Abstract Penal policies have been the primary strategy of Latin American governments to combat crime, but preventative social policies such as youth education programmes may be more effective solutions. Penal and social policies are often treated as a trade-off by governments, who expect citizens—especially victims of violence—to be more supportive of punitive solutions. Using an original online survey experiment conducted in 2021 in Mexico, we challenge the idea of a trade-off between penal and social policies by studying how different policy solutions along the penal-welfare policy continuum affect victims’ support for increased state security presence. We unpack differences between victims of criminal perpetrators and state violence and those who are fearful of crime. Our vignette experiment reveals—in contrast to previous results—that crime victims are more supportive of state security presence when coupled with pre-emptive measures. Surprisingly, the same holds for victims of state violence and for those fearful of crime, including those residing in neighbourhoods with watch groups. Victimisation, by either crime or the state, raises demand for policies to increase employment and improve education.

In the semi-peripheral-dependent market economies (DME) of East Central Europe (ECE), foreign investors are major contributors to economic growth and tend to establish low value-added operations. At the same time, they enjoy superior bargaining power over central governments. The domination of FDI constrains domestic agency in shaping economic outcomes, thereby locking DMEs into the semi-periphery. Moving to the sub-national level, this paper challenges these views by arguing that there is considerably more scope for local development agency in DMEs than the comparative political economy literature suggests. Moreover, FDI-led upgrading, defined as multinational companies engaging in high value-added activities, can take place at the local level even without the direct involvement of the state. The paper draws on fieldwork conducted in two formerly declining industrial cities in ECE (Cluj and Gdańsk) that have recently emerged as knowledge-intensive hubs targeted by high value-added FDI. The paper shows that FDI-led upgrading in Gdańsk occurred with the active contribution and cooperation of both local private and public economic actors, whereas in Cluj, upgrading took place with the contribution of local universities and through the forging of business links between foreign capital and local firms established by expatriates and local engineers.

What motivates private firms’ willingness to invest in green technologies and environmentally friendly operations? Some emphasize enhanced government regulation and enforcement, while others point to the greater potential of societal pressure. In this study, we use a survey experiment with more than 10,000 firms in Vietnam to test which type of stakeholder pressure has the strongest impact on domestic and foreign business leaders’ intention to invest in green operations. We find that the effectiveness of stakeholder pressure is conditioned by the firms’ target markets. Foreign investors are more susceptible than domestic firms to intensive regulatory pressure. Accounting for export orientation, however, we find that the most amenable policy targets for regulatory pressure are foreign firms aiming to sell in the Vietnamese domestic market.

What enables actors to shape norms in global health governance? Scholarship on global health has highlighted the role of experts and expertise in operationalizing norms across a variety of issues. The degree of expert consensus or dissensus and the negotiation processes between expert communities—for example, in international organizations, NGOs or academia—are commonly identified as centrally important for explaining these processes. In this article, we posit that norm-making in global health governance occurs in the shadow of hegemony; a system of status and stratification that is centered on economic and security concerns and maintained by countries at the core of the world system. These countries—notably the USA and other major economies in the Global North—project their hegemonic position in the world system across areas of global organizing, including in global health. We explore the relationship between epistemic consensus and hegemonic interests as parameters that shape the outcome of norm-making processes. To pursue this argument, we examine this relationship in the context of the development of policy norms to counter non-communicable diseases in developing countries and to pursue the securitization of global health.