 2015
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The ICES Benchmark Workshop on Baltic Cod Stocks (WKBALTCOD), chaired by External Chair Jean-Jacques Maguire, Canada and ICES Chair Marie Storr-Paulsen, Denmark, and attended by two invited external experts Verena Trenkel, France and Meaghan Bryan, USA met in Rostock, Germany, 2–6 March 2015 with 39 participants and six countries represented. The objective of WKBALTCOD was to evaluate the appropriateness of data and methods to determine stock status and investigate meth-ods appropriate to use in the single-stock assessment for the cod stock in SD 22–24 and cod in SD 25–32 in the Baltic. Participants in the workshop were a large group with diverse backgrounds representing the industry, fisheries, NGOs, managers and scientists.The single-stock analytic assessment of the eastern Baltic stock was not accepted by the assessment working group (WGBFAS) in 2014 due to severe problems with the input data. The advice for the eastern Baltic cod was, therefore, based on the ICES approach for data-limited stocks. As an outcome ICES decided to establish a bench-mark for both cod stocks and to scope an integrated assessment for the Baltic cod stocks. The first meeting (WKSIBCA) was therefore meant to introduce the interces-sional work conducted since the assessment working group in April 2014, and to reach some conclusions on how to proceed both in the short term (Benchmark in March 2015) and longer term (2–3 years) and was seen as a data compilation work-shop, there is produced a separate report from this workshop. The WKBALTCOD was the 2nd meeting in the benchmark process and was intended to come up with a final stock assessment method, stock annex and input data for both stocks. As it was not possible to reach conclusive decision on the final model to be used for the east Baltic cod stock during the benchmark meeting and as more work on the preferable models was needed, it was decided by the ACOM leadership to prolong the bench-mark process until the assessment working group meeting in April 2015. This deci-sion has led to a relatively long process partly mixed with the assessment working group WGBFAS.It became clear during the benchmark process that although large effort has been put into explaining the underlying processes leading to the changes in the Baltic ecosys-tem, there is still some lack of understanding of the present situation in the eastern Baltic cod stock. Therefore, it was not possible to reach firm conclusions on the final model to be used and therefore not possible to set reference points. It was decided to continue to explore the most promising models and to continue to improve the input data until the assessment working group started in April.The main challenges still to be solved for the Eastern Baltic cod stock is the quantifi-cation of increased natural mortality and decrease in growth. Through several presentations during the workshop (both WKSIBCA and WKBALTCOD) it became clear that natural mortality very likely has increased in later years, due to decreased condition and increased parasite infection. A decrease in growth also seems plausible duo to a decrease in condition and/or selectivity-induced mortality of the largest in-dividuals. However, as none of these parameters are easily estimated, especially with the severe ageing problems, different model assumptions made the output very shaky.For the western Baltic cod, stock identification issues were examined in area SD 24, the intermediate area: based on otolith characteristics and genetics. Due to the results showing a large proportion of east cod in this area, it was decided to split the catch2 | ICES WKBALTCOD REPORT 2015and survey from SD 24 into either the western or eastern Baltic cod stock. It was pos-sible to derive proportions of eastern and western cod in SD 24 back to the mid-1990s.For the western Baltic cod stock a modelled survey indices was included in the as-sessment covering the western part of SD 24 and Area 22+23 and based on a smoothed ALK.Both cod stocks have in the past used commercial tuning fleet to have a better cov-ered of older age groups. It was decided to abound this time-series duo quality issues such as a limited coverage and problems with technical creeping.WKBALTCOD was not able to explore and define reference points for the Western Baltic cod stock during the meeting due to time constraints, but these were calculated and decided by correspondence after the meeting. The recent protocols on estimation procedures developed by WKMSYREF3 for stocks with a full analytical assessment and for data-limited stocks served as objective guidelines to obtain reference point estimates.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Klein, Daniel B., et al.
(författare)
-
Is There a Free-Market Economist in the House? The Policy Views of American Economic Association Members
- 2006
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- People often suppose or imply that free-market economists constitute a significant portion of all economists. We surveyed American Economic Association members and asked their views on 18 specific forms of government activism. We find that about 8 percent of AEA members can be considered supporters of free-market principles, and that less than 3 percent may be called strong supporters. The data is broken down by voting behavior (Democratic or Republican). Even the average Republican AEA member is “middle-of-theroad,” not free-market. We offer several possible explanations of the apparent difference between actual and attributed views.
|
|
| 5. |
- Klein, Daniel B., 1962-, et al.
(författare)
-
Liberal Versus Conservative Stinks
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Society. - New York : SpringerLink. - 0147-2011 .- 1936-4725. ; 45:6, s. 488-495
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- In a recent Public Opinion Quarterly article “Is the Academy a Liberal Hegemony?,” John Zipp and Rudy Fenwick pit themselves against “right-wing activists and scholars,” citing our scholarship (Klein and Stern in Academic Questions 18(1): 40–52, 2005a; Klein and Western in Academic Questions 18(1): 53–65, 2005). Here, we analyze Zipp and Fenwick’s characterization of our research and find it faulty. We, then, turn to their self-identification “liberal vs. conservative” findings and show they concord with our analysis. If one feels that it is a problem that humanities and social science faculty at 4-year colleges and universities are vastly predominantly democratic voters, mostly with views that may called establishment-left, progressive, or status-quo oriented, then such concerns should not be allayed by Zipp and Fenwick’s article. We commence the article with a criticism of the “liberal versus conservative” framework because it is the source of much of the confusion surrounding controversies such as the one over the ideological profile of faculty.
|
|
| 6. |
- Klein, Daniel B., et al.
(författare)
-
Narrow-Tent Democrats and Fringe Others: The Policy Views of Social Science Professors
- 2005
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This paper provides copious results from a 2003 survey of academics. We analyze the responses of 1208 academics from six scholarly associations (in anthropology, economics, history, legal and political philosophy, political science, and sociology) with regard to their views on 18 policy issues. The issues include economic regulations, personal-choice restrictions, and military action abroad. We find that the academics overwhelmingly vote Democratic and that the Democratic dominance has increased significantly since 1970. A multivariate analysis shows strongly that Republican scholars are more likely to land outside of academia. On the 18 policy questions, the Democratic-voter responses have much less variation than do the Republicans. The left has a narrow tent. The Democratic and Republican policy views of academics are somewhat in line with the ideal types, except that across the board both groups are simply more statist than the ideal types might suggest. Regarding disciplinary consensus, we find that the discipline with least consensus is economics. We do a cluster analysis, and the mathematical technique sorts the respondents into groups that nicely correspond to familiar ideological categories: establishment left, progressive,conservative, and libertarian. The conservative group and the libertarian group are equal in size (35 individuals, each), suggesting that academics who depart from the leftist ranks are as likely to be libertarian as conservative. We also find that conservatives are closer to the establishment left than they are to the libertarians.
|
|
| 7. |
- Klein, Daniel B., et al.
(författare)
-
The Ideological Profile of Faculty in the Humanities and Social Sciences: A Reply to Zipp and Fenwick
- 2006
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- In a recent Public Opinion Quarterly article “Is the Academy a Liberal Hegemony?,” John Zipp and Rudy Fenwick pit themselves against “right-wing activists and scholars,” citing our scholarship (Klein and Stern 2005a; Klein and Western 2005). Here we analyze Zipp and Fenwick’s characterization of our research and find it faulty in three important respects. We then turn to their “liberal v. conservative” findings and show they concord with our analysis. If one feels that it is a problem that humanities and social science faculty at four-year colleges and universities are vastly predominantly Democratic voters, mostly with what may called establishment-left or progressive views, then such concerns should not be allayed by Zipp and Fenwick’s article. This Reply was submitted to Public Opinion Quarterly on October 16, 2006, except that the submission did not include the Summary and without Appendix 1 that appear here at the end of the paper.
|
|
| 8. |
- Nohrstedt, Daniel, 1974-
(författare)
-
Crisis and Policy Reformcraft : Advocacy Coalitions and Crisis-induced Change in Swedish Nuclear Energy Policy
- 2007
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This dissertation consists of three interrelated essays examining the role of crisis events in Swedish nuclear energy policymaking. The study takes stock of the idea of ‘crisis exceptionalism’ raised in the literature, which postulates that crisis events provide openings for major policy change. In an effort to explain crisis-induced outcomes in Swedish nuclear energy policy, each essay explores and develops theoretical assumptions derived from the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). The introduction discusses the ACF and other theoretical perspectives accentuating the role of crisis in policymaking and identifies three explanations for crisis-induced policy outcomes: minority coalition mobilization, learning, and strategic action. Essay I analyzes the nature and development of the Swedish nuclear energy subsystem. The results contradict the ACF assumption that corporatist systems nurture narrow subsystems and small advocacy coalitions, but corroborate the assumption that advocacy coalitions remain stable over time. While this analysis identifies temporary openings in policymaking venues and in the advocacy coalition structure, it is argued that these developments did not affect crisis policymaking. Essay II seeks to explain the decision to initiate a referendum on nuclear power following the 1979 Three Mile Island accident. Internal government documents and other historical records indicate that strategic considerations superseded learning as the primary explanation in this case. Essay III conducts an in-depth examination of Swedish policymaking in the aftermath of the 1986 Chernobyl accident in an effort to explain the government’s decision not to accelerate the nuclear power phaseout. Recently disclosed government documents show that minority coalition mobilization was insufficient to explain this decision. In this case, rational learning and strategic action provided a better explanation. The main theoretical contribution derived from the three essays is to posit the intensity and breadth of political conflict, strategic action, and analogical reasoning as key factors affecting the propensity for crisis-induced policy change.
|
|
