Societies will always fail to live up to the expectations of citizens one way or another, independent of their economic and political standards. Albert Hirschman proposed that citizens then have the option of expressing their voice for social change. This paper sets up a rational choice model of voice to empirically test whether higher levels of political and economic grievance make it more likely for citizens of a country to have a collective voice. The main result from the probit regression is that an increase in the level of democracy has a negative effect on the probability of voice, all else being equal.

During the past two decades, community-based hazard mitigation (CBHM) has been newly proposed and implemented as an alternative conceptual model for emergency management to deal with disasters comprehensively in order to curtail skyrocketing disaster losses. Local community members have been growingly required to share information and responsibilities for reducing community vulnerabilities to natural and technological hazards and building a safer community. Consequently they are encouraged to join local mitigation programs and volunteer for collective mitigation action, but their contributions vary. This research examined factors associated with Tulsa Project Impact partners?? contributions to collective mitigation action. In the literature review, self-interest and social norms were identified and briefly discussed as two determinants to guide partners?? behavior by reviewing game theoretic frameworks and individual decision-making models. Partners?? collective interest in building a safer community and feelings of obligation to participate in collective mitigation action were also considered for this study. Thus, the major factors considered are: (1) collective interests, (2) selective benefits, (3) participation costs, (4) norms of cooperation, and (5) internalized norms of participation. Research findings showed that selective benefits and internalized norms of participation were the two best predictors for partners?? contributions to collective mitigation action. However, collective interests, participation costs, and norms of cooperation did not significantly influence partners?? contributions.

During the past two decades, community-based hazard mitigation (CBHM) has been newly proposed and implemented as an alternative conceptual model for emergency management to deal with disasters comprehensively in order to curtail skyrocketing disaster losses. Local community members have been growingly required to share information and responsibilities for reducing community vulnerabilities to natural and technological hazards and building a safer community. Consequently they are encouraged to join local mitigation programs and volunteer for collective mitigation action, but their contributions vary. This research examined factors associated with Tulsa Project Impact partners?? contributions to collective mitigation action. In the literature review, self-interest and social norms were identified and briefly discussed as two determinants to guide partners?? behavior by reviewing game theoretic frameworks and individual decision-making models. Partners?? collective interest in building a safer community and feelings of obligation to participate in collective mitigation action were also considered for this study. Thus, the major factors considered are: (1) collective interests, (2) selective benefits, (3) participation costs, (4) norms of cooperation, and (5) internalized norms of participation. Research findings showed that selective benefits and internalized norms of participation were the two best predictors for partners?? contributions to collective mitigation action. However, collective interests, participation costs, and norms of cooperation did not significantly influence partners?? contributions.

No description available.

This thesis concerns the support for the AfD in the federal states Bremen, Saxony-Anhalt, and Baden-Württemberg. In particular, the goal is to explain the support for the AfD among the eligible voters of Bremen, Saxony-Anhalt, and Baden-Württemberg at the most recently elections held in Bremen on 10 May 2015 and in Baden-Württemberg and Saxony-Anhalt on 13 March 2016. This is a disciplined, interpretive case study, which uses the existing models of voting behaviour to explain the voting for the AfD in Bremen, Saxony-Anhalt, and Baden- Württemberg. It employs a sociological model of voting behaviour and a model of rational choice. The goal is to determine whether the support for the AfD in the three selected federal states can be explained using these models of voting behaviour, and if so, which model of voting behaviour best explains the support for the AfD. First, the thesis presents the models of voting behaviour that are used in the study for analysis of the support for the AfD. The next portion of the thesis deals with the party Alternative for Germany. The section of the thesis that follows is devoted to the actual analysis of support for the AfD, first in Baden- Württemberg and then in the federal states Saxony-Anhalt and Bremen. The answers to the research question are presented at the...