Search

Social housing providers in many advanced economies have been directed towards market-orientated and commercial business models, whereas the scope of the private rental sector has been increasingly expanded to the provision of housing for low-income households. Where these developments coincided, the demarcation between the activities of social and private landlords has blurred, with the result of increasing competitive pressure on both groups. This paper sheds light on the behavioural aspects of competition by introducing the concept of inter-landlord rivalry in local rental housing markets. Drawing on data from 36 in-depth interviews with social and private landlords in Coventry/England and Breda/the Netherlands, this study shows that existing perceptions of rivalry among most landlords are exceptional in low-income renting but pronounced in more expensive, commercial rental segments. The paper will demonstrate that these perceptions are highly subjective and non-reciprocal. Moreover, competitive perceptions and interactions are strongly affected by political and market structural settings, and appear to be dependent on the trade-off between the social mission and commercial goals of individual housing associations in the social housing sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The level of influence public discourse has on policy can vary widely. Research has noted that while it is largely dependent on the topic, frequency, and severity of the message, political rhetoric has the potential to sway public opinion and support. Particularly true for crime policy, rhetoric has historically been a strong factor for many countries such as the United States and England often understood as popular punitivism. However, popular punitivism has not been empirically characterized with specific focus given to political discourse, especially in international context. This paper attempts to capture the scope and relationship between rhetoric, political gain, crime policy, and public response in the Netherlands. Using the context of popular punitivism, we analyze rhetoric from three different political outlets (party platforms, coalition agreements, and statements of the throne) and triangulate the codes with passed policies, voter support, and systemic action. Findings suggest that recent rhetoric often exaggerates observed crime in society, consistent with expectations of popular punitivism perspectives. However, such exaggeration does not necessarily correlate with public support and system response patterns. Implications for discourse theory and popular punitivism are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Considerable progress in public health is expected to occur from the application of genomic knowledge and technologies. This is the subject of a newly emerging field of public health genomics. In this paper we analyze differences in how public health genomics is developing in the Netherlands, the UK and Germany through the definition and diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH), an inherited predisposition for coronary heart disease. Methods: We analyzed the emergence of public health genomics within the framework of a project on the incorporation of genetics in western European healthcare schemes. Our analysis is based on document analysis and in-depth interviews. Results: In the Netherlands, public health genomics takes shape through a genetic screening programme for FH, looking for mutations on two specific genes; in the UK it emerges through a strategy of ‘‘mainstreaming’’ genetics in health care that aims to identify hereditary predispositions by means of phenotypic diagnosis; and in Germany public health genomics is elaborated at a conceptual level, leaving a diagnosis of FH to individual physicians who occasionally prescribe genetic testing. Conclusions: Our analysis shows how public health genomics gets constituted differently in different countries and, moreover, produces particular patterns of inclusion and exclusion from care. These patterns indicate a paradox in public health genomics, which consists of an inverse relationship between the use of advanced molecular genetic testing technologies and the number and variety of individuals at risk included in the target population. This paradox presents a challenge for professionals and policy makers in public health genomics. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Developments in biotechnology present difficult social and ethical challenges that need to be resolved by regulators among others. One crucial problem for regulators of new technologies is to ensure that regulation is both clear and sufficiently flexible to respond to new developments. This is particularly difficult to achieve in contentious fields such as medical biotechnology. In the European Union there is a divergence in the solutions to this problem which has lead to different regulatory frameworks for medical biotechnology. This paper compares and contrasts the British and Dutch regulatory frameworks for the selection of embryos by preimplantation genetic diagnosis as an example of the regulation of medical biotechnology. Some of the outcomes of the regulatory choices and possible reasons behind the divergent frameworks are discussed, such as the ethical outlooks and political systems in these countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Twenty years ago, the technology of in vitro fertilization created a new artefact: the human embryo outside the woman's body. In many countries, political debates developed around this artefact. One of the central questions in these debates is whether it is permissible to use human embryos in research and, if so, under what conditions. To date, no uniform answer to this question has been given by the governments and parliaments of the different nation states. This highlights the importance of national cultures and local dynamics in the process of crafting the space for human embryo research. In this paper I approach the issue of the national context by comparing the Dutch and British parliamentary debates on human embryos. Though some arguments used in both debates were similar, the outcomes were very different. In the UK, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act was passed in 1990. In the Netherlands, several bills on human embryos have been drafted, but each of them was withdrawn from the proceedings before reaching Parliament. To understand the processes which led to these different outcomes, I scrutinize the rôles in the Netherlands of the political parties, of the scientists' lobby and of women speakers, and compare them with the findings on the UK debate. I also reflect upon the rôle played by gender in these two culturally different political contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]