The 27th NISPAcee Annual Conference

Conference photos available

Conference photos available

In the conference participated 317 participants

Conference programme published

Almost 250 conference participants from 36 countries participated

Conference Report

The 28th NISPAcee Annual Conference cancelled

The 29th NISPAcee Annual Conference, Ljubljana, Slovenia, October 21 - October 23, 2021

The 2020 NISPAcee On-line Conference

The 30th NISPAcee Annual Conference, Bucharest, Romania, June 2 - June 4, 2022

EUFLAG
EUFLAG

...Sessions were interesting, scholars were engaging and all the social events were amazing!

B.K., Kazakhstan, 26th NISPAcee Annual Conference 2018, Iasi

Excellent organization, excellent food. Compliments to the organizers, they did a wonderful job!

V.J., Netherlands, 26th NISPAcee Annual Conference 2018, Iasi

...I must say that the PhD pre-conference seminar was the most useful seminar of my life. Very well...

K.V., Czech Republic, 26th NISPAcee Annual Conference 2018, Iasi

... I would even argue that they are the very best - both in terms of scientific content and also entertainment…

P.W., Denmark, 26th NISPAcee Annual Conference 2018, Iasi

An opportunity to learn from other researchers and other countries' experiences on certain topics.

G.A.C., Hungary, 25th Conference 2017, Kazan

Very well organised, excellent programme and fruitful discussions.

M.M.S., Slovakia, 25th Conference 2017, Kazan

The NISPAcee conference remains a very interesting conference.

M.D.V., Netherlands, 25th Conference 2017, Kazan

Thank you for the opportunity to be there, and for the work of the organisers.

D.Z., Hungary, 24th Conference 2016, Zagreb

Well organized, as always. Excellent conference topic and paper selection.

M.S., Serbia, 23rd Conference 2015, Georgia

Perfect conference. Well organised. Very informative.

M.deV., Netherlands, 22nd Conference 2014, Hungary

Excellent conference. Congratulations!

S. C., United States, 20th Conference 2012, Republic of Macedonia

Thanks for organising the pre-conference activity. I benefited significantly!

R. U., Uzbekistan, 19th Conference, Varna 2011

Each information I got, was received perfectly in time!

L. S., Latvia, 21st Conference 2013, Serbia

The Conference was very academically fruitful!

M. K., Republic of Macedonia, 20th Conference 2012, Republic of Macedonia

 :: Anonymous user Login / Register 

Optimised for Tablet | Smartphone

 Paper/Speech Details of Conference Program  

for the  27th NISPAcee Annual Conference
  Program Overview
WG6: Evidence-Based Public Policy Making
Author(s)  David Barnes 
  I do not belong to any Institution
Mackenbach  Germany
Moldovan Octavian, David Barnes, Illinois Valley Community College, Oglesby, USAOctavian Moldovan, Universitatea Babes-Bolyai, Cluj, Romania 
 
 Title  Quantifying Culture: Techniques for Including Cultural Evidence in Policy Analysis
File   Paper files are available only for conference participants, please login first. 
Presenter  David Barnes
Abstract  
  
This research demonstrates a methodology to quantify cultural characteristics, demonstrating household level data can be included in economic models. Open source data provides a wealth of opportunity for policy planners and program administrators. This paper offers examples of how they might be used to include culture. World Bank data from Albania is indexed into a cultural composite that claims to theoretical provide a window into the household expression of the deepest values of a local culture. This paper also offers useful data sources for evidence-based techniques to include cultural or personal characteristics as tools for policymakers and practitioners to increase returns to inputs and better integrate approaches across a diverse regional context. Whether dynamic or static, economic literature acknowledges that culture impacts the heart of society's functioningand this makes analysis of cultural correlations with development both necessary and controversial in policymaking as well as practice. The challenge is greater in the European Union context, which seeks to communicate, if not to unify, policies across widely divergent cultures and traditions. In designing plans that promote economic growth and development, praxis research may tend to weight incentives and structures far more than cultural or personal characteristics. However, this is a missed opportunity as there are several catalytic or obstructive cultural values linked to development, including attributes of a culture's religions, ethical values, entrepreneurial orientations, and networking tendencies such as social trust.

The methodology employs reliable open-access data with subjective questions that fit Fowler’s faith development theory and provided panel data so lag effects can be assessed in future research. The 2003 World Bank Living Standards Measurement Survey (LSMS) data for Albania, Wave 2, was chosen because the subjective questions provided non-religious self-assessments that could be indicative of the theory’s requirements and application as a cultural composit. Albania was chosen because of its unique political and cultural history, which may insulate this analysis from some typical research biases in faith toward certain religions or developed regions. During its long Soviet occupation, the Albanian culture was denuded of most all religious expression through forced communism. After its liberation, if people reverted to any religion, historical Islamic traditions were embraced. This avoids the academic tendency to study Christian or American and advanced European cultures and economies.

Scores from multiple questions focusing on – individual care, institutional care and care for others – were averaged into a cultural composite and divided into three levels of faith development: individual, institutional and independent. This analysis found 17% in Level 1, 64% in Level 2 and 19% in Level 3. Fowler’s study, though not representative, found 3%, 83% and 13% in these levels. The Cr-α of 54.4% is usually considered low however, the literature suggests this may be a reasonable reliability for cultural variables. Level 2 and 3 can then be used as dummy variables, assuming everyone has a Level 1 faith development, which includes Fowler’s Stage 0 Undifferentiated, Stage 1 Projective-Intuitive, and Stage 2 Mythic-Literal. This is the first step for an analysis quantifying culture.