After the unconditional surrender of the Third Reich in May 1945, Germany no longer existed as a sovereign, independent nation. It was occupied by the four Allied powers: France, Great Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union. When it came to the postwar European recovery, the biggest obstacle was that the economy in Germany, the dominant continental economic power before the Second World War, was at an almost complete standstill. This not only had severe consequences for Germany itself, but also had strong economic repercussions for surrounding countries, especially the Netherlands. As Germany had been the former’s most important trading partner since the middle of the nineteenth century, it was clear that the Netherlands would be unable to recover economically without a healthy Germany. However, Allied policy, especially that of the British and the Americans, made this impossible for years. This article therefore focuses on the early postwar Dutch-German trade relations and the consequences of Allied policy. While much has been written about the occupation of Germany, far less attention has been paid to the results of this policy on neighbouring countries. Moreover, the main claim of this article is that it was not Marshall Aid which was responsible for the quick and remarkable Dutch economic growth as of 1949, but the opening of the German market for Dutch exports that same year. https://doi.org/10.1515/jbwg-2018-0009 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/martijn-lak-71793013/
MULTIFILE
„Der Druck auf die alliierten und deutschen Autoritäten, den Transfer von Kapitalerträgen aus Deutschland zu erlauben, darf den Versuchen, die Exporte nach Deutschland zu erhöhen, definitiv nicht untergeordnet werden“, schrieb der niederländische Ökonom P. J. van den Burg in der ökonomischen Wochenzeitschrift Economisch-Statistische Berichten Anfang 1949.1 Seine Beobachtung war nur zu verständlich: In der niederländischen Politik gegenüber Deutschland bestand eine deutliche Ambivalenz zwischen Versuchen, Vorkriegsvermögen zurückzuerhalten, und den Versuchen, niederländisch-deutsche Handels- und Wirtschaftsbeziehungen wiederherzustellen. In den Niederlanden war dieser Dualismus besonders akut, weil Deutschland, seit dem späten 19.Jahrhundert die dominante Wirtschaftsmacht Kontinentaleuropas, seit etwa 1850 der wichtigste Handelspartner der Niederlande gewesen war.2 Zudem hatten niederländische Unternehmen, Banken und Privatpersonen in der ersten Dekade nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg in Deutschland im Allgemeinen und im Ruhrgebiet im Besonderen große Investitionen getätigt. Jedoch verloren niederländische Eigentümer und Firmen 1931, als die Konvertibilität der Reichsmark aufgegeben wurde, die Kontrolle über ihre Besitzungen und Investitionen im Dritten Reich. Die deutsche Besetzung der Niederlande zwischen 1940 und 1945 verschlimmerte diesen Zustand noch. https://doi.org/10.1515/hzhz-2018-0035 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/martijn-lak-71793013/
MULTIFILE
How and where can Dutch design entrepreneurs find work in Germany? This was the question DutchDFA put to the research team at Inholland University of Applied Sciences in February 2010. But the researchers took a different angle, and generated unexpected data, revealing patterns, and valuable new insights into practicing design and architecture abroad.
DOCUMENT
This research focuses on exit choices within SMEs. In this study, “exit choice” refers to the decision to opt for either liquidation or sale of the firm. The predictions focus on human-capital and firm-resource variables. The hypotheses are tested on a set of 158 owners of small firms, the majority of which are micro-firms with 0–9 employees. The results of a series of binominal logistic regression analyses show that firm-resource characteristics (previous sales turnover, the firm’s independence from its owner, and firm size), together with one aspect of the owner’s specific human capital (the owner’s acquisition experience), predict exit choice. The conclusions have been made with caution, as the dataset is relatively small and the number of predictors is limited.
LINK
Many, many comparisons have been drawn in recent years between the current rise of (right-wing) populism and the financial crisis of 2008 that shook and continues to shake Europe to its core, and the tumultuous and horrifying events of the 1930s, which in the end resulted in the Second World War. A number of recent studies which (partially) focus on this decade carry ominous titles like To Hell and Back, The Age of Catastrophe and The Triumph of the Dark. Referred to by some historians as the second Thirty Years’ War, the period from the First World War to the end of the Second still continues to draw much academic and indeed public attention. In many cases, Germany deservedly plays a central role in the analysis, either in the form of the Kaiserreich or the ill-fated Weimar Republic and, of course, Nazi Germany. The five books under review here discuss European history between 1914 and 1950 in general, and that of Germany in particular, in this period. What do these books tell us about Europe’s and Germany’s path in the first half of the twentieth century, and what new insights do they provide? https://doi.org/10.1177/0265691418777981 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/martijn-lak-71793013/
MULTIFILE
Introduction: Hip and knee osteoarthritis are associated with functional limitations, pain and restrictions in quality of life and the ability to work. Furthermore, with growing prevalence, osteoarthritis is increasingly causing (in)direct costs. Guidelines recommend exercise therapy and education as primary treatment strategies. Available options for treatment based on physical activity promotion and lifestyle change are often insufficiently provided and used. In addition, the quality of current exercise programmes often does not meet the changing care needs of older people with comorbidities and exercise adherence is a challenge beyond personal physiotherapy. The main objective of this study is to investigate the short- and long-term (cost-)effectiveness of the SmArt-E programme in people with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis in terms of pain and physical functioning compared to usual care. Methods: This study is designed as a multicentre randomized controlled trial with a target sample size of 330 patients. The intervention is based on the e-Exercise intervention from the Netherlands, consists of a training and education programme and is conducted as a blended care intervention over 12 months. We use an app to support independent training and the development of self-management skills. The primary and secondary hypotheses are that participants in the SmArt-E intervention will have less pain (numerical rating scale) and better physical functioning (Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) compared to participants in the usual care group after 12 and 3 months. Other secondary outcomes are based on domains of the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI). The study will be accompanied by a process evaluation. Discussion: After a positive evaluation, SmArt-E can be offered in usual care, flexibly addressing different care situations. The desired sustainability and the support of the participants' behavioural change are initiated via the app through audio-visual contact with their physiotherapists. Furthermore, the app supports the repetition and consolidation of learned training and educational content. For people with osteoarthritis, the new form of care with proven effectiveness can lead to a reduction in underuse and misuse of care as well as contribute to a reduction in (in)direct costs.
LINK
Over the last decade, sport and physical activity have become increasingly recognised and implemented as tools to foster social cohesion in neighbourhoods, cities and communities around Europe. As a result, numerous programmes have emerged that attempt to enhance social cohesion through a variety of sport-based approaches (Moustakas, Sanders, Schlenker, & Robrade, 2021; Svensson & Woods, 2017). However, despite this boom in sport and social cohesion, current definitions and understandings of social cohesion rarely take into account the needs, expectations or views of practitioners, stakeholders and, especially, participants on the ground (Raw, Sherry, & Rowe, 2021). Yet, to truly foster broad social outcomes like social cohesion, there is increasing recognition that programmes must move beyond interventions that only focus on the individual level, and instead find ways to work with and engage a wide array of stakeholders and organisations (Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011; Moustakas, 2022). In turn, this allows programmes to respond to community needs, foster engagement, deliver more sustainable outcomes, and work at both the individual and institutional levels. The Living Lab concept - which is distinguished by multi-stakeholder involvement, user engagement, innovation and co-creation within a real-life setting - provides an innovative approach to help achieve these goals. More formally, Living Labs have been defined as “user-centred, open innovation ecosystems based on a systematic user co-creation approach, integrating research and innovation processes in real-life communities and settings” (European Network of Living Labs, 2021). Thus, this can be a powerful approach to engage a wide array of stakeholders, and create interventions that are responsive to community needs. As such, the Sport for Social Cohesion Lab (SSCL) project was conceived to implement a Living Lab approach within five sport for social cohesion programmes in four different European countries. This approach was chosen to help programmes directly engage programme participants, generate understanding of the elements that promote social cohesion in a sport setting and to co-create activities and tools to explore, support and understand social cohesion within these communities. The following toolkit reflects our multi-national experiences designing and implementing Living Labs across these various contexts. Our partners represent a variety of settings, from schools to community-based organisations, and together these experiences can provide valuable insights to other sport (and non-sport) organisations wishing to implement a Living Lab approach within their contexts and programmes. Thus, practitioners and implementers of community-based programmes should be understood as the immediate target group of this toolkit, though the insights and reflections included here can be of relevance for any individual or organisation seeking to use more participatory approaches within their work. In particular, in the coming sections, this toolkit will define the Living Lab concept more precisely, suggest some steps to launch a Living Lab, and offer insights on how to implement the different components of a Living Lab.
DOCUMENT
Social media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter have millions of users logging in every day, using these platforms for commu nication, entertainment, and news consumption. These platforms adopt rules that determine how users communicate and thereby limit and shape public discourse.2 Platforms need to deal with large amounts of data generated every day. For example, as of October 2021, 4.55 billion social media users were ac tive on an average number of 6.7 platforms used each month per internet user.3 As a result, platforms were compelled to develop governance models and content moderation systems to deal with harmful and undesirable content, including disinformation. In this study: • ‘Content governance’ is defined as a set of processes, procedures, and systems that determine how a given platform plans, publishes, moder ates, and curates content. • ‘Content moderation’ is the organised practice of a social media plat form of pre-screening, removing, or labelling undesirable content to reduce the damage that inappropriate content can cause.
MULTIFILE
The Integrated Recovery Scale IRS was developed by Dutch National Expertise board for Routine Outcome Monitoring. Recovery is multi dimensional: 1. Symptomatic recovery 2. Physical health, 3. Societal recovery 4. Existential: personal recovery. The validation process and first outcomes of the instrument are described.
MULTIFILE
Educational institutions in higher education encounter different thresholds when scaling up to institution-wide learning analytics. This doctoral research focuses on designing a model of capabilities that institutions need to develop in order to remove these barriers and thus maximise the benefits of learning analytics.
DOCUMENT
