Can governments elected under mixed-member majoritarian (mmm) electoral systems use geographically targeted spending to increase their chances of staying in office, and if so, how? Although twenty-eight countries use mmm electoral systems, scant research has addressed this question. The authors explain how mmm’s combination of electoral systems in two unlinked tiers creates a distinct strategic environment in which a large party and a small party can trade votes in one tier for votes in the other tier in a way that increases the number of seats won by both. They then explain how governing parties dependent on vote trading can use geographically targeted spending to cement it. These propositions are tested using original data from Japan (2003–2013) and Mexico (2012–2016). In both cases, municipalities in which the supporters of governing parties split their ballots as instructed were found to have received more money after elections. The findings have broad implications for research on mmm electoral systems, distributive politics, and the politics of Japan and Mexico.

Brain research in Europe is a rapidly evolving field, and increasingly at the forefront of science. Although considerable amounts of knowledge and innovative approaches have been generated, the translation into new health interventions is hindered by excessive fragmentation. Effective and efficient collaboration and cooperation among the various initiatives are often identified as a key success factor to achieve brain research full impact. EBRA fully responds to these needs by bringing together the various stakeholders and major brain research initiatives, at European level and beyond. EBRA creates the conditions for real and effective cross fertilisation, dialogue, building consensus and exploiting research potential. On the operational level, EBRA facilitates the emergence of research projects in specific areas in active clusters. A cluster is understood as a research community that can be directed towards basic research, clinical research and/or methodological approaches under a common topic and disease area within brain research. EBRA support clusters to: 1. Consolidate or expand further the research community expand their community, 2. Engage with policy makers and other relevant stakeholders, 3. Build consensus on various issues (research priorities, research roadmap, data sharing, etc.), 4. Promote links with existing research infrastructures, 5. Increase the visibility of the research community through communication and dissemination activities, 6. Coordinate the development of position/consensus papers, white papers, guidelines, meeting reports and/or other cluster outcomes. EBRA currently has 6 existing clusters: EPICLUSTER, Prevention of Severe Mental Disorders (PSMD)-cluster, TRISOMY21-cluster, BRAINFOOD-cluster., PREMOS-cluster and ECIB-cluster.

Brain research in Europe is a rapidly evolving field, and increasingly at the forefront of science. Although considerable amounts of knowledge and innovative approaches have been generated, the translation into new health interventions is hindered by excessive fragmentation. Effective and efficient collaboration and cooperation among the various initiatives are often identified as a key success factor to achieve brain research full impact. EBRA fully responds to these needs by bringing together the various stakeholders and major brain research initiatives, at European level and beyond. EBRA creates the conditions for real and effective cross fertilisation, dialogue, building consensus and exploiting research potential. At the strategic level, EBRA acts by fostering alignment and better coordination of research strategies across European and global brain initiatives. Therefore, an overview of the scale and scope of brain research activities funded in the EU framework programme and the funding initiatives of JPND, NEURON and HBP has been created. The results of the mapping exercise then underpinned the development of a Shared European Brain Research Agenda (SEBRA). The SEBRA focuses on research opportunities and research gaps to be addressed in the field, and priorities for action in the short- and long-term. It integrates pre-existing documents as well as expert (i.e., researchers, neurologists/psychiatrists, patient representatives) input that has been collected through surveys and in a dedicated expert workshop. The SEBRA will be used to provide recommendations on future areas for excellent, innovative, and translational research comprising those for maximized cooperation, reduced overlap, and fragmentation.

Decentralized coordination is one of the fundamental challenges for societies and organizations. While extensively explored from a variety of perspectives, one issue that has received limited attention is human coordination in the presence of adversarial agents. We study this problem by situating human subjects as nodes on a network, and endowing each with a role, either regular (with the goal of achieving consensus among all regular players), or adversarial (aiming to prevent consensus among regular players). We show that adversarial nodes are, indeed, quite successful in preventing consensus. However, we demonstrate that having the ability to communicate among network neighbors can considerably improve coordination success, as well as resilience to adversarial nodes. Our analysis of communication suggests that adversarial nodes attempt to exploit this capability for their ends, but do so in a somewhat limited way, perhaps to prevent regular nodes from recognizing their intent. In addition, we show that the presence of trusted nodes generally has limited value, but does help when many adversarial nodes are present, and players can communicate. Finally, we use experimental data to develop computational models of human behavior and explore additional parametric variations: features of network topologies and densities, and placement, all using the resulting data-driven agent-based (DDAB) model.

The Arctic Contaminants Action Programme (ACAP), originally intended to follow up the work of AMAP (the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme) on identifying the sources of pollution, became an official working group under the Arctic Council in 2006. ACAP has focussed on pollution from Russian sources, the main objective being to accelerate the reduction of national emissions of various environmental pollutants and climate forcers. Basically, ACAP initiates projects with a scientific basis in AMAP assessments of the health of the Arctic. The idea behind the creation of ACAP was to channel the work of the Arctic Council in a more practical direction and to improve the use of the knowledge produced by AMAP. ACAP is one of only two Council working groups not to have been specifically evaluated and analysed by external bodies and academics. This article undertakes a critical analysis of ACAP and argues that there are great potentials for improving its work. ACAP has established a forum where it has been possible to facilitate pilot projects aimed at limiting harmful emissions; this work should be strengthened.

The paper focuses on a previously unexamined aspect of Marx's discussion on the 19th century English Factory Acts, and highlights its broader relevance for contemporary discussions about the role of institutions in a market economy. The capitalists' enlightened self-interest was to better husband their work force by limiting the workday and curtailing child labor, but market competition put them in a Prisoner's Dilemma creating an opportunism hazard. The ‘Factory Acts’ addressed the problem, but the state lacked the capacity to enforce them effectively. Marx held that the organized power of workers played an essential role in how the Factory Laws could gain traction at a time when state enforcement was unreliable. Organized labor's threats of sanction were credible enough to lower the expected benefit of non-compliance, enabling capitalists to commit to acting in their long-term, collective self-interest.

Fragmentation, institutional overlaps, and norm collisions are often seen as fundamental problems for the global (legal) order. Supposedly, they incite conflict and disorder. However, some scholars have also emphasised functional and normative advantages of the resulting institutional pluralism. We argue that the consequences of the increasing international institutional density are conditional on whether and how different norms, institutions, and authorities are coordinated. In distinction from the fragmentation framework in international law and the regime complexity framework in international relations, this introduction outlines an interface conflict framework that enables important insights into this question and guides the contributions assembled in this issue. It zooms in on the micro-level of conflict between actors that justify incompatible positional differences with reference to different international norms. In particular, the concept of interface conflicts allows studying the conditions under which overlaps and norm collisions become activated in conflicts as well as the ways in which such conflicts are handled. Foreshadowing the main findings of the contributions to this Special Issue, we hold that interface conflicts are neither inevitable nor unmanageable. Most importantly, it seems that, more often than not, conflicts stimulate cooperative forms of management and contribute to the building of inter-institutional order.