Search

International audience; In an era when relations between men and women are governed by the principles of equality and liberty, we may ask whether it is appropriate to preserve a post-divorce support entitlement between spouses, and what justification there is for doing so. European legislation is not very forthcoming in this regard, and this means that looking for the justification for entitlement to an allowance to compensate for financial disparities calls for a tool to be developed first that would identify that justification. After testing a two-option model in which the traditional support and compensation functions of a post-divorce financial allowance were contrasted and finding that this model did not provide a useful comparison between the selected European legal systems, a second, three-option model was developed and applied to those systems. The second model distinguishes the support, compensation and insurance justifications and can identify more pronounced differences. However, this does not mean that there are any noteworthy differences among the various post-divorce allowances in terms of the amounts awarded.; A une époque où les relations entre les hommes et les femmes sont gouvernées par des principes d’égalité et de liberté, on peut s’interroger sur la pertinence et la justification du maintien d’un droit à une prestation entre les conjoints au lendemain de leur divorce. Les législations européennes s’avérant peu disertes à cet égard, la recherche de la justification du droit à une prestation compensatoire des disparités pécuniaires nécessite l’élaboration préalable d’un outil qui permette de la mettre en évidence. Après avoir éprouvé un modèle diptyque, opposant les traditionnelles natures alimentaire et indemnitaire de la prestation financière après divorce et constaté que ce modèle ne permettait pas de comparaison pertinente entre les droits européens sélectionnés, un second modèle, conçu de manière triptyque, a été élaboré et appliqué à ces différents droits. Ce second modèle dissocie les justifications alimentaire, indemnitaire et assurantielle et permet d’identifier des différences de justification plus marquées, ce qui ne signifie cependant pas pour autant des différences notables entre les différentes prestations après divorce quant aux montants alloués.

International audience

International audience; Cropping system models are powerful tools for regional impact assessment, but their input data requirements for large heterogeneous areas are difficult to fulfil. Hence, the objectives of this paper are to present low-data approaches for specifying detailed management data required by cropping system models, and for calibrating default crop parameters applied to 12 regions in the European Union (EU). Various downscaling and upscaling procedures for different data types are applied to address both objectives. The Agricultural Production and Externalities Simulator (APES) model is used for illustrative purposes. Combining easy-to-collect regional crop management information and expert knowledge enables to develop generic, expert-based rules for specifying crop management. Effects of these expert-based management rules on simulated yields and nitrogen leaching are illustrated using APES. Simulated yields of grain maize, soft wheat and durum wheat using default crop parameters for phenology are compared with crop yields observed in 12 EU regions. The accuracy of the simulated yields was variable, but generally poor. A regional calibration factor Kpheno is developed based on the temperature sum of the average sowing and harvest dates of the three crops in each region. Applying this calibration factor improved the simulated yields in all cases. Results suggest that it is possible to develop expert-based management rules and to capture yield variation across the EU by using the presented low-data approaches.

Cette etude evalue l’influence des caracteristiques des systemes de sante sur l’equite horizontale du recours aux soins en Europe. L’utilisation d’un ensemble des donnees issues d’enquetes nationales recentes de treize pays europeens confirme l’existence d’inegalites sociales de recours aux soins, a besoin de soins egal, dans tous les pays etudies et montre que l’ampleur des inegalites varie de maniere significative entre les pays. Une analyse multiniveaux permet d’identifier differentes caracteristiques des systemes de sante qui semblent contribuer a la reduction ou a la formation de ces inegalites. Les resultats sou nt l’importance du role des medecins generalistes et de l’organisation des soins primaires pour reduire ces inegalites au-dela du partage des couts entre les spheres publique et privee.