The literature on policy convergence has identified numerous facets and causal drivers of convergence. Distinguishing four dimensions of convergence (object, benchmark, drivers and directed process) helps clarify why and in what form policy convergence may occur (or not). Thus, depending on, for example, the object of analysis (policy outcome or instruments used), the same empirical case may give rise to opposing assessments. Furthermore, both economic and political drivers are necessary to account for successful policy convergence: economic convergence partly explains why countries may face similar problems, and political mechanisms explain why they might choose similar policies to solve a given problem. This article illustrates the multifaceted character of convergence for the dynamic field of renewable energy policies in the European Union. The empirical results indicate temporary convergence in the case of policy support instrument choices and conditional convergence in terms of renewable shares. However, the results suggest divergence of public R&D subsidies targeting renewables.

In this paper, we take a Public Choice perspective to identify and categorise barriers to efficient public climate adaptation. Specifically, we distinguish three dimensions of public adaptation: extent, structure (form and timing) and organisation (coordination across territorial authorities and policy fields). Within each of these dimensions, we investigate how the self-interest of voters, pressure groups, bureaucrats and politicians may bias adaptation decisions. Thus, we indicate specific barriers to efficient public adaptation. Based on this framework, we illustrate how Germany's response to major flood disasters reflects the incentive structure of concerned stakeholders and their political interaction. The ad hoc character of some public adaptation measures implies a clear bias from the efficient benchmark. In conclusion, we argue that the propositions of Public Choice theory shed some light on how empirical public adaptation processes unfold.

We investigated the long-term photometrical behaviour of the EXors V1118 Ori and V1143 Ori on the basis of the Sonneberg Plate Archive. About 2800 plates were checked for outbursts of these stars. We found several dozens of plates where the stars appeared to be distinctly brighter than the plate limit. To get magnitudes we have scanned those plates and applied a special method of brightness determination which is currently used at Sonneberg Observatory. Because of the small number of plates we were able to extract only crude estimates of some typical time scales of outburst and quiescent phases.

There is a metaphorical reciprocity between theology and law. In brief, and in sum, let me begin in this way in grateful acknowledgment of Professor Ball's probing and provocative, fascinating, and instructive analysis, which sets out from the other pole of this reciprocity. At times, his search for an alternative to the dominant metaphor for law leaves the reader in some bewilderment and tempted to take cover in that salutary squib, offered from time to time by The New Yorker under the caption: “Block that metaphor!” As though anticipating that rude and facile exit from the search, Professor Ball is careful to provide an awesome and safer harbor in the paradigmatic law of the sea. This paradigm conceals both the alternative sought for and the unexpectedly promising expectation that—as things penultimate express and make room for things ultimate—the exciting prospect is that the lion and the calf do lie down together. “For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd, and he will guide them to springs of living water;… and there will be no more sea” (Isaiah 11:6-9; Revelation 7:17, 21:1). Even Woody Allen will be able to join the calf and the lion in the exchange of sleepless nights for waking and sleeping amidst the peace which passes all understanding (Philemon 4:7).