Search results

This paper places what has happened to income inequality in rich countries over recent decades alongside trends in median and low incomes in real terms, taken as incomplete but valuable indicators of the evolution of living standards for “ordinary working families” and the poor. The findings demonstrate first just how varied country experiences have been, with some much more successful than others in generating rising real incomes around the middle and toward the bottom of the distribution. This variation is seen to be only modestly related to the extent to which income inequality rose, which itself is more varied across the rich countries than is often appreciated. The extent to which economic growth is transmitted to the middle and lower parts of the distribution is seen to depend on a range of factors of which inequality is only one. Sources of real income growth around the middle have also varied across countries, though transfers are consistently key toward the bottom. The diversity of rich country experiences should serve as an important corrective to a now-common “grand narrative” about inequality and stagnation based on the experience of the USA.

This paper presents a follow-on study that quantifies geolingual markers and their apparent connection with authorship collaboration patterns in canonical Digital Humanities (DH) journals. In particular, it seeks to detect patterns in authors' countries of work and languages in co-authorship networks.

Through an in-depth co-authorship network analysis, this study analysed bibliometric data from three canonical DH journals over a range of 52 years (1966–2017). The results are presented as visualised networks with centrality calculations.

The results suggest that while DH scholars may not collaborate as frequently as those in other disciplines, when they do so their collaborations tend to be more international than in many Science and Engineering, and Social Sciences disciplines. DH authors in some countries (e.g. Spain, Finland, Australia, Canada, and the UK) have the highest international co-author rates, while others have high national co-author rates but low international rates (e.g. Japan, the USA, and France).

This study is the first DH co-authorship network study that explores the apparent connection between language and collaboration patterns in DH. It contributes to ongoing debates about diversity, representation, and multilingualism in DH and academic publishing more widely.

The purpose of this paper is to review and compare the implementation of “arts inclusion” policies (AIPs) by 14 different public administrative systems around the world. It aims to provide a consolidated source which informs further studies in this field, and to develop a framework to compare AIPs at a global level.

Using “arts inclusion policy” as the search term, academic journals from a wide spectrum of fields were reviewed. A data set was extracted from the Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends’ online database which provided real-time information of national cultural policies. Another data set is from the United Nations’ Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index, as the geographic scope of the review – largely focussing on UK, US, Australian, Scandinavian and Asian contexts. Using existing policy-making literature as benchmark, the authors designed and applied a comparative framework dedicated to AIPs which focussed on “policy-making structures” as the main ground of comparison.

An important finding is that the policy development and implementation of AIPs often underscore inter-sectoral involvement in many public administrations in this study. With policy leadership and financial incentives pivotal to effective AIPs, central governments should take a more concerted leadership role to include AIPs in national inter-sectoral policies, encourage evidence-based research, expand funding and advocate the recognition of the impacts of arts inclusion. It is concluded that AIPs in western countries remain more developed in targeted scopes and programme diversity compared to those of Asian countries and regions. Continued studies in this field are encouraged.

This review is the first of its kind to include a number of Asian and western countries within its research scope, allowing it to offer a more holistic outlook on the development and implementation of AIPs in different countries and regions. A common critique with all relevant existing literature was usually their lack of concrete comparative grounds, and the present study’s all-encompassing review of literature from across different levels and sectors of respective public administrative systems contribute to a unique and comprehensive perspective in the arts and health discourse.