| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
132651
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper uses Q methodology to reveal stakeholder perceptions on how best to address energy issues in Africa. We sampled a group of stakeholders involved in various energy sub-sectors to uncover perspectives on how to achieve and promote access to modern energy, energy efficiency and renewable energy in Africa, whether the perceptions could be correlated to educational or geographical background and implications such patterns could have on policies and current dialogues.
We found that all stakeholders agree on the need to prioritise sustainability but had different views on how to achieve sustainable energy for all in Africa, depending on the relevance given to each energy driver. Stakeholders could be categorised into four groups: (I) preference of large-scale high-impact projects; (II) supporters of targeted sectoral solutions with preference for small-scale technology and microfinance; (III) supporters of centralised solutions with preference for grid extension, and (IV) supporters of local entrepreneurship with scepticism about centralised solutions. The results show that differences in stakeholders' perceptions can be associated with respondents' educational but not geographical background. This implies that dialogues on energy in Africa should focus on inter-disciplinary understanding while further examining the trans-continent consensus that appears to have been established.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
170385
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
With the revival of the historical trade routes across the Eurasia and along its coasts, Europe finds itself at the receiving end of a major Chinese foreign policy strategy. There is no doubt that the Chinese leadership and many observers believe that the Belt and Road Initiative would contribute significantly to economic growth and interaction across Eurasia. In Europe, the initiative has prompted a range of different reactions, from a strong embrace of the opportunities for increased mutual trade and investment on the one hand, to scepticism about the feasibility or political implications of the project on the other. This article will provide a survey of the debate witnessed in Europe to date.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
147090
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
To what extent can we speak of a distinctively ‘European’ security approach towards the Asia-Pacific region? In order to address that timely question, this article examines how Britain, France, Germany and the European Union (EU) are framing their evolving security roles in the Asia-Pacific region, and how those individual perspectives intersect with each other. The article identifies a number of important common features in Europe’s approaches towards security in the Asia-Pacific, namely the tendency of most European actors to emphasize the economic and diplomatic nature of their contribution to regional security, their promotion of regional multilateral security fora, their rejection of the notion that China’s rise is inherently challenging for regional and global security, and their willingness to signal their differences towards Washington’s emphasis on military power and alliance-based approach. However, and despite the existence of common traits, individual European actors show different degrees of closeness vis-à-vis the US and China and feature different perspectives regarding which security relationships they should prioritize in the region (if any), or the appropriate balance between diplomacy and security and defence cooperation. Such divergences prevent Europeans from developing a coherent security profile in the region and preclude us from speaking of a distinctively European security approach towards the Asia-Pacific.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
189956
|
|
|