@misc{CaliendoSchmidl2016, author = {Caliendo, Marco and Schmidl, Ricarda}, title = {Youth unemployment and active labor market policies in Europe}, series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {125}, issn = {1867-5808}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-43695}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-436950}, pages = {32}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Since the economic crisis in 2008, European youth unemployment rates have been persistently high at around 20\% on average. The majority of European countries spends significant resources each year on active labor market programs (ALMP) with the aim of improving the integration prospects of struggling youths. Among the most common programs used are training courses, job search assistance and monitoring, subsidized employment, and public work programs. For policy makers, it is of upmost importance to know which of these programs work and which are able to achieve the intended goals - may it be the integration into the first labor market or further education. Based on a detailed assessment of the particularities of the youth labor market situation, we discuss the pros and cons of different ALMP types. We then provide a comprehensive survey of the recent evidence on the effectiveness of these ALMP for youth in Europe, highlighting factors that seem to promote or impede their effectiveness in practice. Overall, the findings with respect to employment outcomes are only partly promising. While job search assistance (with and without monitoring) results in overwhelmingly positive effects, we find more mixed effects for training and wage subsidies, whereas the effects for public work programs are clearly negative. The evidence on the impact of ALMP on furthering education participation as well as employment quality is scarce, requiring additional research and allowing only limited conclusions so far.}, language = {en} } @misc{Borgnaes2016, author = {Borgn{\"a}s, Kajsa}, title = {The Policy Influence of Sustainability Indicators}, doi = {10.1080/09644008.2016.1193160}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-96342}, pages = {1 -- 20}, 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} } @misc{Ganghof2016, author = {Ganghof, Steffen}, title = {Reconciling representation and accountability}, series = {Government and Opposition}, journal = {Government and Opposition}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-413456}, pages = {25}, year = {2016}, abstract = {An egalitarian approach to the fair representation of voters specifies three main institutional requirements: proportional representation, legislative majority rule and a parliamentary system of government. This approach faces two challenges: the under-determination of the resulting democratic process and the idea of a trade-off between equal voter representation and government accountability. Linking conceptual with comparative analysis, the article argues that we can distinguish three ideal-typical varieties of the egalitarian vision of democracy, based on the stages at which majorities are formed. These varieties do not put different relative normative weight onto equality and accountability, but have different conceptions of both values and their reconciliation. The view that accountability is necessarily linked to clarity of responsibility', widespread in the comparative literature, is questioned - as is the idea of a general trade-off between representation and accountability. Depending on the vision of democracy, the two values need not be in conflict.}, language = {en} } @misc{KuhlmannWayenberg2016, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Wayenberg, Ellen}, title = {Institutional impact assessment in multi-level systems}, series = {International review of administrative sciences}, volume = {82}, journal = {International review of administrative sciences}, number = {2}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-405314}, pages = {22}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Comparative literature on institutional reforms in multi-level systems proceeds from a global trend towards the decentralization of state functions. However, there is only scarce knowledge about the impact that decentralization has had, in particular, upon the sub-central governments involved. How does it affect regional and local governments? Do these reforms also have unintended outcomes on the sub-central level and how can this be explained? This article aims to develop a conceptual framework to assess the impacts of decentralization on the sub-central level from a comparative and policyoriented perspective. This framework is intended to outline the major patterns and models of decentralization and the theoretical assumptions regarding de-/re-centralization impacts, as well as pertinent cross-country approaches meant to evaluate and compare institutional reforms. It will also serve as an analytical guideline and a structural basis for all the country-related articles in this Special Issue.}, language = {en} } @misc{WolfSchuetzeJaeger2016, author = {Wolf, Sarah and Sch{\"u}tze, Franziska and Jaeger, Carlo}, title = {Balance or synergies between environment and economy}, series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {126}, issn = {1867-5808}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-43699}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-436998}, pages = {13}, year = {2016}, abstract = {The UN sustainable development goals contain environmental, economic, and social objectives. They may only be reached, or at least it would be easier to reach them, if instead of a trade-off between these objectives that implies a need for balancing them, there are synergies to be reaped. This paper discusses how the structures of economic models typically used in policy analysis influence whether win-win strategies for the environment and the economy can be conceptualised and analysed. With a focus on climate policy modelling, the paper points out how, by construction, commonly used model structures find mitigation costs rather than benefits. This paper describes mechanisms that, when added to these model structures, can bring win- win options into a model's solution horizon, and which provide a spectrum of alternative modelling approaches that allow for the identification of such options.}, language = {en} }