@article{deGuevara2016, author = {de Guevara, Berit Bliesemann}, title = {visits in zones of conflict and intervention}, series = {Journal of intervention and statebuilding}, volume = {10}, journal = {Journal of intervention and statebuilding}, publisher = {Soil Science Society of America}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {1750-2977}, doi = {10.1080/17502977.2015.1137394}, pages = {56 -- 76}, year = {2016}, abstract = {This article explores the practice and political significance of politicians' journeys to conflict zones. It focuses on the German example, looking at field trips to theatres of international intervention as a way of first-hand knowledge in policymaking. Paying tribute to Lisa Smirl and her work on humanitarian spaces, objects and imaginaries and on liminality in aid worker biographies, two connected arguments are developed. First, through the exploration of the routinized practices of politicians' field trips the article shows how these journeys not only remain confined to the 'auxiliary space' of aid/intervention, but that it is furthermore a staged reality of this auxiliary space that most politicians experience on their journeys. The question is then asked, second, what politicians actually experience on their journeys and how their experiences relate to their policy knowledge about conflict and intervention. It is shown that political field trips enable sensory/affectual, liminoid and liminal experiences, which have functions such as authority accumulation, agenda setting, community building, and civilizing domestic politics, while at the same time reinforcing, in most cases, pre-existing conflict and intervention imaginaries.}, language = {en} } @article{KuhlmannBogumilHafner2016, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Bogumil, J{\"o}rg and Hafner, Jonas}, title = {Verwaltungshandeln in der Fl{\"u}chtlingskrise}, series = {Verwaltung \& Management : VM ; Zeitschrift f{\"u}r moderne Verwaltung}, journal = {Verwaltung \& Management : VM ; Zeitschrift f{\"u}r moderne Verwaltung}, number = {3}, publisher = {Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft}, address = {Baden-Baden}, issn = {0947-9856}, pages = {126 -- 136}, year = {2016}, abstract = {In dem Beitrag werden das Verwaltungshandeln in der Fl{\"u}chtlingskrise und m{\"o}gliche Ursachen der aufgetretenen Vollzugsprobleme untersucht. Im Fokus stehen vor allem die Vollzugsrealit{\"a}t und die Verwaltungsvarianz im Bereich der Erstaufnahme von Fl{\"u}chtlingen auf der L{\"a}nderebene sowie die durch das BAMF als auch die Bundes l{\"a}nder mittlerweile begonnenen Reformen im Verwaltungsvollzugssystem. Leitfrage des Aufsatzes ist, ob das bestehende Verwaltungsvollzugssystem nicht nur in den jeweiligen Zust{\"a}ndigkeiten reformbed{\"u}rftig ist, sondern ob es auch zu einer neuen Zust{\"a}ndigkeitsverteilung im Bundesstaat kommen sollte.}, language = {de} } @article{KuhlmannBogumilHafner2016, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Bogumil, J{\"o}rg and Hafner, Jonas}, title = {Verwaltungshandeln in der Fl{\"u}chtlingskrise}, series = {Die Verwaltung : Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Verwaltungsrecht und Verwaltungswissenschaften}, volume = {49}, journal = {Die Verwaltung : Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Verwaltungsrecht und Verwaltungswissenschaften}, number = {2}, publisher = {Duncker und Humblot}, address = {Berlin}, issn = {1865-5211}, doi = {10.3790/verw.49.2.289}, pages = {289 -- 300}, year = {2016}, language = {de} } @article{Terhalle2016, author = {Terhalle, Maximilian}, title = {Transnational Actors and Great Powers during Order Transition}, series = {International studies perspectives}, volume = {17}, journal = {International studies perspectives}, publisher = {Oxford Univ. Press}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {1528-3577}, doi = {10.1111/insp.12077}, pages = {287 -- 306}, year = {2016}, abstract = {This article rests on the assumption of the "complexity, messiness, power relations, and contested character of the contemporary dualistic system," which comprises great powers and "superimposed, functionally differentiated global subsystems of world society" (Cohen 2012:5). The article argues that this framework is being shaped by the current transition of global order. In turn, this raises the question how the state-led negotiation of today's order transition can be understood against the backdrop of a post-Westphalian environment. The article challenges the widespread argument pertaining to the "autonomy of transnational actors" by suggesting that the influence of nonstate actors is dependent on a particular institutional context in which the key political questions framing a social order are settled. Whereas research on international institutions and their design simply assumes that this is the case, here it is argued that unless these framing patterns are agreed upon by major powers, the respective order and its elements, that is, institutions and regimes, remain contested or deadlocked. When this happens, the political impact of non-state actors is largely neutralized or strongly weakened and their effective autonomy from great powers is minimized.}, language = {en} } @article{Ganghof2016, author = {Ganghof, Steffen}, title = {The Regime-Trilemma: On the Relationship between the Executive and Legislature in advanced Democracies}, series = {Politische Vierteljahresschrift : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Vereinigung f{\~A}¼r Politische Wissenschaft}, volume = {57}, journal = {Politische Vierteljahresschrift : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Vereinigung f{\~A}¼r Politische Wissenschaft}, publisher = {Nomos}, address = {Hannover}, issn = {0032-3470}, doi = {10.5771/0032-3470-2016-1-27}, pages = {27 -- +}, year = {2016}, abstract = {A comprehensive typology of basic executive formats is presented and linked to a discussion of tradeoffs in the design of executive-legislative relations. The focus is on the tradeoffs between three goals: (1) programmatic parties, (2) identifiable cabinets and (3) issue -specific legislative coalitions. To include semi-presidentialism into the typology in a logically consistent manner, a heretofore neglected executive format has to be defined, which is labelled semi-parliamentarism. Based on a discussion of Australian states, it is argued that semi-parliamentarism has the potential to mitigate the trilemma.}, language = {de} } @article{Borgnaes2016, author = {Borgn{\"a}s, Kajsa}, title = {The Policy Influence of Sustainability Indicators: Examining Use and Influence of Indicators in German Sustainability Policy Making}, series = {German politics}, volume = {25}, journal = {German politics}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {0964-4008}, doi = {10.1080/09644008.2016.1193160}, pages = {480 -- 499}, year = {2016}, abstract = {In 2002 Germany adopted an ambitious national sustainability strategy, covering all three sustainability spheres and circling around 21 key indicators. The strategy stands out because of its relative stability over five consecutive government constellations, its high status and increasingly coercive nature. This article analyses the strategy's role in the policy process, focusing on the use and influence of indicators as a central steering tool. Contrasting rationalist and constructivist perspectives on the role of knowledge in policy, two factors, namely the level of consensus about policy goals and the institutional setting of the indicators, are found to explain differences in use and influence both across indicators and over time. Moreover, the study argues that the indicators have been part of a continuous process of 'structuring' in which conceptual and instrumental use together help structure the sustainability challenge in such a way that it becomes more manageable for government policy.}, language = {en} } @article{Hartmann2016, author = {Hartmann, Eddie}, title = {Symbolic Boundaries and Collective Violence. A New Theoretical Argument for an Explanatory Sociology of Collective Violent Action}, series = {Journal for the theory of social behaviour}, volume = {46}, journal = {Journal for the theory of social behaviour}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {0021-8308}, doi = {10.1111/jtsb.12093}, pages = {165 -- 186}, year = {2016}, abstract = {The sociology of violence still struggles with two critical questions: What motivates people to act violently on behalf of groups and how do they come to identify with the groups for which they act? Methodologically the article addresses these puzzling problems in favor of a relational sociology that argues against both micro- and macro-reductionist accounts, while theoretically it proposes a twofold reorientation: first, it makes a plea for the so called cognitive turn in social theory; second, it proposes following praxeological accounts of social action that focus on the dynamic interpenetration of cognition and socio-cultural practices. The argument is that symbolic boundaries constitute the "missing link" that allows for overcoming the micro-macro gap in violence research: Symbolic boundaries can cause people's participation in collective violence by providing the essential relational resources for violent action and by triggering the cognitive/affective mechanisms necessary for social actors to become drawn into mobilization processes that can cause their engaging in coordinated attacks on sites across the boundary. The article offers a new theoretical argument by drawing on knowledge from violence research, social action theory and cognitive science allowing for a non-reductionist theory of action that explains how and why people engage in collective violence.}, language = {en} } @article{Seyfried2016, author = {Seyfried, Markus}, title = {Setting a fox to guard the henhouse? Determinants in elections for presidents of supreme audit institutions Evidence from the German federal states (1991-2011)}, series = {Managerial auditing journal}, volume = {31}, journal = {Managerial auditing journal}, publisher = {Emerald Group Publishing Limited}, address = {Bingley}, issn = {0268-6902}, doi = {10.1108/MAJ-03-2015-1168}, pages = {492 -- 511}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to provide evidence regarding the selection procedures for and characteristics of senior officials in supreme audit institutions (SIAs). Design/methodology/approach - This study follows a quantitative approach using original data collected for presidential elections of SIAs in the 16 federal states in Germany. A fractional logit model is calculated to test different theoretical assumptions in relation to structural, political and individual factors. Findings - The descriptive results confirm the findings of prior research that presidential candidates are elected with very high approval rates. The main determinants are the vote share of the ruling coalition and the executive experience of the presidential candidate. Research limitations/implications - This study focuses on 16 federal states in Germany, but an international comparative perspective covering subnational levels would further augment analysis through the variance of selection procedures and electoral outcomes. Social implications - Independence of auditors is a fundamental issue for the control of the executive, but it seems that there are inevitable trade-offs therein, such as between knowledge of the auditing objects or the politicization of the election process and the independence of the auditor. Originality/value - This study provides novel empirical insights into the election and selection procedures for senior SIA officials at the subnational level, and shows that the executive exerts strong, but functionally reasonable, influence on candidate selection.}, language = {en} } @article{SchulzeTosun2016, author = {Schulze, Kai and Tosun, Jale}, title = {RIVAL REGULATORY REGIMES IN INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS: THE CASE OF BIOSAFETY}, series = {Public administration}, volume = {94}, journal = {Public administration}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {0033-3298}, doi = {10.1111/padm.12176}, pages = {57 -- 72}, year = {2016}, abstract = {The literature on international regulatory regimes has highlighted how rival standards can create different points of convergence. Scholarly attention has also focused on how the European Union (EU) and the United States (USA) attempt to 'export' their environmental standards internationally. Here, we explore the effectiveness of these attempts by means of third states' decisions to ratify the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, a multilateral environmental agreement regulating genetically modified organisms that is promoted by the EU but opposed by the USA. Our findings confirm that both rivals are able to influence the ratification decision of states, but they also suggest that these effects may have different origins. Countries relying more heavily on US markets for food exports tend to be less likely to ratify the Cartagena Protocol, while countries that have applied for EU membership are more likely to ratify the protocol.}, language = {en} } @article{Ganghof2016, author = {Ganghof, Steffen}, title = {Research Design in Political Science - Causal perspectives versus contrastive theory testing}, series = {Austrian journal of political science}, volume = {45}, journal = {Austrian journal of political science}, publisher = {{\~A}-sterreichische Gesellschaft f{\~A}¼r Politikwissenschaft}, address = {Wien}, issn = {2313-5433}, doi = {10.15203/ozp.1037.vol45iss1}, pages = {1 -- 12}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Die politikwissenschaftliche Literatur unterscheidet zwei Grundtypen von Forschungsdesigns: x- und y-zentriert. Dieser Beitrag argumentiert, dass ein „kontrastives" Forschungsdesign als dritter Grundtyp abgegrenzt werden sollte. Die drei Designs unterscheiden sich durch die Anzahl der betrachteten Theorien und dadurch, ob mehrere Theorien konkurrierend oder komplement{\"a}r sind. Die typologische Abgrenzung des kontrastiven Designs verdeutlicht auch die Vor- und Nachteile x- und y-zentrierter Designs. Anhand verschiedener Beispielstudien (experimentell und nicht-experimentell, quantitativ und qualitativ) werden die Charakteristika der drei Designs sowie ihre Kombinationsm{\"o}glichkeiten herausgearbeitet. Dar{\"u}ber hinaus wird das kontrastive Design als verbindendes Element zwischen den quantitativen und qualitativen Forschungs-„Kulturen" hervorgehoben. The political science literature distinguishes two basic types of research designs: x- and y-centered. The article argues for the distinction of a third basic type: the "contrastive" design. The three designs differ in the number of relevant theories and in whether they see theories as competing or complementary. The typological differentiation of the contrastive research design helps to clarify the pros and cons of x- and y-centered designs. The article uses exemplary studies (experimental and observational, quantitative and qualitative) to illustrate the characteristics of the three designs as well as the possibilities of combining them. The contrastive design also constitutes a common element of the quantitative and qualitative research, "cultures".}, language = {de} }