Search

This paper presents our predictions for the outcomes of the most controversial issues at the 15th Conference of Parties (COP) Meeting in Copenhagen, December 7-15, 2009. For these predictions we used methodology that was developed at the University of Groningen, The Netherlands, in collaboration with consultancy firm Decide (Dutch group). Based on these insights, a completely new strategy was developed, which could have resulted in a stronger treaty and could have created interests that are better harmonized among all states for a better climate and planet.

For the sixth and last time we present the productivity and the international impact of Dutch sociologists, measured in tperiod 1995-1997. Table I gives the ranking of the fifty most produictive sociologists. This productivity is measured as a weighted sum of the publications, where the weight is based on the quality of the journal publisher, the number of pages and the number of authors of the publication. The international impact of the participants and of all full professors in Dutch sociology research centers is presented in Table 6. This impact is based on the number of citations in the Social Science Citation Index in the period 1995-1997. In an analysis of the reasons for (non-) participation in the Top-5O project we show that the most important reason for participation is positioning one-self toward others (Table I). The main reason for non-participation is insuficient publications, followed by questions about usefulness and of principle (Tab. 2). We also performed a trend analysis on all publications from 1991 till 1997 and compared the productivity of full professors, associate professors and others.

In thiis article the productivity, national and international inlpact of Dutch sociologists are measured over the period 1994-1996 Table I gives the ranking of the fifty most productive sociologists. The productivity is measured as a weighted sum of the publications. A ranking of prominence among the participants ispresented in table 2. The international impact is based on the number of citations in the Social Science Citation Index in the period 1994-1996 We investigated these citations for all 153 participating sociologists and all fifty professors in socioloty research centers (see Appendix 3). Table 3 contains the ranking of the fifty Dutch sociologists with the most citations in the period 1994-1996 We also present the results of our survey on the scientific quality of publishers. Mokken scale analysis was used to investigate the cumulative pattern of the answers and the existence of dzfferentgroups of publishers. The results can be compared with a similar survey held in 1994 (see Appendix 4A to 4D).

In this article the productivity and international impact of Dutch sociologists are measnred over the period 1993-1995. The productivy is measured a a weighted sum of the publications. Appendix 2 contains the list of sociologists that took part in the study. Table I gives the ranking of the fifty most prodtictive sociologists. The international impact is based on the number of citations in the Social Science Citation Index in the period 1993-1995. We investigated these citations for all 170 participating sociologists and full professors in sociology research centers (see Appendix 3). Table 2 contains the ranking of the 53 Dutch sociologists with ten or more citations in the period 1993-1995. In the last part of this article, we investigate the characteristics of publications and the relation between cooperation and characteristics of publications. Finally, sociologists who publish generally together with colleagues are compared to those who cooperate less. The results are presented in tables 3 and 4.

In policy networks actors use access relations to influence preferences of other actors. Establishment and shifts of access relations and their consequences for outcomes of decisions are the main focal points in this paper. Unlike most policy network studies, we therefore do not take the network and its relations as given and constant. Instead we device computer simulation models to account for the dynamics in policy networks. We compare different models and investigate the resulting network structures and predicted outcomes of decisions. The choice among the alternative models is made by their correspondence with empirical network structures and actual outcomes of decisions. In our models, we assume that all relevant actors aim at policy outcomes as close as possible to their own preferences. Policy outcomes are determined by the preferences cSf the final decision makers at the moment of the vote. In general, only a small fraction of the actors takes .part in the final vote. Most actors have therefore to rely on access relations for directly or indirectly shaping the preferences of the final decision makers. For this purpose actors make access requests to other actors. An access relation is assumed to be established if such a request is accepted by the othcr actor. Access relations require time and resources. Actors are therefore assumed to be restricted in the number of access requests they can make and the number of requests they can accept. Moreover, due to incomplete information and simultaneous actions by other actors, actors have to make simplifying assumptions in the selection of their "best" requests and learn by experience. We device two base models that correspond to two basic views on the nature of political processes. In the first view politics is seen as power driven. Corresponding to this view, actors aim at access relations with the most powerful actors in the field. They estimate their likelihood of success by comparing their own resources with those of the target actors. Power also determines the order in which actors accept requests. In the second view, policy matters and actors roughly estimate the effects access relations might have on the outcome of decisions. Actors select requests to "bolster" Their own preference as much as possible. We will show that these base models and some intermediate ones result in fundamentally different network structures and predicted outcomes. Moreover, we will show that the policy driven models do fundamentally better than the power driven models.

In this article the productivity and international impact of Dutch sociologist is measured over the period 1992-1994. The productivity is measured as a weighted sum of the publications. Appendix I contains the list of sociologists that took part in the study. Table 2 gives the ranking of the ranking of the fifty most productive sociologists. The international impact is based on the number of citations in the Social Science Citation Index in the period 1992-1994. We investigated these citations for the sociologists in the top-50 and all full professors in sociology research centers (see Appendix 2). Table 3 contains the ranking of the 51 Dutch sociologists with five or more citations in the period 1992-1994.

Publishing sociologists: the top-50 in the period 1991-1993 Table 2 in this article contains the top-50 sociologists in terms of their publications in the period 1991-1993. Last year a similar ranking was presented by the authors. The method on which the publications are weighted is similar to last year, but the references, are gathered directly from the authors. This approach makes it possible to present a ranking without a considerable time lag. We also investigated the scientific quality of Dutch journals and national and interntional publishers, which enabled us to establish a more accurate ranking. In addition, we present a ranking of prominent Dutch sociologists.This ranking is based on the participants' view of prominent Dutch sociologists.

Table I in this article contains the top-50 sociologists in terms of their publications in the period 1988-1990. The score is based on the scientific reports of Dutch universities. The publications is weighted according to it's size and scientific quality of the journal or publisher. In case multiple authorship, the publication score is equally divided over the authors.

Competing models of policymaking are integrated at a higher theoretical level into a two-stage model that distinguishes two different phases in the processes: the decision-taking phase and a prior phase in which significant actors interact to influence each other's policy positions. It is argued that these two phases are characterized by completely different power processes. The integrated two-stage model allows the positional power of all actors to be computed and the outcomes of policy processes to be predicted. To validate the model, the stepwise influence of the theoretically derived elements is tested in the U.S. energy-policy domain using data previously analyzed by Laumann and Knoke (1987). The model is shown to correctly predict six of the eight events analyzed. In addition, a quantitative contribution is made to the state autonomy debate.