A Comparative Analysis of Financing Parties and Elections in Croatia and in Other Countries
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Summary Comparative politics has shown interest in the topic of financing political parties only recently. The reason for this is the fact that a more systematic regulation of financing elections and parties – apart from Sweden where the process of regulation began in the 1960s – started only in the 1970s and 1980s. Namely, the expenditure incurred by party activities in that period increased significantly everywhere, making the traditional sources of party financing such as membership fees, money raised at party rallies and so on, completely inadequate. Since that time the practice of supplementing these scarce party funds through a system of public subsidies of parties and elections from the budget was introduced. The regulation of party financing has not taken the same form in all countries and did not happen at the same time. In the United States, for example, elections are financed mostly from private funds. The expenditure for elections and parties has, however, become a subject of public scrutiny and special auditing, while the financial support limits have been precisely determined. Similar processes have been at work in Canada and Australia as well as in some European countries such as Holland. On the other hand, in Austria, Italy, Germany and Sweden, a system of heavy reliance of parties on the budget subsidies has gradually evolved. Besides the sources of financing, the regulation covers TV promotion of parties and their candidates. In most countries TV coverage for election campaigning cannot be simply bought since it is precisely regulated; all political actors must enjoy equal access to today’s most ubiquitous medium. The exception to the rule are the United States where TV time for election campaigning is up for grabs. And finally, the financing of Croatian political parties is looked into. Unlike in the developed Western countries, financing of parties has not yet been subjected to major regulation. Due to this lack of precise regulation, the flow of party funds is concealed from the public, regarding both its provenance and its spending.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».