Institutions and Morality Policy in Western Democracies
This article investigates whether different political institutions such as executives, legislatures, parties, party systems, judiciaries, decentralization, constitutionalism, and referendums across 24 Western democracies are venues for debate across five individual morality policies. Using data sinc...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Review of policy research 2018-01, Vol.35 (1), p.61-88 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 88 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 61 |
container_title | The Review of policy research |
container_volume | 35 |
creator | Studlar, Donley T. Cagossi, Alessandro |
description | This article investigates whether different political institutions such as executives, legislatures, parties, party systems, judiciaries, decentralization, constitutionalism, and referendums across 24 Western democracies are venues for debate across five individual morality policies. Using data since 1945, the article compares three theories of morality policy—(1) Policy Type leading to different institutional venues; (2) Two Worlds of religious/secular party systems; and (3) U.S./European exceptionalism. In order, the most frequently debated issues are abortion, same sex marriage, euthanasia, stem cells/assisted reproductive technology (ART), and capital punishment. There is considerable variation in the institutions and country groups that debate them although fewer differences in the Two Worlds model. Abortion, euthanasia, and same sex marriage are the most convergent issues across institutions, party systems, and country groupings while capital punishment and stem cells/ART show the most diverse patterns of deliberation. The general Policy Type model of morality policy is upheld, but varies institutionally by specific issues. The Two Worlds model is of some importance, but only on three issues. There also are regional differences between the United States, Europe, and non‐European democracies.
摘要
西方民主国家中的制度和道德政策
本文调查了24个西方民主国家的不同政治机构/体制(political institutions)是否能作为5个道德政策(morality policies)的辩论舞台。这些政治机构/体制包括行政部门、议会、党派、政党体系、司法部、政治分权(decentralization)、宪政和公民投票。通过使用1945年以来的数据, 本文比较了有关道德政策的三种理论 — (1)政策类型(Policy Type), 该理论通往不同制度舞台;(2)道德政治的两个世界(Two Worlds), 即宗教党派系统和世俗党派系统;(3)美国/欧洲例外论。按照排列顺序, 最频繁出现的辩论问题依次是堕胎、同性婚姻、安乐死、干细胞/辅助生殖技术(assisted reproductive technology, ART)和死刑。参与辩论的不同政治机构和国家集团存在显著差异, 尽管在第二种理论模式下差异之处较少。堕胎、安乐死和同性婚姻是不同机构、政党体系和国家集团间最趋同的问题, 而死刑和干细胞/ART则是最多样化的审议模式。第一种理论模式是受到支持的, 但在特定问题上存在制度性的变化。第二种理论模式具有一定的重要性, 但其重要性仅体现在三个问题上。美国、欧洲和非欧洲民主国家间也存在区域差异。
Resumen
Política de instituciones y moralidad en las democracias occidentales
Este artículo investiga si las diferentes instituciones políticas como la rama ejecutiva, la legislativa, los partidos, los sistemas de partidos, la rama judicial, la descentralización, el constitucionalismo y los referéndums en 24 democracias occidentales son escenarios para el debate en 5 diferentes políticas individuales de moralidad. Utilizando datos desde 1945, el artículo compara tres teorías de la política de la moralidad—(1) Tipo de Política que lleva a diferentes escenarios institucionales; (2) Dos Mundos de sistemas seculares/re |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/ropr.12253 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1985540541</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1985540541</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3013-38301f3addbacde25dd161b9328bdf61b3e3fd5f2f5351cad794712ca46068ad3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtLAzEUhYMoWKsbf8GAO2Fqbu6kM11KtVqotBRFdyHNA1Kmk5pMkfn3po649G7OWXz3dQi5BjqCVHfB78MIGON4QgbAC8gBsTr98-zjnFzEuKUUypLhgJTzJrauPbTONzGTjc5efJC1a7ts5Wunusw12buJrQlN9mB2XgWpnImX5MzKOpqrXx2St9nj6_Q5Xyyf5tP7Ra6QAuZYJbEotd5IpQ3jWsMYNhNk1Ubb5NCg1dwyy5GDkrqcFCUwJYsxHVdS45Dc9HP3wX8e0h1i6w-hSSsFTCrOC5oeS9RtT6ngYwzGin1wOxk6AVQcgxHHYMRPMAmGHv5yten-IcV6uVr3Pd_G22W-</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1985540541</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Institutions and Morality Policy in Western Democracies</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>Business Source Complete</source><source>Political Science Complete</source><creator>Studlar, Donley T. ; Cagossi, Alessandro</creator><creatorcontrib>Studlar, Donley T. ; Cagossi, Alessandro</creatorcontrib><description>This article investigates whether different political institutions such as executives, legislatures, parties, party systems, judiciaries, decentralization, constitutionalism, and referendums across 24 Western democracies are venues for debate across five individual morality policies. Using data since 1945, the article compares three theories of morality policy—(1) Policy Type leading to different institutional venues; (2) Two Worlds of religious/secular party systems; and (3) U.S./European exceptionalism. In order, the most frequently debated issues are abortion, same sex marriage, euthanasia, stem cells/assisted reproductive technology (ART), and capital punishment. There is considerable variation in the institutions and country groups that debate them although fewer differences in the Two Worlds model. Abortion, euthanasia, and same sex marriage are the most convergent issues across institutions, party systems, and country groupings while capital punishment and stem cells/ART show the most diverse patterns of deliberation. The general Policy Type model of morality policy is upheld, but varies institutionally by specific issues. The Two Worlds model is of some importance, but only on three issues. There also are regional differences between the United States, Europe, and non‐European democracies.
摘要
西方民主国家中的制度和道德政策
本文调查了24个西方民主国家的不同政治机构/体制(political institutions)是否能作为5个道德政策(morality policies)的辩论舞台。这些政治机构/体制包括行政部门、议会、党派、政党体系、司法部、政治分权(decentralization)、宪政和公民投票。通过使用1945年以来的数据, 本文比较了有关道德政策的三种理论 — (1)政策类型(Policy Type), 该理论通往不同制度舞台;(2)道德政治的两个世界(Two Worlds), 即宗教党派系统和世俗党派系统;(3)美国/欧洲例外论。按照排列顺序, 最频繁出现的辩论问题依次是堕胎、同性婚姻、安乐死、干细胞/辅助生殖技术(assisted reproductive technology, ART)和死刑。参与辩论的不同政治机构和国家集团存在显著差异, 尽管在第二种理论模式下差异之处较少。堕胎、安乐死和同性婚姻是不同机构、政党体系和国家集团间最趋同的问题, 而死刑和干细胞/ART则是最多样化的审议模式。第一种理论模式是受到支持的, 但在特定问题上存在制度性的变化。第二种理论模式具有一定的重要性, 但其重要性仅体现在三个问题上。美国、欧洲和非欧洲民主国家间也存在区域差异。
Resumen
Política de instituciones y moralidad en las democracias occidentales
Este artículo investiga si las diferentes instituciones políticas como la rama ejecutiva, la legislativa, los partidos, los sistemas de partidos, la rama judicial, la descentralización, el constitucionalismo y los referéndums en 24 democracias occidentales son escenarios para el debate en 5 diferentes políticas individuales de moralidad. Utilizando datos desde 1945, el artículo compara tres teorías de la política de la moralidad—(1) Tipo de Política que lleva a diferentes escenarios institucionales; (2) Dos Mundos de sistemas seculares/religiosos; y (3) Excepcionalismo entre EE. UU. y Europa. En orden, los temas más frecuentemente debatidos son el aborto, el matrimonio del mismo sexo, la eutanasia, las células madre/ tecnología de reproducción asistida (ART), y la pena de muerte. Hay una variedad considerable en las instituciones y los grupos de países que debaten estos temas, aunque hay menos diferencias en el modelo de los Dos Mundos. El aborto, la eutanasia y el matrimonio del mismo sexo son los temas más convergentes en las diferentes instituciones, sistemas de partidos y grupos de países mientras que la pena de muerte y las células madre/ART muestran los patrones más diversos de deliberación. El modelo de tipo de política general se mantiene, pero varía institucionalmente según los temas específicos. El modelo de Dos Mundos tiene algo de importancia, pero solo en tres temas. También hay diferencias regionales entre los Estados Unidos, Europa y las democracias no europeas.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1541-132X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1541-1338</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12253</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Knoxville: Policy Studies Organization</publisher><subject>Abortion ; Antiretroviral therapy ; Artificial insemination ; Capital punishment ; comparative governance ; Constitutionalism ; Convergence ; Debates ; Decentralization ; Democracy ; developed countries ; Euthanasia ; Exceptionalism ; gobernanza internacional ; gobernanza nacional ; Institutions ; international governance ; Legislatures ; Marriage ; Morality ; national governance ; PALABRAS CLAVE: gobernanza comparativa ; países desarrollados ; Political institutions ; Political parties ; Punishment ; Referendums ; Regional differences ; Regional variations ; Religion ; Reproductive technologies ; Same sex marriage ; Secularism ; Sex ; Stem cells ; Technology ; 关键词:比较治理 ; 发达国家 ; 国家治理 ; 国际治理</subject><ispartof>The Review of policy research, 2018-01, Vol.35 (1), p.61-88</ispartof><rights>2017 Policy Studies Organization</rights><rights>2018 Policy Studies Organization</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3013-38301f3addbacde25dd161b9328bdf61b3e3fd5f2f5351cad794712ca46068ad3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3013-38301f3addbacde25dd161b9328bdf61b3e3fd5f2f5351cad794712ca46068ad3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fropr.12253$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fropr.12253$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,1412,27847,27905,27906,45555,45556</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Studlar, Donley T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cagossi, Alessandro</creatorcontrib><title>Institutions and Morality Policy in Western Democracies</title><title>The Review of policy research</title><description>This article investigates whether different political institutions such as executives, legislatures, parties, party systems, judiciaries, decentralization, constitutionalism, and referendums across 24 Western democracies are venues for debate across five individual morality policies. Using data since 1945, the article compares three theories of morality policy—(1) Policy Type leading to different institutional venues; (2) Two Worlds of religious/secular party systems; and (3) U.S./European exceptionalism. In order, the most frequently debated issues are abortion, same sex marriage, euthanasia, stem cells/assisted reproductive technology (ART), and capital punishment. There is considerable variation in the institutions and country groups that debate them although fewer differences in the Two Worlds model. Abortion, euthanasia, and same sex marriage are the most convergent issues across institutions, party systems, and country groupings while capital punishment and stem cells/ART show the most diverse patterns of deliberation. The general Policy Type model of morality policy is upheld, but varies institutionally by specific issues. The Two Worlds model is of some importance, but only on three issues. There also are regional differences between the United States, Europe, and non‐European democracies.
摘要
西方民主国家中的制度和道德政策
本文调查了24个西方民主国家的不同政治机构/体制(political institutions)是否能作为5个道德政策(morality policies)的辩论舞台。这些政治机构/体制包括行政部门、议会、党派、政党体系、司法部、政治分权(decentralization)、宪政和公民投票。通过使用1945年以来的数据, 本文比较了有关道德政策的三种理论 — (1)政策类型(Policy Type), 该理论通往不同制度舞台;(2)道德政治的两个世界(Two Worlds), 即宗教党派系统和世俗党派系统;(3)美国/欧洲例外论。按照排列顺序, 最频繁出现的辩论问题依次是堕胎、同性婚姻、安乐死、干细胞/辅助生殖技术(assisted reproductive technology, ART)和死刑。参与辩论的不同政治机构和国家集团存在显著差异, 尽管在第二种理论模式下差异之处较少。堕胎、安乐死和同性婚姻是不同机构、政党体系和国家集团间最趋同的问题, 而死刑和干细胞/ART则是最多样化的审议模式。第一种理论模式是受到支持的, 但在特定问题上存在制度性的变化。第二种理论模式具有一定的重要性, 但其重要性仅体现在三个问题上。美国、欧洲和非欧洲民主国家间也存在区域差异。
Resumen
Política de instituciones y moralidad en las democracias occidentales
Este artículo investiga si las diferentes instituciones políticas como la rama ejecutiva, la legislativa, los partidos, los sistemas de partidos, la rama judicial, la descentralización, el constitucionalismo y los referéndums en 24 democracias occidentales son escenarios para el debate en 5 diferentes políticas individuales de moralidad. Utilizando datos desde 1945, el artículo compara tres teorías de la política de la moralidad—(1) Tipo de Política que lleva a diferentes escenarios institucionales; (2) Dos Mundos de sistemas seculares/religiosos; y (3) Excepcionalismo entre EE. UU. y Europa. En orden, los temas más frecuentemente debatidos son el aborto, el matrimonio del mismo sexo, la eutanasia, las células madre/ tecnología de reproducción asistida (ART), y la pena de muerte. Hay una variedad considerable en las instituciones y los grupos de países que debaten estos temas, aunque hay menos diferencias en el modelo de los Dos Mundos. El aborto, la eutanasia y el matrimonio del mismo sexo son los temas más convergentes en las diferentes instituciones, sistemas de partidos y grupos de países mientras que la pena de muerte y las células madre/ART muestran los patrones más diversos de deliberación. El modelo de tipo de política general se mantiene, pero varía institucionalmente según los temas específicos. El modelo de Dos Mundos tiene algo de importancia, pero solo en tres temas. También hay diferencias regionales entre los Estados Unidos, Europa y las democracias no europeas.</description><subject>Abortion</subject><subject>Antiretroviral therapy</subject><subject>Artificial insemination</subject><subject>Capital punishment</subject><subject>comparative governance</subject><subject>Constitutionalism</subject><subject>Convergence</subject><subject>Debates</subject><subject>Decentralization</subject><subject>Democracy</subject><subject>developed countries</subject><subject>Euthanasia</subject><subject>Exceptionalism</subject><subject>gobernanza internacional</subject><subject>gobernanza nacional</subject><subject>Institutions</subject><subject>international governance</subject><subject>Legislatures</subject><subject>Marriage</subject><subject>Morality</subject><subject>national governance</subject><subject>PALABRAS CLAVE: gobernanza comparativa</subject><subject>países desarrollados</subject><subject>Political institutions</subject><subject>Political parties</subject><subject>Punishment</subject><subject>Referendums</subject><subject>Regional differences</subject><subject>Regional variations</subject><subject>Religion</subject><subject>Reproductive technologies</subject><subject>Same sex marriage</subject><subject>Secularism</subject><subject>Sex</subject><subject>Stem cells</subject><subject>Technology</subject><subject>关键词:比较治理</subject><subject>发达国家</subject><subject>国家治理</subject><subject>国际治理</subject><issn>1541-132X</issn><issn>1541-1338</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kEtLAzEUhYMoWKsbf8GAO2Fqbu6kM11KtVqotBRFdyHNA1Kmk5pMkfn3po649G7OWXz3dQi5BjqCVHfB78MIGON4QgbAC8gBsTr98-zjnFzEuKUUypLhgJTzJrauPbTONzGTjc5efJC1a7ts5Wunusw12buJrQlN9mB2XgWpnImX5MzKOpqrXx2St9nj6_Q5Xyyf5tP7Ra6QAuZYJbEotd5IpQ3jWsMYNhNk1Ubb5NCg1dwyy5GDkrqcFCUwJYsxHVdS45Dc9HP3wX8e0h1i6w-hSSsFTCrOC5oeS9RtT6ngYwzGin1wOxk6AVQcgxHHYMRPMAmGHv5yten-IcV6uVr3Pd_G22W-</recordid><startdate>201801</startdate><enddate>201801</enddate><creator>Studlar, Donley T.</creator><creator>Cagossi, Alessandro</creator><general>Policy Studies Organization</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K7.</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201801</creationdate><title>Institutions and Morality Policy in Western Democracies</title><author>Studlar, Donley T. ; Cagossi, Alessandro</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3013-38301f3addbacde25dd161b9328bdf61b3e3fd5f2f5351cad794712ca46068ad3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Abortion</topic><topic>Antiretroviral therapy</topic><topic>Artificial insemination</topic><topic>Capital punishment</topic><topic>comparative governance</topic><topic>Constitutionalism</topic><topic>Convergence</topic><topic>Debates</topic><topic>Decentralization</topic><topic>Democracy</topic><topic>developed countries</topic><topic>Euthanasia</topic><topic>Exceptionalism</topic><topic>gobernanza internacional</topic><topic>gobernanza nacional</topic><topic>Institutions</topic><topic>international governance</topic><topic>Legislatures</topic><topic>Marriage</topic><topic>Morality</topic><topic>national governance</topic><topic>PALABRAS CLAVE: gobernanza comparativa</topic><topic>países desarrollados</topic><topic>Political institutions</topic><topic>Political parties</topic><topic>Punishment</topic><topic>Referendums</topic><topic>Regional differences</topic><topic>Regional variations</topic><topic>Religion</topic><topic>Reproductive technologies</topic><topic>Same sex marriage</topic><topic>Secularism</topic><topic>Sex</topic><topic>Stem cells</topic><topic>Technology</topic><topic>关键词:比较治理</topic><topic>发达国家</topic><topic>国家治理</topic><topic>国际治理</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Studlar, Donley T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cagossi, Alessandro</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><jtitle>The Review of policy research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Studlar, Donley T.</au><au>Cagossi, Alessandro</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Institutions and Morality Policy in Western Democracies</atitle><jtitle>The Review of policy research</jtitle><date>2018-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>61</spage><epage>88</epage><pages>61-88</pages><issn>1541-132X</issn><eissn>1541-1338</eissn><abstract>This article investigates whether different political institutions such as executives, legislatures, parties, party systems, judiciaries, decentralization, constitutionalism, and referendums across 24 Western democracies are venues for debate across five individual morality policies. Using data since 1945, the article compares three theories of morality policy—(1) Policy Type leading to different institutional venues; (2) Two Worlds of religious/secular party systems; and (3) U.S./European exceptionalism. In order, the most frequently debated issues are abortion, same sex marriage, euthanasia, stem cells/assisted reproductive technology (ART), and capital punishment. There is considerable variation in the institutions and country groups that debate them although fewer differences in the Two Worlds model. Abortion, euthanasia, and same sex marriage are the most convergent issues across institutions, party systems, and country groupings while capital punishment and stem cells/ART show the most diverse patterns of deliberation. The general Policy Type model of morality policy is upheld, but varies institutionally by specific issues. The Two Worlds model is of some importance, but only on three issues. There also are regional differences between the United States, Europe, and non‐European democracies.
摘要
西方民主国家中的制度和道德政策
本文调查了24个西方民主国家的不同政治机构/体制(political institutions)是否能作为5个道德政策(morality policies)的辩论舞台。这些政治机构/体制包括行政部门、议会、党派、政党体系、司法部、政治分权(decentralization)、宪政和公民投票。通过使用1945年以来的数据, 本文比较了有关道德政策的三种理论 — (1)政策类型(Policy Type), 该理论通往不同制度舞台;(2)道德政治的两个世界(Two Worlds), 即宗教党派系统和世俗党派系统;(3)美国/欧洲例外论。按照排列顺序, 最频繁出现的辩论问题依次是堕胎、同性婚姻、安乐死、干细胞/辅助生殖技术(assisted reproductive technology, ART)和死刑。参与辩论的不同政治机构和国家集团存在显著差异, 尽管在第二种理论模式下差异之处较少。堕胎、安乐死和同性婚姻是不同机构、政党体系和国家集团间最趋同的问题, 而死刑和干细胞/ART则是最多样化的审议模式。第一种理论模式是受到支持的, 但在特定问题上存在制度性的变化。第二种理论模式具有一定的重要性, 但其重要性仅体现在三个问题上。美国、欧洲和非欧洲民主国家间也存在区域差异。
Resumen
Política de instituciones y moralidad en las democracias occidentales
Este artículo investiga si las diferentes instituciones políticas como la rama ejecutiva, la legislativa, los partidos, los sistemas de partidos, la rama judicial, la descentralización, el constitucionalismo y los referéndums en 24 democracias occidentales son escenarios para el debate en 5 diferentes políticas individuales de moralidad. Utilizando datos desde 1945, el artículo compara tres teorías de la política de la moralidad—(1) Tipo de Política que lleva a diferentes escenarios institucionales; (2) Dos Mundos de sistemas seculares/religiosos; y (3) Excepcionalismo entre EE. UU. y Europa. En orden, los temas más frecuentemente debatidos son el aborto, el matrimonio del mismo sexo, la eutanasia, las células madre/ tecnología de reproducción asistida (ART), y la pena de muerte. Hay una variedad considerable en las instituciones y los grupos de países que debaten estos temas, aunque hay menos diferencias en el modelo de los Dos Mundos. El aborto, la eutanasia y el matrimonio del mismo sexo son los temas más convergentes en las diferentes instituciones, sistemas de partidos y grupos de países mientras que la pena de muerte y las células madre/ART muestran los patrones más diversos de deliberación. El modelo de tipo de política general se mantiene, pero varía institucionalmente según los temas específicos. El modelo de Dos Mundos tiene algo de importancia, pero solo en tres temas. También hay diferencias regionales entre los Estados Unidos, Europa y las democracias no europeas.</abstract><cop>Knoxville</cop><pub>Policy Studies Organization</pub><doi>10.1111/ropr.12253</doi><tpages>27</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1541-132X |
ispartof | The Review of policy research, 2018-01, Vol.35 (1), p.61-88 |
issn | 1541-132X 1541-1338 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1985540541 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; PAIS Index; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; Business Source Complete; Political Science Complete |
subjects | Abortion Antiretroviral therapy Artificial insemination Capital punishment comparative governance Constitutionalism Convergence Debates Decentralization Democracy developed countries Euthanasia Exceptionalism gobernanza internacional gobernanza nacional Institutions international governance Legislatures Marriage Morality national governance PALABRAS CLAVE: gobernanza comparativa países desarrollados Political institutions Political parties Punishment Referendums Regional differences Regional variations Religion Reproductive technologies Same sex marriage Secularism Sex Stem cells Technology 关键词:比较治理 发达国家 国家治理 国际治理 |
title | Institutions and Morality Policy in Western Democracies |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T06%3A38%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Institutions%20and%20Morality%20Policy%20in%20Western%20Democracies&rft.jtitle=The%20Review%20of%20policy%20research&rft.au=Studlar,%20Donley%20T.&rft.date=2018-01&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=61&rft.epage=88&rft.pages=61-88&rft.issn=1541-132X&rft.eissn=1541-1338&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/ropr.12253&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1985540541%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1985540541&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |